Sitting of 2 December 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation.
  To be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    South Ayrshire
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make an official visit to the South Ayrshire constituency.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute anxiety in South Ayrshire and other areas about the future of the Stranraer-Euston boat train, and will he take the opportunity this afternoon of publicly endorsing the view that the
    1256
    retention of this service is essential for the economy of the South-West?
    Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Member should know, British Railways are considering the position of this line at present, and I would not want to say more at this stage.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that transport needs are very urgent in this area, not only railways but also roads? Will he give this area his best consideration?
    Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very concerned about transport and other matters, and the South-West Study recently published will help us in considering this matter.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will convene a special meeting of Scottish local authorities to discuss means of overcoming the Scottish housing problem.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will shortly be discussing with the local authority associations our proposals for the reform of housing finance, which are basic to the solution of Scotland's housing problems. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is meeting a number of individual authorities to discuss their local problems.
    Mr. Sillars: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I remind him of the Prime Minister's promise that his Ministers would deal openly and honestly with the House of Commons? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly whether his new housing support policy will increase, decrease or retain the house building figures in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have said before in this House, I do not intend to attempt to foretell precisely what the figures will be in the future. I thought that hon. Members opposite had learend a lesson about that. As for the Prime Minister's words, how the hon. Gentleman himself could have spoken the nonsense which he is reported to have uttered at Cumnock last weekend I do not know. If he thinks that we are planning an election in the spring, he will believe anything.
    Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I found the first sentence of his reply rather familiar?
    "The housing problems of Scotland cannot be satisfactorily tackled until housing finance is put on a realistic basis."
    That is what his party said in their Housing White Paper of 1961, and thereafter the housing completions in Scotland fell to the lowest ever. When is the right hon. Gentleman going to come clean with the House and tell us what is his target for house building in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: It is incredible that the right hon. Gentleman, of all Members, should ask a question about targets when he and his party failed abjectly to meet the target of 50,000 houses a year in Scotland by 1970 or the target for Britain.

    Fair Rents Policy
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his estimate of the effect on Scottish local authority rent levels of a fair rents policy and the balancing of the housing revenue accounts.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The fair rent formula cannot be applied at present to council rents in Scotland, for reasons which make an estimate of its effect impossible. The future level of rents will depend on the detailed arrangements which will shortly be discussing with the local authority associations based on a true rent formula and annual progression by reasonable steps.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his speech on 16th October at Perth? Will he confirm or deny that the inevitability of Tory gradualness in Scottish local authority rents will mean rent increases around 200 per cent. and that we can look forward to local authority housing rents in Scotland in the region of £7 a week?
    Mr. Campbell: I remember my words very well and they explained our policy clearly. Our policy includes a proper rent rebate scheme in the private sector for the first time, as well as in the public sector. In this way those who are badly off will be assisted in their housing by central government funds, and the Scot-
    1258
    tish ratepayers will no longer be expected to subsidise many who do not need it. Scottish ratepayers at present are paying 35 per cent. of the council house annual expenditure as opposed to 7 per cent. in England.
    Mr. Ross: Am I right in saying that the one thing that is clear in the Tory Government's housing policy is that rents will go up both for local authority houses and for private houses?
    Mr. Campbell: Some of the rents will go up where they are inordinately low, by reasonable steps. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be encouraging the same thing when he was in office.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give estimates of the level of rate support grant for Scottish local authorities in 1971–72.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend will be laying a rate support grant Order for the next two years before the House in due course.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he admit that rates cannot be regarded as a buoyant source of local authority finance and that they will not meet the needs of local authority expansion in the latter decades of the twentieth century? Finally, will he ask his right hon. Friend not to go on B.B.C. television or anywhere else to contradict two days later replies given in the House on the subject of local authority finances?
    Mr. Younger: On the first point, the question of different forms of local government finance and the raising of it is under consideration at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the findings will be published in due course. As for his second observation, I was not privileged to see my right hon. Friend's television appearance, but I am told that it was extremely successful.
    Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Secretary of State has any plans for altering the formula on which the rate support grant is disbursed?
    Mr. Younger: We are still considering the exact form of this year's rate support grant Order, but it will be based on the usual formula.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the domestic element to be cut from the 10d. it has been under the previous Government, and to what figure?
    Mr. Younger: There is no such proposal. In any case, that would be a matter for consideration in the course of drawing up the Order.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will refuse permission to sell council houses in Scotland to local authorities with non-existent or inadequate council house building programmes.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Each application for permission to sell will be considered on its merits.
    Mr. Smith: As the Secretary of State's reply evades the point of the Question, are we to understand that permission may be given to local authorities with poor housing programmes, with the result that people in need of houses will be replaced by people who can pay for them?
    Mr. Campbell: I have explained that each case will be considered on its merits, and there will, no doubt, be many different circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is in doubt and needs more enlightenment, he should consult his own Chief Whip who, during a curtailed term of office as Minister of Housing, was advocating last June a policy of selling council houses and proclaiming its benefits to the electorate.

    Migration (Statistics)
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to issue statistics on migration from Scotland quarterly.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): This is not practicable. Half-yearly estimates of net migration are published in the Registrar-General's quarterly returns for the June and December quarters Half-
    1260
    yearly overseas migration figures are given also in the returns for the March and September quarters.
    Mr. Smith: Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) promised when he took office to halve the figures of migration from Scotland and more than beat the target which he set himself, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what target the Conservative Government have set and what proposals they have to meet it?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman makes statements like that, he should remind himself that the average number of people migrating from Scotland was 4,000 a year higher during the six years of Labour Government than it was during the previous six years of Conservative Government.
    Mr. Ross: Considering that the last time the present Secretary of State had anything to do with Scottish affairs migration was running at the rate of over 40,000, and he has now inherited a rate just over 20,000, to what does the hon. Gentleman attribute that fall?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In case he does not remember, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a peak migration figure of 47,000 was reached during his tenure of office. While we welcome a reduction in migration figures recently, I must point out that migration overseas has continued at a high level. It has been better merely within the United Kingdom because of the disastrous policies of his Government, which discouraged people from moving within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that of equal importance in this matter is the need to attract migrants into Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that we bear that very much in mind.

    Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the delays in reaching agreement over the Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme regarding remuneration for veterinary surgeons in non-viable remote areas

    1261
    practices, he will take steps to arrange for these negotiations to be concluded without further delay.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Negotiations have been resumed, and I am anxious that they be concluded as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be aware that this group of people play a vital part in the whole life of the Highlands and that, if something is not done quickly, these gentlemen will have to seek employment elsewhere. Will he give an assurance that he will intervene personally in an effort to reach a satisfactory conclusion?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says, and I am very conscious of the important work done by veterinary surgeons in the Scheme. I met the B.V.A. negotiators on Monday of this week, and I hope that a satisfactory solution to the difficulties can be found.

    Electricity Supplies (North of Scotland)
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the high charges for connection of electricity supplies made by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to persons building houses in remote areas, if he will seek powers to provide financial assistance in such cases.
    Mr. Younger: Assistance towards electricity connection costs is available under Crofters Building Grants Scheme. It is open to any consumer to make representations to the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland if he feels aggrieved about connection charges.
    Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend realise that the charges being imposed in the Highlands may in certain cases go as high as £500? Will he consider making available a separate grant altogether so that the sum going towards electricity installation will not take up such a large amount of the total?
    Mr. Younger: The fixing of connection charges is entirely a matter for the board. It is worth noting that the board out of its own revenue subsidies such connection charges up to a total of about £2 million in a year, so some help is being given in this way.
    Mr. Maclennan: Recognising that it is the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and not Greenwich Mean Time which has extended light throughout the Highlands, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to discuss with the chairman of the board how the householder's contribution towards the cost of connection can be reduced, since otherwise the programme will remain uncompleted for many years?
    Mr. Younger: I have had several discussions with the chairman of the board. If he would care to raise that question with me, I should be prepared to discuss it with him.

    Older Houses (Improvement)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that sufficient advantage is being taken of grants for the improvement of older houses to enable modernisation to outpace deterioration in such a way as to diminish the stock of substandard accommodation in Scotland: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: There has recently been an encouraging increase in the number of houses improved with grants. I am mounting a special campaign to encourage the improvement and rehabilitation of older houses, especially those below the tolerable standard.
    Earl of Dalkeith: My right hon. Friend knows, perhaps, that I have been pressing for some years for a major advertising campaign to let it be widely known that there are these excellent grants available. If he is embarking on such a campaign, may I congratulate him and wish him every success, for it needs to be done on a fairly wide scale?
    Mr. Campbell: A major publicity campaign is in preparation.
    Mr. Ross: As it is the declared opinion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) that anyone who receives a grant is liable to have the moral fibre of his being rotted, will the Secretary of State keep his hon. Friend away from any advertising or publicity campaign?
    Mr. Campbell: That supplementary question was nearly two years too late.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consultations he has had with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry with regard to the possible consequences of entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 4th November in which my right hon. Friend stated that he and his right hon. Friends are well aware of the anxieties of the fishing industry and that they are taking them into account in the negotiations.—[Vol. 805, c. 376.]
    Mr. Strang: The Scottish inshore fishing industry is most concerned about the Government's intentions in this matter. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that concern was increased by a statement made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House on 17th November? In order to heal the damage, will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture to issue a statement listing those aspects of the Common Market common fisheries policy which are utterly unacceptable and not negotiable?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as concerned as he is. I have considerable fishing interests in my own constituency, and I am well aware of what is involved. These are matters for negotiation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of the inshore fishing industry in general and the industry in Scotland in particular are being fully taken into account in the negotiations.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer given to me in November and his present Answer are unsatisfactory in that we are constantly assured about concern but in the meantime the common fisheries policy is drawn up without our being represented, with potentially disastrous effects for our fishing industry? Will he give an assurance that he is strongly pressing the Foreign Office on this matter, as so far it has had absolutely no effect on fishing policy, and
    1264
    the sooner it gets down to representing us in Brussels, the better?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows only too well that the question of what policy the Common Market countries have at the moment is their concern. As he was told in a letter, and as he knows, we made strong representations that the E.E.C. countries should hold off their discussions until they negotiated with us, but they decided not to do so. In the circumstances, as I have said, we are making the strongest possible representations in relation to our interests.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for his replies so far. Will he confirm that the Government's position is that they will join the E.E.C. only provided the terms are right? At present the terms are not right for the inshore fishing industry.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No questions have yet been decided as regards our fishing industry. I assure my hon. Friend that his points will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has spoken of certain protections within the E.E.C. common fisheries policy. Can the hon. Gentleman say what derogations from the provisions for equality of access are permitted by the policy? For example, would the Minch be closed to foreign vessels? What protections are there against excessive exploitation? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is vital that the interests of the fishing industry, and particularly the inshore fishing industry, be protected during negotiations and not afterwards?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is raising a number of completely hypothetical questions. I ask him to accept the assurance, in view of the points mentioned in the House this afternoon and my own interest in the matter, that we are very carefully looking after the interests of our inshore fishing industry.
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the dangers to the Scottish inshore fishing industry resulting from the fishing industry plans of the present members of the European

    1265
    Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The only direct representation my right hon. Friend has received on this subject came from the Herring Industry Advisory Council. He has also received copies of other representations made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The reply given on 4th November to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) stated the present position.—[Vol. 805, c. 376.]
    Sir J. Gilmour: Will my hon. Friend make special representations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the importance to Scotland of the inshore fishing industry and at the same time tell him that, in European Conservation Year, he should be making moves to stop industrial fishing in the North Sea and saying that we will have nothing to do with anyone coming inside our limits?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the factual question I put to him? Will he say what derogations from the provisions for equality of access are permitted by the E.E.C. common fisheries policy and whether he believes that the Scottish fishing industry will be able to take advantage of them?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise, from the time when his Government were negotiating, that these are questions for negotiation and must be left to the Government to do. The interests of the Scottish fishing industry are fully taken into account in Europe.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does not my hon. Friend realise that all these difficulties would not arise and that we should not have any trouble if we did not go into the Common Market and kept control of fishing rights in our own hands at Westminster?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am always interested to hear the robust views of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison).
    Mr. Eadie: Is not the best way to safeguard the inshore fishermen's posi-
    1266
    tion to read the report published today by the Economic Research Institute on the question of entry into the Common Market, which completely demolishes the arguments for going in? The whole thing is a nonsense. Why not convey to the Prime Minister the need to read the report so that we can save the inshore fishermen from their dangerous position?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman might first have conveyed his views to the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of the inshore fishing fleet are safeguarded should Great Britain join the European Economic Community, in the light of European Economic Community fisheries policies due to come into operation in February of next year.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am conscious of the anxieties of the fishing industry in Scotland. However, at this stage, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 16th November to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle).—[Vol. 806, c. 840–1.]
    Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that the very minimum acceptable terms to the inshore fishing industry of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is the retention of the 12-mile and three-mile limit and that nothing less than that will do?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman now give a straight answer to a straight question? How far is he prepared to concede the rights of the Scottish inshore fishermen in order to get into the Common Market?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are other factors in relation to fishermen which are under negotiation. We have to look at the negotiations as a whole. I have assured the House, as my right hon. and learned Friend has done, that the interests of the inshore fishing industry will be attended to, as well as the interests of other sectors of the industry.
    Mr. Grimond: As, so far, we have made no progress on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman consider sending a representative of the Scottish Office, perhaps the Secretary of State, to put our case?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Scotland's interests in the negotiations are well looked after and cared for.
    Mr. Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make an official visit to Brussels during the current Common Market negotiations.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Development visited Brussels on 7th and 8th September. I myself shall not hesitate to go if my presence is required.
    Mr. Murray: I should like to see the present Secretary of State go to Brussels but, in the absence of such a visit, would he take an opportunity to make a statement about what conditions he considers to be essential to maintain Scottish interests in these negotiations? Is he particularly aware that there is some anxiety in Scotland about guaranteeing regional economic policies as they affect Scotland, Northern Ireland, Northern England and Wales? Is he further aware that in the original negotiations in regard to Italy a special protocol for the regional economic policy of Southern Italy and Sicily was agreed?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be asking for a full statement. Although I understand his aims, I would advise him that in diplomacy it is not a propitious or effective way of starting negotiations to make a public statement of all the things one wishes to achieve. I am aware of concern for Scotland, including the very important matters affecting the fishing industry, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that our ambassador to the Common Market is a Scot who has always kept his home in Edinburgh and that I saw him very recently.
    Sir J. Gilmour: When the Secretary of State does make a visit, will he travel in an inshore fishing vessel from his con-
    1268
    stituency in the Moray Firth and discuss the problem en route?
    Mr. Campbell: Having on many occasions spent several days in fishing vessels based at Lossiemouth in my constituency, I can think of no better way of going there.

    Bulls and Boars (Licensing)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with outside bodies about the future of bull and boar licensing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Agricultural Departments consulted representatives of the organisations interested in bull and boar licensing earlier this year.
    For the time being there is nothing I can add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member and others on 27th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 5–6.]
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that that Answer is just not good enough? Is not he aware that the present bull and boar licensing regulations are positively hindering livestock improvement in Scotland? Will he consult the Agriculture Research Council and the Animal Breeding Research Organisation on the question? Will he undertake to give due consideration to livestock experts in those bodies, in the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Milk Marketing Board before taking a decision?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. He must be aware that there is a great conflict of views on the subject. The present Government do not take steps like this without consulting those involved. The consultations are taking place, and when we have completed them we shall come to a decision.
    Mr. Brewis: Has my hon. Friend considered how far it might be practicable to transfer these important functions, the licensing of bulls and boards, to the herd-book societies?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is one factor that we shall take into account in our consultations. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.

    House Building (Targets)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the Government's future yearly targets for private and public house building; what representations he has received from local authorities on future house building; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No", and to the second part "None".
    Mr. Eadie: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that thousands of families in Scotland are in need of housing and want to know what their housing opportunities will be in two to three years time? Not to give any indication of targets is a form of cruelty. It is not a question of government by smoke signals; it is not government at all.
    Mr. Campbell: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman knew that a situation had been reached in Scotland where there is a great need for houses in certain areas but in others the demand is already being met. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should again be calling upon us to proclaim targets when his party completely failed in this respect. The local authorities in Scotland are assessing their problem of sub-tolerable houses and when I get the results I expect to have a much better picture than was available to me when I took office of where the real housing needs are.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answers show appalling complacency in view of the urgency of the problem, and that the submissions for approval coming into the Department are reaching an all-time low, even lower than when he was Under-Secretary of State responsible for the two disastrous quarters of 1964?
    Mr. Campbell: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the decline in approvals started last year? There has been a continuous reduction in 1969 and the first six months of 1970 compared with 1968.
    Earl of Dalkeith: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about cruelty, does my right hon. Friend agree that it
    1270
    is infinitely more cruel to promise people houses and then not provide them?
    Mr. Campbell: I entirely agree with my noble Friend.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his discussions with local authorities on future allocations of finance for education expenditure in new primary school building.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): In a circular issued by my right hon. Friend's Department yesterday education authorities were asked to submit by 1st March, 1971 details of urgent projects which they wish to be considered for inclusion in the £4 million primary school improvement programme in 1972–73. I am sending him a copy of the circular.
    Mr. Eadie: While I thank the Minister for his offer, is he aware that today the Secretary of State for Education and Science has issued the specific programme of primary school building for England? Can he explain why the Scottish Office is creating this cart-horse image? Will he be a little more forthcoming, and explain why there has been such delay, and why local authorities do not know precisely where they are in relation to additional primary school building in Scotland?
    Mr. Taylor: Local authorities do know where they are. They were given allocations by the previous Administration and many of them have protested that these were quite inadequate. We now have an additional £4 million to distribute in 1972–73, and I am sure that most local authorities will be very grateful.
    Mr. Buchan: We are highly sceptical of the figures the hon. Gentleman is throwing at us. It remains to be seen whether that money is to be spent. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the rate of school building that has been going on for the past five years will be maintained for the five-year period, instead of giving us the hypothetical figure for 1972–73?
    Mr. Taylor: Clearly, I am not in a position to say what will happen in five

    1271
    years' time. All kinds of things can change, as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware. But I can assure him that the previous programme which was fixed in April with the authorities is being increased by £4 million for primary school building in the year 1972–73.
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the school building programme is adequate for raising the school-leaving age in 1972–73; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend is generally satisfied with the progress that is being made, but he is at present reviewing the position in the light of representations which he has had from some education authorities.
    Mr. Brewis: Does that answer mean that, owing to the cuts in educational building by the last Government, sufficient resources will not be available when the due time comes?
    Mr. Taylor: It is clear that there are problems to be overcome in parts of some authorities' areas before we can be sure that there will be places for all those who will be staying on.
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) should not refer to "cuts", because there was an expansion of 70 per cent. in resources during our period in office. This raises the question whether the Under-Secretary of State has his priorities right. Should not the accent be on secondary school building in Scotland rather than merely aping the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England in putting the emphasis the other way round?
    Mr. Taylor: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's attitude to what is a considerable addition to Scotland's school-building programme. It is in addition to what was provided by the last Government. It is something extra. That is the fact.
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he hopes to make a statement on the allocation of funds to local authorities for capital school building projects in both the primary and secondary spheres.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend is considering representations about the capital investment allocations for 1971–72 and 1972–73 that were issued in April. He will let education authorities know the outcome as soon as possible.
    Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend assure us that careful note will be taken of the special difficulties being faced in the county of Banff and that the county will get more than a fair crack of the whip?
    Mr. Taylor: Banffshire is one of the authorities whose representations I am considering. I am afraid there is nothing further that I can add at this stage.
    Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman raise his sights? We expected something a little better from him in this respect. Does he realise that the starts suggested for 1972–73—and we notice that there is to be no improvement this year or next year—even then will be £10 million less than the starts in 1968?
    Mr. Taylor: What we are talking about is the allocation for 1971–72 and 1972–73, which was set by the previous Administration. We are considering representations from no fewer than 24 local authorities who protested that it was inadequate, and I have given an undertaking that I shall be saying something soon about this matter. I emphasise that this is an allocation fixed in April by the right hon. Gentleman's Administration.

    Police
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable on the plans he has for bringing the police force in the county of Fife up to strength; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand that the Chief Constable is running an active recruiting campaign involving selective advertising; maintaining close liaison with local schools; and encouraging his officers to attract suitable men to the service. He is also considering employing additional civilians to release more police officers for duties which require their powers.
    Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman has not given the figures of the under-strength in the county of Fife. Is he aware that the position is very serious, and does he agree that increased rates of pay and improved conditions could ease it? Is he aware that when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were in Opposition they gave the impression that when they came to power they would work miracles in police recruitment? Is the position worse, or is it better?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman cared to ask me a Question about police strength in the county of Fife I should be very glad to answer. The force is 39 below establishment. I am not in the least complacent about forces that are under-strength. Matters of pay are being negotiated on the Police Council, and I cannot comment on what is happening there.
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the shortage of police in Scotland at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The number of vacancies in the regular police force in Scotland at 30th September, 1970, was 856. I am glad to say that in the nine months ending 30th September there has been a net increase of 73 in total police strength. We will continue our efforts in conjunction with police authorities to improve recruitment and the efficient use of police manpower.
    Mr. Sproat: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in spite of the fact that recently the trend has marginally improved, the situation is very disquieting? Will he not put the full weight of his Department behind any moves to improve the pay structure and working conditions of the police as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that we are extremely concerned about the position of police in Scotland. Negotiations with the police on the matter of pay are a matter for the Police Council.
    Mr. Buchan: The Under-Secretary must be aware of the powerful feeling at present among police in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole. Will
    1274
    he give an assurance that the Government do not intend to make the police the first target for any clobbering of public servants on the income front?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Those words come ill from the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that the present Government, for the first time for three years, have given authority for an increase in police establishments. This will enable the police to start recruiting for the first time in three years.

    Old Property (Demolition)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for encouraging local authorities in Scotland to demolish old property in areas where there is a need to do so; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Under our proposed reform of housing finance special assistance will be given towards the high cost of slum clearance.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the time lag between the serving of demolition orders and actual demolition is too great in certain parts of Scotland? Is he further aware that areas of old property in our town and villages present a picture of dereliction even where reasonably good property is in the vicinity? Will he try to instil into local authorities the need to do something quickly on this matter?
    Mr. Campbell: I am anxious to cut out delays and I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would inform me of any particular case he knows about. As already announced, our proposals for the reform of housing finance include special assistance to relieve the high cost of slum clearance.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, when in Opposition, despite his abhorrence of targets, he endorsed the Cullingworth Report's target of 30,000 slum houses to be removed each year? Is that the Government's policy?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not recall any particular endorsement but I remember the Cullingworth Report, which was a very valuable one. I shall try to follow what was recommended there.

    Horse and Pony Raising
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the use of agricultural land for horse and pony raising.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Decisions on the use of agricultural land are for the occupier of the land to take in the light of the prevailing circumstances.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the Clydesdale horse still an agricultural animal or not?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If it is used for agricultural purposes.

    Wheat (Support Price)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what account will be taken of the records of yields of wheat in Scotland as compared with England in arriving at an acreage payment for the support price of wheat in place of the present method.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This calculation is done for the United Kingdom as a whole and due consideration is given to high yields.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Since the average yields in Scotland are 2 cwt. better than in England, does not this mean that Scottish wheat growers will be subsidising English farmers? Will my hon. Friend see that he gets a proper quid pro quo from his right hon. Friend in any future negotiations?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern but I ask him to bear in mind two things: first, what we are doing benefits the livestock farmers in Scotland who grow wheat—and the livestock industry in Scotland is particularly important—and, secondly, this move simplifies and reduces considerably the costs of administration.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that one of the reasons that we have had such good yields in Scotland is the good advice given by the Scottish Agricultural Department in regard to seed usage? Will he continue this good advice in order to remove any fear of diseases in wheat during future years?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. We
    1276
    hope that this new system will encourage the spread of wheat growing in Scotland.

    (Drift-net-Fishing)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present situation in regard to drift-net fishing for salmon in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend is considering what action should be taken on the expiry in February, 1971 of the current Order banning drift-net fishing for salmon off the Scottish coast.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in a reply given to me yesterday the Government indicated an increase of over 100 licences issued for England and Wales over the last five years? Does not the injustice of the present situation lie in the discrimination between Scottish boats as opposed to English boats, which rankles most of all, and ought this not to be corrected here and now while these endless considerations continue?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand the point of view of my hon. Friend, but he must remember that in England and Wales drift-netting has been the traditional method of fishing, whereas in Scotland it has been carried out by what we call fixed engines. There is a difference between the two countries, but I shall bear his point in mind.
    Mr. David Steel: Are we to take it that, with the change of Government, consideration of the recommendations of the Hunter Report is to start all over again?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Labour Government showed no sign of giving any consideration to this matter at all. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we hope to come to a conclusion before too long.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on Scottish local government reform.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: As previously stated, I am hoping to publish a While Paper soon in the New Year.
    Mr. Murray: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some feeling that the delay in this matter is becoming rather great? Is he further aware that so far as Scotland is concerned the Wheatley Commission was relatively non-controversial in comparison with Redcliffe-Maud and that there would appear to be less need for delay in issuing some proposals for discussion?
    Mr. Campbell: I am delighted if the hon. and learned Gentleman foresees little controversy when our White Paper is published in a few weeks' time. The Labour Government were always telling us that they were about to publish a White Paper on the subject. They had nine months from September to June to do it, and it never appeared. We have had five months, and I hope that we shall be well within their period.
    Mr. Ross: What consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had with local authorities? Is it not a fact that since I gave him access to all the papers in respect of our negotiations with local authorities, that has saved him a good deal of time? Will he not be a little more gracious about that assistance?
    Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman's White Paper was not available to me. We felt it right to carry out our own round of negotiations and discussions with the local authority associations, but I am glad that in addition we had their original views as given to the right hon. Gentleman. This is a very important matter not only for this House but for everybody in Scotland, and when our White Paper is published I hope 'that it will represent a majority of agreement within the House and outside.

    House Building (Standards)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the implementation of his Department's direction and instructions about the standards of local authority house building; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have no reason to believe that local authorities are failing in their responsibility to see that standards are observed.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient numbers of
    1278
    clerks of works are being employed, because it seems to me that some rather dicey-looking buildings are being erected?
    Mr. Campbell: I shall certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said, but this is a matter for local authorities. My officials frequently visit local authority schemes and they would raise with the local authorities any evidence of bad workmanship or construction.

    Edinburgh (Transport Problems)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to Edinburgh Corporation about transport problems in the city.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is sharing the cost of a Planning and Transport Study which Edinburgh Corporation has commissioned in order to obtain such advice.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my hon. Friend look at the plans that seem to be maturing in Edinburgh, particularly about the link road and the ring road, which, so far as I can discover, nobody in the city wants Secondly, will he look into the possibility of bringing back the suburban railways?
    Mr. Younger: The first part of my hon. Friend's question is entirely a matter for Edinburgh Corporation to decide. On the question of suburban railway lines, I understand that the consultants who are at present conducting a study of the central area of the city are looking into these and other matters.

    School Meals
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish schoolchildren in January, 1970, were receiving free school meals.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: About 96,000.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Would the hon. Gentleman say what fresh steps he has taken, as he promised, to make sure that children who are in receipt of free school meals are in no way distinguished from other schoolchildren receiving school meals?
    Mr. Taylor: We have made crystal clear to local authorities our views on

    1279
    this matter. I have dealt with this matter previously at Question Time and we are reinforcing this advice.
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of Scottish schoolchildren who will be entitled to receive free school meals in each of the four years 1971 to 1975.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: I expect that in 1971, after the new arrangements come into force, the number of children receiving free meals will increase by about one-third and that there may be further increases in the following years.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Do I take it that this estimate of additional expenditure is being discounted against the so-called savings made in this sphere and that these are firm estimates and targets?
    Mr. Taylor: It is impossible to give a firm estimate about the increased number of free meals or of the cost in specific terms. We can say that the new and more generous arrangements which are being introduced will ensure that a larger number of schoolchildren will receive free meals.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of primary school classes in Fife with more than 40 pupils.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: I am asking the education authority to send the latest available information to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are a number of schools in my constituency, let alone the county of Fife, with classes of more than 40 pupils? Does the Minister recall that in a reply to me on 4th November the figures indicated that in the direct-grant schools in Scotland the average number of pupils per primary class was 28? Does he not consider it a shocking state of affairs that with so many classes in Fife with over 40 pupils the Government should seek to encourage and perpetuate the two-nation system in Scottish education?
    Mr. Taylor: There is a later Question dealing with a related matter and I should be pleased to deal with this point when it
    1280
    arises. It is fair to point out, although I do not want to minimise the real problems in Fife, that, on the basis of the provisional 1970 figures, 15·8 per cent. of Fife's primary classes have more than 40 pupils compared with the national average of 16·2 per cent.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Government Departments (Devolution)
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Minister for the Civil Service (1) what is his policy for the devolution of Government Departments, in view of the difficulty in recruiting for the Civil Service at clerical class and lower executive level in the London area and the shortage of clerical jobs for school leavers in Teesside; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) what preparation he is making to provide employment for Civil Service personnel in Teesside faced with transfer or redundancy when the Investment Grants Office is disbanded next year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): Our policy is, as far as the claims of operational efficiency allow, to give priority to the development areas in choosing locations for work dispersed from London; but I cannot at this stage give undertakings about particular locations. Discussions are in progress about placing surplus established staff in other Departments.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: May I urge on my hon. Friend the seriousness of the situation, particularly for young people on Teesside? While clerical work is severely limited, clerical workers in the youth employment service are overstretched giving guidance and making unemployment payments which, in the four months from June to September, were running at an annual rate nine times as high as that of Birmingham.
    Mr. Howell: I take note of my hon. Friend's point about the seriousness of the situation. I cannot give particular undertakings, but the claims of areas such as those in development areas will be given sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. David Reed: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, since there are 137 civil servants on Teesside who are now

    1281
    extremely worried about their future due to the impending closure of the Investment Grants Office, this matter directly concerns him? Will he undertake to approach and make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on their behalf?
    Mr. Howell: I shall be looking at the matter very closely. The effects will not begin to be felt until next year, but I shall give the matter sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Does the Minister's original Answer about concern for the development areas measure up with the fact that the Land Commission in Newcastle is to be closed, thereby causing considerable redundancies among civil servants? Have the Government any proposals for bringing in a new Department to take its place?
    Mr. Howell: Looking after established civil servants is one thing. Keeping on redundant organisations which cost the taxpayer money is quite another.

    Industrial Civil Servants
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations have been made to him concerning the status of industrial civil servants; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howell: Only a very few letters on this subject have been received by the Department since the present Administration took office, but I understand that a number of letters were received in May and June of this year.
    Mr. Hamling: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet amongst industrial civil servants in the Woolwich area, particularly in the former R.O.F., about their status, salaries, pension rights, and so on? What steps have been taken to follow up the representations made in the spring of this year?
    Mr. Howell: A number of steps have already been taken about superannuation, sick leave, and that kind of thing. The Government's general policy is to build on what is common between industrial and non-industrial civil servants.

    Civil Service (Holidays)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister for the Civil Service why civil servants are being given holidays on Christmas Eve and Monday, 28th December when no such Bank Holiday has been arranged this December for the benefit of all other workers.
    Mr. David Howell: Civil servants have for many years been granted an extra day's privilege holiday at Christmas and a further day when Boxing Day falls on a Saturday. This does not mean that all civil servants will have holidays on both Christmas Eve and Monday 28th December. The arrangement of the Christmas break will vary according to the needs of individual Departments and the service to be provided to the public.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that this is yet another step which divides the nation? Whereas wage earners will be dubbed as absentees and lose pay on the Monday, not only civil servants but large numbers of professional people will have that day off. Will the Government do something to ameliorate this injustice?
    Mr. Howell: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has got this right. There is no difference between the arrangements this year and in past years. It is the normal Civil Service practice to make this kind of arrangement, particularly when Christmas Day falls on a Friday. If other employers in other parts of the country wish to give their employees a day off, they are free to do so.

    Electronic Location or Status Indicating Equipment (House of Commons)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service, whereas electronic location or status indicating equipment was installed in 1968 for use of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and its use is now discontinued by the present incumbent of that office, how many civil servants and at what cost annually replaced the equipment; and how the equipment was disposed of and at what price compared with its cost of £18,000.
    Mr. David Howell: I have personally inspected the equipment, known I believe as ELSIE. It is no longer in use but

    1283
    its future I find has yet to be decided. No additional civil servants have been employed in place of this equipment.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that this electronic equipment is rusty and obsolescent and is lying in a corner of the Patronage Secretary's office? Does my hon. Friend agree, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances, that it is the innate sense of discipline and responsibility of Government Members which contributes to high majorities—such as the 46 achieved on the Merseyshide vote last evening—substantially in excess of the Government's recognised majority?
    Mr. Howell: I share my hon. Friend's view about the voting skills on this side of the House and my right hon. Friend's prowess in the matter. It seems to be the case that we can do better without this rather elaborate and unnecessary piece of equipment.
    Mr. Mellish: As I was responsible for operating ELSIE, may I get on record that, under our control, she was a very well-behaved young lady and every time one pressed her she lit up? It is typical of this Government that the present machinery has degenerated and is no longer of any use.
    Mr. Howell: Well behaved she may have been, but she was also a little pricey.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Cannot the Whips on either side do this sort of labour of love with their quill pens? Will my hon. Friend please see that the bill for this particular device is sent to the Parliamentary Labour Party, not to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Howell: It is certainly the case that we can manage without it. Concerning cost, maintenance costs will not arise in future if we do not use it.
    Mr. O'Malley: The Minister should get his facts right about it being pricey. Will he confirm, first, that when that equipment was introduced the number of clerks employed was reduced by two, which cut down the cost; and, secondly, that the Whips Office is now employing one more clerk than was employed under the Labour Administration?
    Mr. Howell: No more clerks are employed at public expense in the Whips
    1284
    Office, so the staff saving achieved by ELSIE is still maintained without ELSIE.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Sir Gerald Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to failure of electronic location or status indicating equipment to deliver correct results for guidance of civil servants employed in the office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury at the House of Commons between 1968 and June, 1970, what further employment for the equipment is now arranged within the Civil Service.
    Mr. David Howell: We do not yet know whether this equipment can be used in any way in the Civil Service. If not, it will be disposed of in the most appropriate way.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I must press my hon. Friend. Does he agree that whereas it has no direct use within the Civil Service, it is a highly specialised piece of electronic equipment, specially constructed to meet the peculiar needs of the Labour Party, and has no known application in the outside world? Will my hon. Friend step along to Smith Square and offer it to Transport House for the purpose of rescuing the dismal finances of the Labour Party?
    Mr. Howell: Sorting out the ways and problems of Transport House is a matter for hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that if he will knock the price down low enough we might even take it in the Liberal Party?
    Mr. Howell: I am open to all ideas, however bizarre.

    Public Service Pensions
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether the envisaged review of Civil Service and public servants' pensions will include the pensions of former Prime Ministers; and what at the latest stated date is the pension payable to a former Prime Minister.
    Mr. David Howell: The annual rate of pension is £4,000 for any Prime Minister who retires after 31st March, 1965. As to the first part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.
    Mr. Lewis: I do not begrudge any Prime Minister a pension of £4,000 a year, even if he holds the job for only one year, but is it not a bit ludicrous that a right hon. Member who has served the House for, say, 40 years in many great Cabinet posts has to retire on a pension of £940 a year? Is it not a little ludicrous to give such a right hon. Member a nominal sum of £940, but a reasonable pension to ex-Prime Ministers.
    Mr. Howell: I think that that raises wider questions than that of the Prime Minister's pension alone, and on this I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.
    Mr. Tapsell: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is an extraordinary disproportion between the compensation given to the chairman of a nationalised industry who is dismissed and that given to distinguished statesmen and Cabinet Ministers after a lifetime's service.
    Mr. Howell: I think that that is another question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the understandable difficulty of English Members getting in on Scottish Questions, is there any way of keeping the Scots out of English Members' Questions?
Mr. Speaker: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's assumption is right. It is difficult, almost impossible, for Englishmen to get into Scottish Questions while I am in the Chair.
Mr. John D. Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way in which hon. Members can be protected from the growing tendency by the Prime Minister to transfer Questions to Ministers? I have one today to the Prime Minister on the question of the national-
1286
ised industries, a particularly relevant issue, and it has been transferred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned at this growing tendency on the part of the Prime Minister to dodge matters of this sort.
Mr. Speaker: There is no growing tendency. It has always been in the power of the Prime Minister to transfer Questions addressed to him to whichever Ministry he thinks appropriate. He disappoints the hon. Members who want to put a question to him, but I can do nothing about it.

AIRBUSES
The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I wish to make a statement about airbuses.
The House will be aware that the British Aircraft Corporation and Rolls-Royce have asked for launching aid for the BAC311 and its RB211-61 engine at a cost to the Government estimated at some £144 million at present prices. We have also had an invitation from the French, Federal German and Netherlands Governments to rejoin the A300B project. The initial cost to the Government would be some £30 million if we took a share in the airframe part of the A300B project alone, or some £100 million if in addition the RB211–61 engine were also launched for this aircraft. This takes no account of further costs likely to be incurred during the production phase.
After very careful consideration the Government have decided that they cannot support either of these proposals in view of the size of the public investment required. We have to take into account the large sums of money already being devoted to the support of civil aircraft and engines and to bear in mind other calls on public funds.
In the light of this, B.E.A. will have the opportunity to choose between two alternatives, the Lockheed 1011 and the A300B. Both include a large contribution by British industry. The Lockheed 1011 has Rolls-Royce RB211–22 engines, for which Her Majesty's Government recently announced an increase in launching aid

1287
up to a limit of £89 million. As for the A300B, Hawker Siddeley are designing and manufacturing the main part of the wing.
The decision in regard to the A300B does not imply any weakening of our interest in joint projects such as the M.R.C.A., Jaguar and of course Concorde, to each of which Her Majesty's Government are making very substantial contributions.
I have already discussed with my colleagues in the other Governments concerned proposals for a joint study of the possibilities of increased co-operation between European aero-engine industries, and they have recently proposed that we should meet. I welcome these proposals and hope that they can be extended in due course to the rest of the aviation industry.
Mr. William Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman will know that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will have been deeply disturbed by his grave news. There will be an unhappy suspicion that the fate of what might have been a fine aircraft, with real export potential, has been settled not on merit but according to preconceptions of public expenditure and public intervention.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions. First, can he say what the effect on employment will be, including the employment of those sub-contractors whose work may be taken back by B.A.C. as a result of this decision? Second, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, in confirmation of what his statement seems to say, that B.E.A. will have an unfettered choice of aircraft when the time comes?
Third, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the Government's intention to support Rolls-Royce in the development of the next generation of RB211 engines, and that is what the decision on the RB211-61 means? Fourth, can the Minister say whether we are now to accept the decline of the airframe industry, an indigenous industry, while options for engines are being kept open? Will he place before the House at the earliest opportunity a White Paper setting out all the facts which his statement does not give as a basis for a debate in Government time?
Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions. The first relates to the effect on employment. As I understand it, about 500 people have been employed to date on this project at B.A.C. I understand that it is hoped to reduce any redundancies to about 300 at the most.
On the question of overall employment, I am not in a position to differentiate between the estimates of additional jobs that might have been created and the estimates of jobs which would retain people in their present employment. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the decision of the company.
On the matter of B.E.A.'s choice, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that this is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but there has been no agreement with European countries to force B.E.A. one way or the other.
On the question of the next generation of Rolls-Royce engines, the decision announced today applies only to the -61 engine for one or other of these two aircraft.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the airframe industry was being left to run down. I remind him that we are spending no less than £88 million in launching aid this year. Over the last four years it has averaged £75 million, and over the next four years it is expected to average £70 million.
Mr. William Rodgers: What about the White Paper?
Mr. Corfield: I shall consider giving more information to the House, but I cannot think that a White Paper would be suitable.
Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on these benches know how much he must regret having to make his statement today? Is he aware that if anyone is to be held to blame for this disappointing decision it is not, as the Front Bench opposite implied, himself, but the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), because it is clear that this Government's ability to support the airframe industry has been gravely damaged by the disastrous costs resulting from the Lockheed-Rolls-Royce contract, which the previous Government underwrote? As so much depends, both for B.A.C. and for the

1289
nation, on the success of Concorde, will my right hon. Friend assure us that this project is still receiving the Government's fullest backing?
Mr. Corfield: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes", and I think that it is one of the utmost importance that B.A.C. should appreciate, as I am sure it does, that to a large extent its success will depend upon overcoming the technical problems that are outstanding with the greatest possible expedition.
Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to estimate what effect his decision will have upon the position of Rolls-Royce? Will this mean further launching aid to Rolls-Royce to deal with the situation arising from his statement?
Mr. Corfield: I can see no possible connection between the decision that I have just announced and any demand from Rolls-Royce for further launching aid. As regards the position of Rolls-Royce, the effort in terms of labour employed on the development of the -61 which is in an embryonic stage, has so far not been significant.
Mr. Mather: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend on the dilemma in which he has been placed by the improvidence of the previous Government, but is he aware of the widespread dismay which will be caused in my constituency at Weybridge not only because the jobs of workers and of the design teams have been placed in jeopardy but because we firmly believe that Britain builds the best aircraft? Is my right hon. Friend further aware of the rumour that the vacuum which has been caused by the cancellation of the BAC311 may now be filled by a new Douglas twin-engined aircraft?
Mr. Corfield: We have taken into very careful consideration the employment factors which my hon. Friend mentions. With regard to the gap being filled, the House must appreciate that the BAC311 would have been in direct competition with the A300B, and there is little doubt that there would also have been an American competitor. To a considerable extent, the market for the A300B and the BAC311 overlaps with the shorter-range Tristars, and the American market is facing a considerable cash shortage.
Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that many of us deeply regret the Government's decision not to support the BAC311, apparently for the sake of a short-term budget saving, as this is likely to be highly damaging in the long run both to the aircraft industry and to the British balance of payments?
Mr. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman talks about short-term budget saving. At no stage did any of the calculations, even on the most optimistic assessment of the market, show anything but a very substantial loss for Government funds.
Mr. Temple: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread appreciation of his difficulties, and widespread understanding of the fact that he has not permitted the Government to enter into further open-ended commitments? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Hawker-Siddeley took on a job which was left in the air by the previous Government, and that the company is to be commended for its private enterprise in going forward with its share of the European airbus?
Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the dilemmas that has faced the Government, and the previous Administration no doubt, is that B.A.C.'s application for launching aid would have involved the Government in supporting a project in direct competition with another project in which Hawker-Siddeley was engaged without public assistance.
Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister tell the House whether at any stage a firm commitment was made by the three European Governments to share in the cost of developing the -61 engine, what proportion of the costs they were prepared to bear if such an offer were made and for what aircraft he sees the -61 engine being developed which could not have been developed with the two engines now rejected by the Government?
Mr. Corfield: The answer to the first part of the question is "No". The second question does not arise. I cannot see any application for the -61 at the moment, and it is not the Government's intention to proceed with it.
Mr. Marten: As one of the important things is to try to keep the British Aircraft

1291
Corporation design team together, will my right hon. Friend say whether B.A.C. has any propositions to put forward about a short take-off passenger plane?
Mr. Corfield: I have had no such propositions brought to my notice. If they are, I shall look at them on their merits.
Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman verify two figures which he gave? I understood from what he said that unemployment at Rolls-Royce would be affected by his decision only to the tune of 500. Is that correct? I also understood that the amount of aid still being given to Rolls-Royce is £88 million. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about B.A.C.?
Mr. Corfield: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is a little bit muddled. I was referring to the 500 total staff hitherto employed at B.A.C. I have just been informed by the company that it hopes to keep the redundancies within that 500 to less than 300. That, of course, is in the immediate future. The more distant future will have to be a matter for consideration. What I said about Rolls-Royce was that there had been no significant effort devoted to the -61 in terms of labour up to date.
Mr. Warren: As last week we found that we were having to subsidise the American aircraft industry through Rolls-Royce, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether this week he will consider this decision in relation not only to the British airframe industry but to the 50,000 people in the British aircraft equipment industry who will be affected by it?
Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that the more British aircraft projects there are the more opportunities there are for the avionics and equipment firms, and, of course, they will be disappointed. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that they have had considerable opportunities with Concorde and in the various military programmes—Nimrod, Harrier, Jaguar—and there is no reason to doubt that they will have considerable opportunities with M.R.C.A.
Mr. Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, the decision announced today is really the watershed decision for the airframe Indus-
1292
try. Will he answer my hon. Friend's question about publishing figures? He referred to calculations, maybe of implied subsidy and implied preference involved in supporting the BAC311 or the A300B. Will he please publish the calculations, because the House cannot reach a judgment unless those calculations are available for study? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether this means that launching aid is not available on public expenditure grounds for projects that might emerge, as this would be a significant change of policy? Will he say whether launching aid can be considered in future?
Mr. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that any application for launching aid, or for any other assistance at any time to any Government, has to be considered against the background of the sum involved, the period over which it is required, the funds available and the other demands upon those funds. This is a characteristic of Government throughout the ages. My present inclination is to see no objection to publishing the figures. I will certainly consider it and discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wilkinson: I associate myself with the condemnations from this side of the House of the turgid tergiversation of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on this issue. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British airframe industry does not become the jerry-builder of foreign designs? Will he also make sure that balance of payments interests are paramount and that a virile industry is maintained in the future?
Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend will appreciate that B.A.C. in particular is the British contractor for the largest and most costly civil project that has ever been undertaken, to wit, Concorde.
Mr. Dalyell: To get back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, what does the Minister mean by the phrase in his statement, "further costs likely to be incurred" in relation to the BAC311? Is it the suggestion that the B.A.C. calculations are not as frank as they should be? What does it mean?
Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have appreciated that that remark was entirely in relation to the A300B. It is not in any way a reflection on the calculations of B.A.C. or anyone else. It is clear that the terms we were offered to rejoin the consortium opened up a number of other liabilities, our best estimate of which was that the £30 million entrance fee, so to speak, would probably not be recovered.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whilst there will be general understanding of the anxiety expressed by hon. Members in whose constituencies aircraft interests exist, there will be a general welcome for his statement from those of us who hope that, in future, Government procurement policies will reflect a much wiser attitude towards public expenditure? Will he confirm that, as a result of his decision, the nationalised airline companies will have commercial freedom in the choice of the aircraft that they wish to purchase?
Mr. Corfield: I appreciate my hon. Friend's sympathy under both heads, but I remind him that the freedom of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that the development of the RB211-61 engine is an integrated process and that, therefore, his decision today undermines the possibility of technological development and the use of carbon fibres? Secondly, will he indicate clearly that there will be no difficulties in employment of Rolls-Royce workers in Scotland, because we can afford no more redundancies in that region?
Mr. Corfield: I really do not know what the hon. Member means by "integrated process". The -61 is only one of about half-a-dozen variations of the 211 which have been put forward from time to time. As to employment in Scotland, the hon. Member must wait for the decisions by the management of the companies concerned.
Mr. McMaster: As the decision announced by my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly favour Lockheed, particularly in view of the statement by the Chairman of B.E.A. in expressing preference for these aircraft, will he consider
1294
whether it is posible to renegotiate the Rolls-Royce contract with Lockheed in view of the escalation of costs, or would he favour supporting an upgraded Rolls-Royce engine for a more advanced Lockheed?
Will my right hon. Friend also look favourably on the production of a British vertical or short take-off aircraft for the future, in order to protect our research and development teams in the British aircraft industry?
Mr. Corfield: My study of the Lockheed contract and the prospects of renegotiation has proved to be one of the most unproductive exercises I have ever undertaken. As to V.T.O.L. or S.T.O.L. development, my hon. Friend will realise that a very large number of problems have to be considered and overcome before we can look at this as an immediate future project.
Mr. Kinnock: I find difficulty in recalling any specific answer by the Minister to the fourth question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton on Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) concerning the future of the airframe industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a discernible answer to that question so that the fears of people in my constituency may be allayed?
Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Member will have the courtesy to remind me of the question, I shall endeavour to answer it.
Mr. Kinnock: My notes of my hon. Friend's fourth question are probably less copious than those of the Minister. [Interruption.] After all, I am not a Minister. The wording as I have it was whether the Minister would give an undertaking to safeguard against the decline of the airframe industry. I do not have more copious notes than that.
Mr. Corfield: As I have explained already, the amount of launching aid currently being given to the aircraft industry is £88 million this year, £75 million on average over the last four years and an estimated £70 million in the next four years, without taking into account any new project which may come along. That is not the measure of a declining industry.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY
  Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Sir John Eden, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Lord Balniel, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and Mr. David Howell, presented a Bill to provide for the transfer to British Nuclear Fuels Limited and The Radiochemical Centre Limited of parts of the undertaking of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and of property, rights, liabilities and obligations appertaining to those parts of the Authority's undertaking; to make provision with respect to persons employed by the Authority and engaged in those parts of the Authority's undertakings, with respect to the control and finances of the said companies, and with respect to the application of pension schemes maintained by the Authority; to amend the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965 relating to permits under section 2 of that Act; to make provision relating to factories, offices, building operations and other works on sites in respect of which such permits are in force; to provide for the application of security provisions where such permits are in force and also where companies are designated by the Secretary of State in connection with an agreement relating to the gas centrifuge process for pro-
  1296
  ducing enriched uranium; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

  LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION)
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Thomas, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Michael Heseltine, presented a Bill to abolish betterment levy and dissolve the Land Commission; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
  CHARITABLE CAUSES (MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DISABLED PERSONS)
  Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. George Darling, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Neil Marten, Mr. George Thomas, Sir John Foster, Mr. Jack Ashley, and Mr. John Astor, presented a Bill to make provisions in respect of certain competitions organised for charitable causes for the promotion of medical research and to assist chronically sick and disabled persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th December and to be printed.[Bill 63.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.53 p.m.
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before I explain the details of the Bill, I would like to refer to the Chairmen of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I am sure that the House will want to join me in thanking the outgoing Chairmen, Sir Charles Hardie and Sir Anthony Milward, for their services and in welcoming the new Chairmen, Mr. Keith Granville and Mr. Henry Marking. The remaining appointments will be announced very shortly and I know that we can rely on both Boards, and, indeed, all the staff of both Corporations, to continue to serve the country well during the period while the legislation setting up an Airways Board is being introduced and is taking effect.
  The object of the Bill is to raise the limits on the loans which B.O.A.C. may raise to finance capital investment. The limits also apply to any temporary borrowings by B.O.A.C. and to any Government investment of public dividend capital in the Corporation, but B.O.A.C. does not expect to need temporary loans in the foreseeable future and I have no plans at present for investing further public dividend capital in the Corporation. The reason, then, for increasing the limits is to enable B.O.A.C. to take up additional borrowings for capital purposes.
  The existing limits were set in the Air Corporations Act, 1966, which imposed a limit on the aggregate of B.O.A.C.'s outstanding borrowings and public dividend capital of £90 million, which could be increased to £120 million by Order subject to affirmative Resolution of this House. An Order specifying a limit of £120 million was made last December by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), then Minister of State, Board of Trade, who explained that B.O.A.C. expected to reach the new limit by the summer of of 1970. In the event, it has taken a little longer, for reasons which I will explain later, and I now estimate that
  1298
  B.O.A.C.'s borrowings and reckonable public dividend capital will reach the £120 million mark by the end of March, 1971.
  The House will expect me to say how this money has been spent before I explain why the additional sums provided for in the Bill are needed. As the then Minister of State explained when speaking to the Order last December, B.O.A.C.'s capital liabilities at 1st April, 1965, consisted of £31 million of loan capital and £35 million of public dividend capital, all deemed to have been taken up at that date under the Air Corporations Act, 1966, which provided for B.O.A.C.'s financial reconstruction. The total of £66 million reckoned against the limit of £90 million.
  Since 1965, all B.O.A.C.'s borrowings have consisted of foreign currency loans negotiated with United States finance institutions, with Swiss banks and a Canadian bank, to finance progress and delivery payments on Boeing 747 and 707/336 aircraft and some other expenditure on capital projects overseas. B.O.A.C. has been required to raise finance in this way to meet dollar investment in order to conserve official dollars.
  B.O.A.C. has financed all sterling investment since 1965 from its own cash resources. This includes about £30 million on Super VCIO aircraft and spares, a further £30 million on buildings and roughly the same amount on plant, machinery and equipment. Furthermore, the Corporation has repaid the whole of the Government loan of £31 million deemed to have been advanced in April 1965. This loan was being redeemed in instalments and a sum of £16·9 million was shown in B.O.A.C.'s 1969–70 accounts as still outstanding at 31st March, 1970. In June this year, the Corporation prematurely redeemed the whole outstanding sum out of its own resources. This explains why the limit of £120 million is lasting rather longer than predicted last December.
  By March, 1971, the £120 million will consist of the original £35 million of public dividend capital deemed to have been invested in 1965 plus about £85 million of outstanding foreign currency loans which reckon against the statutory limit. By then, B.O.A.C. expects to have taken delivery of three Boeing 747s in addition to the three delivered last

  1299
  May, a total of six in all, which, together with its fleet of eight Boeing 707–336Cs, will have been financed very largely by dollar loans. B.O.A.C. also expects to have taken delivery by March 1971 of one of the two Boeing 707–336Bs which the previous Government agreed that B.O.A.C. could buy, primarily for use on the trans-Siberian route to Japan. The House was told of this order on 18th December last year by the then President of the Board of Trade.
  I come to the new limits of £250 million and £380 million provided for in this Bill. These are very considerable sums, representing at the maximum an increase of £260 million over B.O.A.C.'s present limit. I should explain that the higher figure has been calculated as the amount the Corporation seems likely to need to borrow to finance capital investment over the next five years; that is, until early 1976. The intermediate limit, which can be exceeded only after a draft Order has been approved by this House, should last until early 1974.
  Legislation to create an Airways Board, to which I referred during the debate on 24th November, will provide for borrowing limits which will include the borrowings of and any investment of public dividend capital in the Airways Board as well as the external borrowings of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. It will, therefore, overtake the limits provided for in this Bill. I should have preferred to dispense with the present Bill and to wait for this new legislation; but B.O.A.C.'s borrowing powers are nearing exhaustion and, since the Bill is necessary, I thought it right to follow the normal practice in dealing with borrowing powers for nationalised industries by providing for B.O.A.C.'s requirements for about five years ahead.
  The new limits allow, first, for dollar loans B.O.A.C. will need to call on after March 1971, amounting to some £44 million, to complete payments on six more Boeing 747s due for delivery between September 1971 and April 1972, and to some £3 million for the second Boeing 707–336B. These loans have already been negotiated in the United States. In addition, the Government have recently agreed that B.O.A.C. may purchase a new Boeing 707–336C at a cost of £4 million, to replace the Super VC10
  1300
  destroyed in Jordan, of which about 40 per cent. of the cost will be raised by a loan from the Export Import Bank of New York.
  We then had to make an assessment of the capacity B.O.A.C. is likely to need from the end of 1972 onwards to replace some of its existing aircraft and to provide for further expansion. B.O.A.C. has forecast that, on the asumption that 20 per cent. of the cost will be met from B.O.A.C.'s internal resources, it will need to raise foreign currency loans for this purpose of some £154 million over the period to early 1976 to finance 80 per cent. of the cost of further United States aircraft, and that about £53 million of this total will be needed by early 1974.
  I should emphasise that B.O.A.C. will need to make a case to me for approval for this further investment, and that it will be subject to scrutiny by me, but I think its torward projections seem reasonable so far as the state of the industry can be foreseen for a period so far ahead.
  We have also had to make an assessment of the expenditure B.O.A.C. is likely to be incurring during this period by way of progress and delivery payments on Concorde. This and other sterling investment, for example in plant, machinery, equipment and buildings, B.O.A.C. expects to be able to finance from its own internally generated cash flow until about the end of 1971. Thereafter, B.O.A.C. will need additional capital which I am assuming will be met by advances from the National Loans Fund. This may account for a sum approaching £200 million of which rather less than half will be needed by early in 1974.
  It would be appropriate for me to comment on B.O.A.C.'s financial performance and prospects. Hon. Members will need no reminder of B.O.A.C.'s excellent record of profits over the last five years. It is true that the 1965–66 financial reconstruction gave the Corporation a fresh start by writing off an accumulated deficit and setting up a reconstruction reserve. But B.O.A.C. has, by its own efforts, taken full advantage of the opportunity this presented to operate as a fully commercial undertaking and it was able to record in its 1969–70 Report that profits from 1965–66 and 1969–70 were high enough to have

  1301
  eliminated the deficit accumulated by March, 1965, and to pay interest on all capital, without a financial reconstruction.
  As it is, the Corporation has paid to the Government more by way of dividends and interest than it would have paid without a reconstruction. I take this opportunity to say that it is the policy of this Government to continue to give B.O.A.C. encouragement to maintain its successful record of profitability.
  Nevertheless, it would not be right for me to raise expectations that B.O.A.C.'s profits over the next five years will continue to reach the high levels of the last five. International airlines throughout the world are in a phase of declining profits, due in part to too much capacity being offered because of the introduction of wide-bodied aircraft and, in part, to inflation pushing up costs faster than revenues.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman was brief and non-controversial. His speech was also very thin.
  I wish at the outset to join him in expressing thanks to Sir Charles Hardie for his service to B.O.A.C. and for the success he achieved while in office. Under his chairmanship, B.O.A.C. has done well.
  While the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the chairman-designate, Mr. Keith Granville, he hinted that his tenure of office may not be as successful because B.O.A.C., with other civil airlines, may be in a period of cyclical decline. There may, as a consequence, be much more difficulty ahead for the occupant of Sir Charles Hardie's seat.
  My hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill. We recognised when we brought forward a borrowing powers Measure in 1969, which was for quite a small amount, that B.O.A.C. would be in need of further finance. Indeed, had we been in government now we would have been introducing a Bill such as the one before the House today.
  This is likely to be the last borrowing powers Measure before we have major civil aviation legislation profoundly affecting B.O.A.C. Within the time scale of the initial borrowing requirements under this Measure, legislation may be enacted to establish the Civil Aviation Authority and the Airways Board. It is difficult
  1302
  to foresee clearly how the Civil Aviation Authority will affect B.O.A.C., particularly its finances, but B.O.A.C. will undoubtedly visualise the Airways Board being to its advantage.
  When we prepared our White Paper flowing from Edwards, we visualised—I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates this—that there would be bound initially under the Airways Board to be a marrying of common services such as freight handling, hotels and computer development. On this latter point, if B.O.A.C., with its Boadicea computer system, and B.E.A., with its Beacon computer system, had developed each system uniformly from the outset, I doubt if we would have spent as much as £72 million on these two separate computer systems.
  Then there is the question of marketing, and here there is a good possibility of a merger, along with the development of inclusive tours. These could sensibly be merged to the advantage of both Corporations, with many subsequent savings.
  I therefore wonder, since this legislation will be introduced during the time of this borrowing period, if all these points have been taken into consideration, particularly since the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the initial sum in the Bill and the other sum which will follow by way of an Order to be laid later. It seems that this could very much affect B.O.A.C.'s finances.
  Allied with this is the possibility that in the next Session the Board will be established and, as a result, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. could be merged, thereby bringing into being for the first time a national and international airline under one flag and one Board. This is quite feasible within the borrowing timetable envisaged under the Bill.
  The Minister has so far not revealed his thoughts on the possible merger or on its timing. This is bound to affect the borrowing requirements of B.O.A.C., so I invite him to tell us what he has in mind. A merger of services could mean less borrowing, aircraft and maintenance, an effect on employment, route nationalisation, more efficient use of aircraft and services, and so on, if the Corporations get together fairly quickly.
  As the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, and it was gratifying to the House to hear him, B.O.A.C. has done

  1303
  very well. He said that it had made excellent progress in recent times. Over the last six years it has been showing good operating surpluses and an accumulated figure of £133·7 million, culminating, in the Corporation's last full financial year, in an operating surplus of £31·1 million.
  From March, 1966, to March, 1977, we as a Government set a target of return on net assets of 12½ per cent., but over this period B.O.A.C. has managed an overall return of 17·4 per cent. Last year, also, the amount of revenue earned in foreign currency was a record at £136·7 million. Those hon. Members, especially on the other side of the House, who had doubts about the benefits of public dividend capital must agree that it has been a worthy innovation for B.O.A.C. and, indeed, has been to the benefit of the Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to the success that B.O.A.C. has achieved, and that success is spelled out in the Corporation's annual report. It states:
  "Some may be tempted to give all the credit for this profit record to the fact that B.O.A.C.'s financial structure was re-shaped by the Air Corporations Act, 1966 which wrote off £79·9 million of losses and created a reconstruction reserve of £30·1 million as of 1st April, 1965. This reconstruction was necessary and has played an important part in setting B.O.A.C.'s feet on the road to success.
  Having said that, however, it can now be recorded that had no capital reconstruction taken place B.O.A.C.'s profits during the subsequent five years would have been sufficient both to pay appropriate interest on all capital provided by H.M.G. and to eliminate by 31st March, 1970 the loss of £79·9 million that had accumulated at 31st March, 1965."
  Let me therefore say to B.O.A.C. that this also gives enormous pleasure to those in this House who are keen to see the successful development of our civil aviation Corporations.
  B.O.A.C., like most of its international competitors, has been riding high on top of the aviation industry's cycle, but the decline may now have begun. The first sign was clearly given yesterday with the publication of B.O.A.C.'s half-yearly report showing a net profit of £8½ million, which is down from £11·7 million in the same period last year. There were many factors in this. Hijacking security precautions have cost something. There
  1304
  has been a loss of revenue from the idle 747s. Competitors operating 747s are creaming off some of the North Atlantic market. There has been a fall in Middle East traffic. But apart from these special factors I think that everyone realises that the civil aviation industry is entering a period of cyclical decline and, indeed, international competitors are on the slide faster than is B.O.A.C.
  The short-term concern for B.O.A.C. is very evident. Unit costs are rising and revenue yields are falling. Smaller surpluses are expected next year. Wages and fuel costs are on the increase. And, apart from a slowing down of growth in the United Kingdom market, operators are concerned about over-capacity generally in civil aviation allied with the progressive fall in average fares. And all this at a time when the Government are hell-bent on a course of taking away £6 million of annual route revenue, mainly from B.O.A.C. This will severly injure the Corporation at a time of down-turn in its operations and it shows an almost callous indifference to public Corporation's difficulties.
  With reference to the Corporation's down-turn in profits, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the forecast he gave in the statement which he issued from the Board of Trade on 3rd August dealing with a second force independent airline is right? In paragraph 6 of that statement he said:
  "Forecasts of inter-continental traffic point to an expansion of about 14 per cent. a year up to 1975."
  He gave that expansion as one of the major reasons for hiving off profitable routes from B.O.A.C. We would like to know whether that forecast of a 14 per cent. per annum increase in intercontinental traffic to 1975 is still true, especially having in mind United States aviation companies' difficulties—as well as those, apparently, of our major Corporation—because if those forecasts are wrong the right hon. Gentleman should think afresh about this hiving off of so many profitable routes from B.O.A.C.
  We might have had more information from the right hon. Gentleman about the Boeing 747s. We have ordered 12 of them at a cost of £120 million. The right hon. Gentleman said that three have already arrived and that three will come early next year. The trouble is

  1305
  that the three that have arrived are standing idle. There are mounting losses because of the B.O.A.C.-B.A.L.P.A. dispute on manning and rates of pay. There are various reports of the losses, but it would appear that B.O.A.C. is losing about £25,000 a day, which means that it may already have lost between £4 million and £5 million. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House now, especially when we are dealing with a B.O.A.C. borrowing powers Bill, to what extent the Corporation has suffered because of this dispute, and how much it has lost because of these invaluable assets standing idle at Heathrow. He should also tell us when the dispute is likely to be resolved. Apart from the obvious waste of assets, the loss of North Atlantic traffic has still to be recaptured. I hope that we may be told more about that.
  The Minister referred to possible payments for Concorde in 1971. Within this future borrowing, investment in Concorde by B.O.A.C. must play a part, even with the initial payment under the Bill and not necessarily waiting for payment under the Order. B.O.A.C. has made it clear that it would like to go supersonic, and it is a potential customer for eight Concordes. However, there are doubts about the future of the aircraft, and surely this is the time, before moneys are earmarked by B.O.A.C. for the purchase, to have those doubts removed.
  I do not want to damn this project. It is a fine technical achievement and a classic example of Anglo-French co-operation, and it is a pace setter in supersonic aviation. Neither do I want to feed the anti-Concorde American lobby. Unfortunately, the United States can determine Concorde's life or death: the 16 airlines which have the first 74 options on Concorde will certainly be awaiting the final American reaction.
  But one must question the commercial investment and its return to B.O.A.C. The Government cannot get a commercial return on their investment—that is recognised without doubt. The estimated cost of the research and development on the Anglo-French Concordes has now risen to £825 million. Actual costs so far are £240 million by the United Kingdom and £220 million by France, and from this month to the end of the project another £165 million will be required by the
  1306
  United Kingdom and another £200 million from France, a total investment—although I hesitate to say that because no doubt it will go higher, but at this stage—of £825 million.
  The most recent estimate of the cost of the Concorde aircraft is more than £12 million. Therefore, B.O.A.C. will be expected to purchase its initial option of eight at a cost of at least £100 million. Do the Government really believe that B.O.A.C. can operate this costly aircraft and obtain a satisfactory financial return?
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I do not wish to be controversial, but I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would say on what he bases the cost figure he has given.
  Mr. Mason: I have had to glean the cost from the reliable aviation journals, which estimated in 1968 that the cost of a Concorde aircraft would be about £10 million. Since then, because of inflation in wages, and so on, the cost has risen to about £12 million. A lot will depend upon to what extent the Government are prepared to write down investment in research and development. The cost could be much more than that, but I have been conservative and I wish to be helpful in the hope that we can extract from the Minister some general views about how Concorde will be able to go into service with B.O.A.C. with B.O.A.C. extracting a satisfactory financial return.
  I should like to know from the Minister what will be B.O.A.C.'s position. Concorde looks like being an extremely costly aircraft. Will B.O.A.C. have to take it? Will the Government decree that it is in the national interest and foist this aircraft on B.O.A.C. irrespective of their commercial judgment? If so, will they consider compensating B.O.A.C. for its losses? That may seem a little hypothetical and a matter of questioning a little ahead of time, but the Bill asks for sums of money, some of which will be used for the purchase and operating of Concorde aircraft. Therefore, some indication of the Government's thinking about this aircraft being introduced into service by B.O.A.C. should be given at a time when the Government are asking for moneys with which Concorde might be purchased.
  This Bill and the subsequent order cover a period of heavy investment by

  1307
  B.O.A.C., not just in supersonic aircraft, but in wide-bodied aircraft. B.O.A.C. has been quite frank about the aircraft. It has said that its studies have not yet shown that its operation of Concorde would have a beneficial effect on its overall financial results. So at this stage it sees Concorde as a loss-maker and yet all the research and development costs—£825 million so far and no doubt more to come—have not yet come to light. B.O.A.C. is among the most successful airlines in the world. I wonder how the others are reacting.
  I know that next year the two Governments involved will be considering afresh the future of this project, but it so happens that the moneys for B.O.A.C.'s investment programme are being considered now. Therefore, this is the time for the Minister to give an explanation before this proposed extra borrowing is agreed.
  The Opposition do not oppose the Bill, but I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us an indication about when the aviation Bill covering the Civil Aviation Authority and the Airways Board is likely to be introduced. Will he tell us to what extent B.O.A.C. has lost money on the three idle Boeing 747s? What does he feel about the possibility of B.O.A.C. having to take Concorde irrespective of cost? These questions are relevant to this Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give satisfactory and substantial replies.
  4.24 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I have no intention of detaining the House long because there is later important business to occupy the minds of hon. Members, but there are one or two points which I should like to make, and, if not provoked, I shall try to be non-controversial.
  First—and it seems that an increasing number of my contributions in the Chamber begin with this comment—I wish that we had a more explanatory Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Not for the first time I am led to suggest that much of the valuable background information in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade could have been made available to the House earlier and without difficulty by its being incorporated in the Explanatory Memorandum.
  1308
  I do not believe the final sentence of the Explanatory Memorandum, which reads:
  "The Bill will cause no changes in the number of industrial or non-industrial civil servants or in the numbers of staff employed by B.O.A.C.".
  If B.O.A.C. is to make use of the powers in the Bill which enable it to borrow three times the amount of money which it is at present authorised to borrow, it is very likely that it will end up employing more people. Why it was thought appropriate to put this normally welcome phrase in the Explanatory Memorandum I do not know. I do not want to be told the answer to that, but I do not believe what it says.
  On both sides of the House—and let there be no party wrangling about this matter—there is a genuine desire that B.O.A.C. should flourish and should go from success to success. We may differ about the precise reasons for the success it has been able to claim in its latest accounts. There are people who see its success as stemming at least in part from decisions on aircraft purchases, which represented a conscious desire to limit the capacity which the Corporation was prepared to try to sell and to maximise its profit in that way. Some people have bitter memories about cancellations of VC10s and matters of that kind, but it will do us no good to dwell on them now. Neither side of the House should be doubted when it says that it wishes B.O.A.C. to succeed, even though it may not wish it success for precisely the same reasons.
  We see a reflection in the latest published figures of business which has been lost to B.O.A.C., as it has been lost to other airlines, as a result of the hijackings last summer. B.O.A.C. deserves a degree of credit from the people of this country for the high standard of security which it has since maintained and for the fact which is comparatively rare among international airlines, that it can claim to have detected more than one would-be hijacker before he succeeded in boarding the aero-plane.
  The more serious and avoidable shortfalls in profit in the latest figures stem from the continuing deadlock over the Boeing 747s. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was right to draw attention to this matter. I do not believe that it can be any consolation

  1309
  to B.O.A.C. to have the most modified and no doubt the safest Boeing 747s in airline service. The engines have been brought up to date. The wings cannot be in danger of falling off because they have scarcely been flexed. The fact that these very expensive devices are safe is no compensation for the fact that these aircraft are lying in a corner of the tarmac.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Rusting.
  Mr. Onslow: I trust that they are not rusting.
  We know the reasons for this and we must wish that the deadlock could be broken. For a long time there has been a complete communications block between the B.O.A.C. management and its pilots. I will not try to attribute reasons for it; I merely state it as a fact which we all know. It was recognised on page 24 of the Corporation's Annual Report for 1968–69, which states:
  "It is a matter for great regret that relations with B.A.L.P.A. proved unsatisfactory and very careful consideration is being given to ways and means of improving the atmosphere in which important outstanding negotiations in respect of pilots' salary and working conditions will have to be conducted."
  I am at a loss to see from the way in which events have developed what
  "new ways and means of improving the atmosphere"
  have been found. They do not appear to have yielded any significant results, even though there have been changes in the negotiating team on the B.A.L.P.A. side and even though the pilots do not wish to be obstructive but are prepared to be conciliatory. I hope that Mr. Keith Granville's advent in office as Chairman of the Corporation will be marked by real progress being made to solve this intractable problem. If nothing else, there might be an agreement on an interim basis to get 747 crew training going and to leave the final negotiation of a formula to a later date. Something along those lines might commend itself to both sides.
  I repeat a proposal which I am conscious of having made before and in which I have had the unlooked-for backing of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), that the Nationalised Industries Committee eventually might have to interest itself in this apparently
  1310
  insoluble problem. It must be of concern to us, not just in the context of current industrial disputes but as a general matter, that there is this continuing deadlock in a vital area of industrial relations and that the reasons for it should be so difficult to detect.
  If I might interpolate a point here, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if we could get B.O.A.C.'s 747s, present and prospective into the air, it might be possible for the corporation to dispose of the 707s which would become surplus to requirements by selling them to B.E.A. for use by B.E.A. Airtours, instead of Airtours having to import at considerable dollar cost other secondhand 707s from the other side of the Atlantic, as it proposes at present. Given that one of the consequences of the statement that we heard earlier today must be a higher commitment to dollar purchases of aircraft, I hope that this point will receive serious consideration.
  The next matter is the Concorde. I am not as pessimistic about it as the right hon. Member for Barnsley appears to be. I believe that it is a project which will succeed on its merits and that its merits are becoming steadily more obvious. When the right hon. Gentleman read a statement of the latest B.O.A.C. attitude to the Concorde, he might have recognised that it represents a considerable step forward from the sort of impression that we tended to get from B.O.A.C. some six months ago. In other words, there has been a detectable increase in the corporation's enthusiasm for the Concorde as a vehicle. It still sees problems, of course, but it is no longer true that the Hastings and Thanet Building Society has given Concorde more publicity than B.O.A.C. However, there is room for Air France to put itself behind the success of the Concorde, for this is a project in which the French nation is just as interested as we are. Although there must be doubts until the final details are known, and although that cannot be yet because the manufacturers have not done all their calculations, the fact that there are doubts does not mean that they will not be resolved. It certainly does not mean that the Concorde will not prove a success in airline service.
  At present, we hear it said that the distinctive noise of the 747 is made by the people inside it screaming for drinks.

  1311
  When the Concorde is in service, we shall get back to real first-class air travel. The conditions in terms of time on the journey which are critical to those who might be called professional air travellers and in terms of the kind of service that they can expect in the air and on the ground at each end will be so superior to the kind of flying omnibus that the 747 really is, that there will be no question about their willingness to pay a premium fare. As soon as B.O.A.C. and Air France put the Concorde into general airline service, I believe that we shall find the first class lounges of the 747s empty, and that the passengers will move to the faster, more comfortable and more efficient vehicle.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that interesting point, a genuine doubt which arises in the minds of the critics of the Concorde's further development and the vast expenditure of capital required to make it a viable aircraft is what will be the number of special travellers who can or will be willing to pay a premium fare for this kind of travel. No one can make any estimate of the number of people likely to be available to ride in this very expensive aircraft. That is the real economic sticking point.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Neither he nor I can prove that we are right in what we say on this point. It would be absurd to suggest otherwise. If he were to press me to produce an additional reason, I would say that I believe that those who look into the medical aspects of air travel have also established another advantage which the Concorde will have over slower vehicles in that it will cut the amount of time that a passenger has to spend in an air-conditioned and pressurised atmosphere to below the level at which he begins to suffer seriously from the effects of dehydration. On similar flights in a 747, he spends two, three or four hours beyond that critical point and the effects on him and his efficiency when he gets to his destination are measurable and established. What is more, they are known to the people who cover 200,000 miles a year by air. I do not say that I am one of them, or that the hon. Gentleman is. But there are a growing number of people who come into that category and who, understandably, as they are pre-
  1312
  pared to pay for a more efficient means of giving dictation or transmitting their ideas, will be willing to pay for a more efficient means of carrying themselves round the world. I think that I will be proved right in this because I regard myself as being on the side of progress. But when it comes to it, the hon. Gentleman and I can go into a corner and talk it over again.
  I conclude on this point. B.O.A.C. has a new Chairman. In his initial remarks on taking up his new appointment he has done much to carry the kind of conviction that he should. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Barnsley must have been pleased to hear Mr. Granville say, among other things, that he sees no difficulty in offsetting the business loss of the transfer of routes to the second force in which B.O.A.C. would be involved. By that, he meant that vigorous management and a competitive attitude would very soon recover the ground which would be lost in the process of transfer. That is all to the good, and I believe that it is the optimists who will be proved right rather than the pessimists. I hope that the right hon. Member for Barnsley will not mind if I say that I trust that in due time we shall be able to welcome him amongst the optimists.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Time is very much on our minds, and I do not want to strain the indulgence of the House. I intend to make a few observations and ask one or two probing questions of my right hon. Friend.
  It is obvious that the borrowing powers are necessary in view of the long-term re-equipment programme of B.O.A.C. However, one factor that is extremely disturbing is the dollar element involved. I would like further and more detailed elucidation from my right hon. Friend. Earlier today the House received news from the Minister for Aviation Supply, which concerned another corporation, admittedly, but which will incur the country in a vast addition of dollar expenditure for the purchase of foreign aircraft that we should be building ourselves.
  B.O.A.C.'s record of profit has not only been achieved by the Guthrie reforms and by the limitation of the amount of capacity offered to the market: it was

  1313
  achieved also by having the most admirable aircraft in its class, the indigenously-built VC10. The British airframe and manufacturing industry should take credit for the achievement that led to the profit made by B.O.A.C. which we have been praising for the last few years.
  If my right hon. Friend succeeds in catching your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will give us a few assurances about long-term plans in terms of dollar expenditure by B.O.A.C. on the purchase of foreign aircraft.
  The Government envisage the establishment of an Air Holdings Board and they intend to superimpose it on the two corporations. When that occurs, it is not entirely hypothetical to say that it could rationally lead to the establishment of a British Airways Corporation. When this examination of route structures takes place under the Air Holdings Board, it could well come out of its deliberations that an extended version, let us say of the Lockheed Tristar, would fulfil British Overseas Airways Corporation's requirements exceedingly well. In that case, it will involve an even higher dollar cost.
  I do not know how we are to pay for this sort of dollar expenditure. Take, for example, the balance of payments in May. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), then Prime Minister, was saying that it would lead to a balance of payments crisis just to import three Jumbo jets. Yet we are to have a fleet of no fewer than 12. These matters really should exercise our minds in the long term.
  Then there is the question of Concorde. I was delighted at the bold statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). He has always had faith in the British industry, and rightly so. I should still like a further positive statement of affirmation from my right hon. Friend on Concorde because B.O.A.C.s future is staked on that aircraft. I believe it is the right aircraft for the job in the late 1970s. There will be a requirement for premium travel, with a premium fare. The market has always gone to the fastest airliner with the shortest journey time.
  We can be certain that if we lose faith the French will not, and the blue-riband on the Atlantic will be sported by Air France if B.O.A.C. shows any
  1314
  pusillanimity or faint-heartedness over Concorde. That is another matter for which we are legislating.
  These extra funds will pay for the investment on Concorde, and I believe they are well spent. They are well spent today when B.A.C. has already received one hard knock. If it were to receive another hard knock over Concorde, indigenous British airliner construction would come to a halt overnight.
  Route transfers, to which the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) alluded, are a once-for-all transaction. The transfer of the West African routes is a comparatively small matter when taken into account with the rest of the route structure of B.O.A.C. It is a permanent structure. More important than that is this. When the Air Holdings Board gets to work, and perhaps when we get the greater degree of co-operation and rationalisation leading to my hypothetical merger, I would hope that the second force will be free, where I.A.T.A. allows it, to compete much more freely with the State corporation because it is from competition with the independent sector, with the second force, that the spur to still greater efficiency will come for B.O.A.C.
  I shall be looking to a dual designation on the North Atlantic. This will be to the benefit of B.O.A.C. If there is a marginal decrease in profit for B.O.A.C. on that route, the overall British share will be increased, and there again we have by this Bill financed borrowing powers which in the short term might be necessary.
  On the question of pilot relations, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. There has been far too little understanding by management of the problems faced by air crew, and, obviously, vice-versa. We must take into account the fact that in these days air crew in the State corporations are exceedingly highly-trained personnel. They look for their occupation not only in the British market but also in the worldwide market, and we are competing in the world market for their services. Thanks to the cripplingly high marginal rate of taxation in this country, they are particularly badly served for being loyal to the British corporations and to British aviation. We really must open up these avenues of communication

  1315
  if valuable investments in dollar terms and in financial terms generally are not to be left idle.
  I hope my right hon. Friend will be encouraging a much greater participation by air crew in management in the corporation, because this will be helpful in the longer term.
  I shall say no more now, as we are to discuss God's time very shortly, except that I heartily support and endorse this Measure.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: I shall be even briefer than the two preceding speakers.
  Several matters have arisen from the debate to which I should like to refer. First of all, very unusually, and, I am sure, to his acute embarrassment, I find myself in agreement on two points with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). First, I completely agree that it would have been more useful if we could have had a somewhat fuller introduction in the Bill itself rather than in the opening remarks of the Minister. It would have been to the general convenience of hon. Members interested in the subject if we could have seen it in print earlier, and it would have helped us in forming our thoughts about these matters.
  Secondly—and this may surprise the hon. Gentleman even more—I agree with the substance of his remarks on the Concorde aircraft. Therefore, to some extent I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on this vexed question.
  Of course, there are doubts. It can only be a pretty evenly balanced argument because many of the factors that we are trying to weigh or measure are not as yet known. But I believe there are two things that should bring us, on balance, still down on the side of continuing with the Concorde project. The first is what has now become a very decisive time-lead in terms of entry into the supersonic field in commercial flying. What a short while ago appeared to be a two or three year lead at the most looks, if one judges from reports emanating from Washington recently, as though it may now be doubled or even trebled in time. Although there are certain disadvantages in that we may
  1316
  be doing the testing run, so to speak, for the American aviation industry, none the less there are also great commercial advantages in having this sort of lead into the supersonic commercial flying era.
  The other thing which ought to be said is on the question of the spin-off effects of this great enterprise. This is not a very easy matter to weigh up and decide upon, but I was confirmed in my suspicion that they could in the long run be of the greatest possible importance to our future prosperity and economic health by reference to a conversation that I had some months ago with a friend—he is not a close friend—who happens to be an eminent scientist and technologist and who has a profound knowledge of the technology as well as the economics of aircraft manufacture and related subjects. I deliberately played devil's advocate, putting to him the anti-Concorde lobby's point of view, more or less. I will not go into the details of the answer that he gave, but he summed up his feelings very well by saying—and he has no axe to grind—"Look, old man, if it were a question of towing them up to the top of a cliff and pushing them over, I would still be in favour of this project going ahead".
  That is, perhaps, a very dramatic way of putting it, but it left its impact on me. He was alluding to the spin-off effects, and here he was eminently qualified to speak because his disciplines range from physics to technology, chemistry, engineering and various other matters. Although I have deliberately refrained from mentioning his name, he is also a very well-known figure in broadcasting and television on these subjects. He persuaded me that there was this tremendous follow-through benefit for us if we would go ahead.
  My next point relates to the question of these enormous sums of money to which reference has been made from time to time, and to which the Minister alluded in his speech. There are vast amounts of public money which over the years have been put into Concorde and various other aerospace projects of that sort. I will not weary the House by the classical statement of the case for the socialisation of the aircraft industry, but I still profoundly believe that justice demands no less than that. I have always been against the Conservative policy of "socialising"

  1317
  the losses and "privatising" the profits of the aircraft industry.
  In passing, may I say to the House and to hon. Members opposite, in particular, that when I listen to them expressing their good wishes for the continued prosperity of B.O.A.C.—and at this point in the drama the tears start to roll—all I can say is that, if they want to show an earnest of their good wishes, they might even at this late hour reverse their decision about the "second force" private airline and by such an act of redemption and cancellation, pay a real tribute to B.O.A.C. and its future.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I trust that when the hon. Gentleman used the words "pay tribute" he meant them in a purely verbal sense. We become accustomed sometimes to paying tribute in other senses.
  In supporting this Bill, which is not a very novel position to adopt today, I should like to say how pleased I am—and I am sure that all my former colleagues in B.O.A.C. are also pleased—that Keith Granville has been appointed Chairman of that Corporation. We all regard him as a professional in the airline business, who has devoted his life to his airline, and whose whole motivation, even at times when he and I did not quite see eye to eye—and that does not relate only to the second force—has always been what he thought was the good of his airline, as he has always regarded it.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Tebbit: I particularly welcome his utterly tough and professional approach, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), towards this second force, which is "O.K., now I will go out and get the business to make up for this." This is absolutely creditable. It is the right attitude, and clearly already that spur of competition is moving even a man as fast off the mark as Keith Granville to greater efforts for his airline.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: It still does not excuse what hon. Members opposite have done.
  Mr. Tebbit: It does not excuse it. It does not need an excuse. It explains it
  1318
  more fully to those who could not see the point the other night.
  While talking about B.O.A.C.'s position as a borrower, and particularly as a borrower of foreign currency, we should also remember its position as an earner of foreign currency. It has been an outstanding earner of foreign currency for many years. Much of this money is not going only on foreign aircraft. Much of it will be devoted to the capital equipment necessary to operate these aircraft. Very substantial sums are involved, and almost all of it will be devoted to British equipment and will undoubtedly help to sell similar British equipment overseas. Spin-off goes a long way.
  This is possibly the best moment for us all to wish Keith Granville well with his Corporation, and to recognise the difficulties which he is facing. One difficulty which has not been mentioned is the question of the third London Airport, which we could discuss for many hours. Sufficient to say that when the report arrives eventually, all the airlines of this country and foreign operators will need it to be acted upon quickly.
  As one who was involved in the past in the unhappy disputes between the pilots and B.O.A.C., I wish to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and by other hon. Members. It is a tragic dispute. It has been investigated in one form or another by a considerable number of outside bodies. I shall, no doubt, refer to it again if I have the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair on another matter. For the moment, I say only that one does not have to picket in order to run a strike if one really knows how to do it, and perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite may be surprised to know that we have some knowledge of these matters nowadays on our side of the House.
  Above all, in view of the history of outside intervention, it would be prudent of us all to try to settle these disputes, bearing in mind that a dispute still rankles, and that, perhaps, secret diplomacy is best in these matters. In the end, the two parties must come together and understand each other. For my part, I believe that there is a severe weakness of middle management in the Corporation, and this is much of the trouble.

  1319
  But, if anyone is to intervene from outside, I suggest that he does it by taking the two leading participants away quietly, not telling anyone, to a hotel room, setting in a suitable supply of victuals, and making sure that they sit down and come to an agreement which is not imposed on them from outside. That, of course, could have relevance to other disputes as well.
  I do not see the future for the industry as being so dark as the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) painted it. Ten years ago, everyone saw a dark future for the airline industry, but it came out into a period of almost unparalleled prosperity. The provisions which we are making today will enable B.O.A.C. to take part in another wave of outstanding prosperity, and I am happy to support the Bill.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: In following my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), who has a detailed practical knowledge of the problems of the air Corporations, I wish to say how much I, too, should like to see an early solution to the 747 dispute. It is a great pity to see these large aircraft—three of them now—sitting on the tarmac at London Airport. We have seen them there for six months or more, and the waste of public money involved is really a disgrace. I am sure that what my hon. Friend said is correct. The only way to settle the dispute is for the parties to come together, face up to it, and come to a working solution.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) showed a rather cavalier attitude to the expenditure of public money on the development of Concorde. I agree with most of what he said about the benefits of spin-off, but one cannot put out of one's mind that the cost to date, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said, is about £825 million, and who doubts that the final bill may come nearer to £1,000 million, split between France and Britain? This is a very large sum of money to go on two development aircraft in pre-production and another which will be destroyed in testing. At a figure nearing £1,000 million, even the most optimistic forecast of sales at about 80 or 90 aircraft makes it more than £10
  1320
  million per aircraft, before we really start building any Concordes at all.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: But will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, using our imagination and projecting into the wider industrial field, we must accept that even these seemingly astronomical sums may well be only a small down payment on a very prosperous economic future?
  Mr. McMaster: I think that the hon. Gentleman is looking rather further into the future than a reasonably prudent man would. I was forecasting sales of 80 or 90 aircraft, and that goes for 10, 15 or 20 years ahead. Who can see as far ahead as that in aviation?
  I come now to one or two questions to my right hon. Friend, and I take, first, the forecast merger of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. under the Air Holdings Board. How would this affect the borrowing powers, and, in particular, would it enable B.O.A.C. to plan through routes to America and the Continent? Does the hon. Gentleman foresee that it will assist our traffic? One knows from flying to America, for example, that an airline which can offer through travel to the West Coast is in a better position than one which can fly only to the East Coast of America. The same can work in reverse, flying through London to Continental destinations, principally Paris, but also to places in Italy and Germany and elsewhere.
  I cannot agree with all the pessimism which has been expressed earlier in the debate. The whole country today seems to be indulging in a bout of self-examination and pessimism. Inflation is a problem, but I feel that we are a little over-obsessed at the moment with ideas of recession. Let us remember that what we are talking about is a fall in the rate of increase in the gross national product. It is a small matter of 1 or 2 per cent. at the most, and it is in the rate of increase. The growth of the gross national product goes on from year to year; the country grows wealthier at an astonishing rate, and the world does, too. This reflects itself on the amount of air travel.
  It is common knowledge—I recently saw it myself on the other side of the Atlantic—that there has been an oversupply of capacity, particularly in the large air buses and the 747, and, as a

  1321
  result, the main airlines in the United States are suffering from surplus capacity. But I believe that this is a temporary phenomenon, and that looking into the future, as we must in considering the affairs of our two great Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., we can look forward to a gradual increase in the gross domestic product and the traffic which that is bound to generate in the longer term.
  I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the creation of the second force. On my recent trip I saw the effect of competition in the United States and how it sharpens the edge of the service given. I am sure that a second force, which takes only 2½ or 3 per cent. of traffic—£6 million worth, a very small bite out of the total traffic for which the Corporations cater—can do nothing but good.
  I deplore that B.O.A.C.'s share of the North Atlantic traffic has fallen in the past few years. I hope that the entry of a second British force into the field will help to redress the balance, so that Britain can go on increasing her share not only of the profitable Atlantic traffic but of traffic elsewhere in the world, too. The competition offered by a second British operator is bound to have that desirable effect.
  I do not wish to conclude without saying a word about Sir Charles Hardie. A word of congratulation is due to him. I congratulate Mr. Keith Granville on his appointment, and I am sure that we are in for a period of continued growth, but I feel, at the same time, that Sir Charles Hardie, who has steered the air corporations into a period of profit after a period of unprofitability, deserves the congratulation of the House.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I wish to say a few words, with the Bill as my excuse. As we all know, not much can be said about the Bill itself. It is merely a point at which we are pausing in a fairly long chain of development. During that period of development, I have, as it were, grown up in the House, for it dates almost from the time when I became a Member of Parliament. I travelled initially down here, with four of my colleagues, in a DH-Rapide at 95 m.p.h. That was in 1947, and the Rapides which carried us successfully then, without much interrupt-
  1322
  tion, continued to do so for two or three years. But we realised that we could not creep from Glasgow to London; we had to fly—and the days of crawling passed and the days of faster travel came in.
  The capital represented by Parliament and the nation was put behind the private enterprise which was operating and promoting aircraft like the Rapide, because that particular enterprise did not have money in sufficient quantity to back the type of development which was becoming an obvious need. So we had the intervention of the Government and the creation of a new type of aircraft which could fly at 150 m.p.h. and speeds a little beyond that. But State aid for that step was essential. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will not dissent from this.
  Development has not ceased. Having travelled at speeds less than sound, we now want to travel, and are beginning to travel, at speeds greater than sound. More money is required, and at this stage the State must play a greater rôle.
  The type of aircraft presented to us now, for example, the 747, creates problems for the men who will be employed on it, problems of remuneration, problems of more fascinating travel, so to speak, and problems of far greater scope than are presented by aircraft like the 707. But the development goes on, and will continue to go on. It has led to a branching off. While B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are beginning to come together to form a unit, we are creating at the same time another force which, allegedly, will be a constant prod to keep the new combination which is shaping itself continually in action But I venture to suggest that this set-up will not last too long. In a little while, the new group will come in. For my part, I welcome Caledonian because I have known them since they started. I think that I can call Adam Thomson a friend, not because he is a Scotsman but because I have known him since he started on his pioneering career. He will be an adornment to this service, and I am certain that in due course the group working with him will be part and parcel of the State combine represented by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. This has been happening under our noses all through the period during which some of us have been flying to and from Glasgow.

  1323
  I regret the disastrous deadlock over the 747. It is a pity that so much capital should be lying idle with seemingly no feasible solution. I hope that perhaps some of us who will be at a certain function tonight may be able to say a word or two about what we have been discussing this evening.
  The other development which I also particularly welcome is Concorde. I had the privilege of making the first speech in the House in support of Concorde in 1964. Looking back, and re-reading the debate, I agree that our knowledge of Concorde then was rudimentary, but the ideas of those who supported the continuing investment in Concorde and pursuing its development were correct. They have been proved so by the success which has already followed the supersonic flight. We hear a great deal about noise, as if noise were unusual in the age in which we live; but I am certain that Concorde, the summit of aviation progress in the world, will go on to be a tremendous success.
  If this little debate in any way, by a kindly thought in support of the continued development of Concorde, plays a part in helping on that progress which I believe is inherent in the idea of Concorde, it will have been worth while.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I find many paradoxes in this short debate, having listened to the speech of the Minister and other hon. Members. The Bill seeks to increase B.O.A.C.'s borrowing powers with a view to strengthening its fleet, making it much more viable, improving its service to its customers, and becoming an outstanding success as a national airline.
  Several theories have been advanced, and I could not help but reflect on that put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who said that B.O.A.C.'s trade on the North Atlantic route had dropped, but that the introduction of the second force would help to improve the situation. I do not know how he reaches his conclusion, because, if the trade has dropped and B.O.A.C. and the new second force may now fight over it, we could well lose more trade as a result of such wasteful competition or duplication of services in that part of the world.
  1324
  I am trying to discover just what we are discussing, what theories are being put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) talks about the Concorde. Nobody wants to stand in the way of technical revolutions or flying revolutions, but we are duty-bound to have regard to the effect of such machines on the lives of the people below. Instruments have been installed in buildings on the West Coast of Scotland to assess the physical effect of sonic booms from such an aeroplane flying at 1,000 m.p.h. and the effect on human life of its terrifying noise and the frightening implications for the human system. We must study this and have regard to it when spending public money to purchase such machines.
  Mr. Rankin: When flying over land neither Concorde nor any other supersonic plane will fly at such supersonic speeds.
  Mr. Dempsey: I appreciate that, but it has been widely reported that Concorde is flying along the West Coast of Scotland, and certain buildings from Oban to the South-West have been monitored because the flight path is very close to the mainland there. By all means, let us encourage improvements in our flying techniques, but we must never forget our responsibility to protect people and property below.
  The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) knows something about flying, I understand. I am sure that he will agree that the faster a plane flies the less chance the pilot has of seeing something in front of him, and so the danger is greater, even in flight lanes. In a radio discussion between a pilot and an official of a British air Corporation I heard the pilot make that very point, which seems to be completely overlooked, that in spite of all our flight paths and lanes and our traffic facilities there is always that danger. It is not my argument. I know nothing about flying planes; I just sit in them. But I certainly listen to a pilot when he says something like that. The hon. Gentleman might laugh, but the pilot made it clear that flying at 500 or 600 m.p.h. he has a better chance of seeing something than at 1,000 m.p.h. That is logic. It is a fair comment.
  There is a great danger that we are spending public money in going for aircraft that are too big and too fast. In

  1325
  the case of the 747, for instance, it is well known, especially to those responsible for managing our air Corporations, that there must be a minimum passenger load to ensure that a flight is economically viable, no matter where it is going. The larger the plane, the larger the minimum passenger load to ensure that its operation is economic and that greater burdens are not imposed on the taxpayers.
  I should like the Minister to assure us that all these aspects have been examined, and that he is satisfied, as are his Corporation chiefs, that such large planes represent economically sound investment for the British taxpayer's money.
  I condemn wasteful competition between B.O.A.C. and the new second force, Caledonian-B.U.A. But I also condemn wasteful competition between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Every step should be taken to see that we do not have two national Corporations serving the same airport, as happens in Rome, for example. Steps should be taken to avoid any wasteful competition which might arise where, for example, flights are duplicated. If we are to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides capital for a British national air Corporation to operate, we are within our rights in asking those responsible to ensure that such wasteful competition does not exist.
  That does not mean to imply that I am convinced by or wedded to an amalgamation between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I believe that they serve two different functions, one short haul and the other long haul. The nature of the travelling and of the flight is different in each. If I join a flight from Glasgow to London, I can get my ticket in a couple of minutes but if I want to go to another part of the world it takes a lot longer to get my ticket and more staff and accommodation are needed. The whole nature of the operation, even administratively, is different in long-haul operations from short-haul operations.
  There is a growing belief that, if amalgamation takes place, nothing is more certain than that the short haul will be sacrificed for the long haul, since the long-haul routes will obviously be more profitable. If the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating amalgamation, he should give serious consideration to the implica-
  1326
  tions of such a step. I am sure that, at the end of the day, we will all decide on what we feel is in the best interests of our national corporations and of the nation as a whole.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Noble: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will answer the debate. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) accused me, for the second time in a week, of having made a short speech. This is the first time in my recollection in this House that anyone has criticised a Front Bencher for making a short speech. If it is a criticism, then I can only reply that I intend to go on earning it wherever possible. He asked me to reply to several points and I will do my best to do so, but I have discovered that if one writes notes on a piece of paper and sits on it, it disappears behind one on this Bench and one cannot get it out.
  First, I deal with the question of the proposed Airways Board. In my speech last week proposing the setting up of the Board—the legislation will come before the House this Session—I tried to make it clear that we would leave it to the Board to decide whether or not a merger of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. was right and sensible, because I do not feel that this is something which the Government should decide from the outside. I believe that the new Board should look at the matter from the inside. If it comes to the conclusion that there should be a merger, as I have said, any decision of that kind will have to come to Parliament before it takes place, and that is the right course.
  Mr. Dempsey: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it will come to Parliament before it is implemented so that Parliament itself decides? Or does he mean that, when both Corporations have arrived at a decision, no matter what we say they will have the right to implement it?
  Mr. Noble: I meant exactly what I said—that if the Airways Board decides that it would make sense for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to merge, it will be for Parliament to decide whether that is to be done.
  The figures in the Bill will be affected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said, by the

  1327
  setting up of the Airways Board, but I thought it right to produce the Bill in this form because the Board is not yet in existence and these are the best estimates we can make of what B.O.A.C. is likely to need over the next five years. Once the Airways Board becomes operational and looks at the whole problem, there may be considerable changes. The Bill is based simply on what we think B.O.A.C. is likely to need over the next five years.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me to explain or justify a statement I made in August about the growth of B.O.A.C. traffic at 14 or 15 per cent. He asked whether I still think that to be about the right figure. It is very difficult to give an absolutely clear answer on this but B.O.A.C.'s estimates see an annual revenue growth in money terms of 18 per cent. over the next five years compared with 12 per cent. over the last five years. Of course, this being a cyclical industry, one gets the odd year where growth may drop, but the current estimates are of an 18 per cent. growth, so the 2½ to 3 per cent. transfer of revenue is only a very small part of what B.O.A.C. itself is estimating as its growth rate.
  A number of problems about the Boeing 747 were raised by the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who takes so much interest in these debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and others. Two problems in particular were mentioned. First, what is the cost to B.O.A.C. of having these three large expensive modern aircraft sitting on the tarmac? The original estimate was about £25,000 a day. Now, B.O.A.C. says that up to 31st October it estimates that it has lost about £18,000 a day, and during the ensuing winter months the estimated loss will be less.
  The reason for this change in estimates, if one can call it that, is simply that B.O.A.C. thought this situation might last only for a short time and therefore put in the whole cost of what might have happened. But as traffic has ceased to grow as fast as it was growing over the North Atlantic, B.O.A.C. has been able over the months to make special arrangements, and during the winter the traffic is not so great in any case.
  1328
  I do not want in any way to be provocative. I want the best and quickest solution we can get to this problem of flying the Boeing 747. Everyone in this House hopes very much that B.O.A.C. and the pilots will get together and find a satisfactory solution. One knows the difficulties and the problems. These are highly skilled and highly responsible people and we hope very much that the 747 training will start soon and we shall be able to get them into the air and cut out this daily loss, at whatever figure it may then be.
  I say to the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that he was being a little unrealistic, and I do not think he or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) really want to go back to the Rapides.
  Mr. Rankin Mr. Rankin rose—
  Mr. Noble: I said I would be brief.
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie asked me to say why it was that B.O.A.C. wanted these new modern aircraft. The answer is quite simply that it is one of the largest and most successful airlines in the world, and if it is to maintain that position, as we want it to, its fleets must include the same sort of top-class modern aircraft as the fleets of its rivals.
  Mr. Rankin Mr. Rankin rose—
  Mr. Noble: I do not want to give way.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, then. The right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me words which I never used. He said that he hoped I did not want to go back to the DH-Rapide. He was linking me with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), whom I love but not in aviation matters. That was the right hon. Gentleman's excuse.
  Mr. Noble: I knew that the hon. Gentleman had not heard what I said. That is why I was trying to stop him interrupting. What I said was that I was sure the hon. Member for Govan would not want to go back to Rapides.
  Mr. Dempsey: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the other aspects of

  1329
  the question? Is he satisfied that the minimum economic load required for the 747 will be justified in making it an economic proposition?
  Mr. Noble: Clearly it is impossible to make money out of 50 people in a Jumbo jet. I know that, B.O.A.C. knows it, Mr. Keith Granville knows it, and everybody knows it. I hope we can now leave that particular bird.
  May I move quickly on to the problem of the Concorde, about which the right hon. Member for Barnsley asked me to say a word. At this stage obviously I cannot make a clear estimate of what B.O.A.C.'s thinking will be in the next few months about the possible viability of the Concorde, because B.O.A.C. does not yet know. Mr. Keith Granville spoke on the radio on the night of his appointment and I heard him say that B.O.A.C. is keen to go supersonic. We can only hope that the Concorde will meet the commitments required of it by B.O.A.C. so that the operation will be on a viable basis. A great many contributors to this debate mentioned this point. Everybody interested in the remarkable technical achievement of the Concorde hopes at this stage that the remainder of its tests will come out satisfactorily so that it can be shown to be an economic aircraft in use by airlines all over the world. Only in this way can we hope to get back some of the money that has been invested in the aircraft.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned the question of no more staff. The Bill to give B.O.A.C. more borrowing powers does not itself suggest that there are likely to be any greater manpower needs. It is the exercise of the powers, not the Bill itself, that may call for more manpower.
  I hope that I have covered all the points which were raised, points which were of interest and of importance. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) for his very kind and knowledgeable tribute to Mr. Granville, because the hon. Member worked with him for a very long time and his good wishes for his success will be appreciated. He has been a very professional manager of B.O.A.C.
  1330
  I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I wish B.O.A.C. in particular a very successful period of operation. I trust that its borrowing powers, if needed, may be well spent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to raise the limits imposed by section 16(1) of the Air Corporations Act, 1967, on borrowings by and investment in the British Overseas Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise any increases in the sums payable under the said Act of 1967 out of or into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament, being increases attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising the limits aforesaid from a maximum of £120 million to a maximum not exceeding £380 million.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

  TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I rise very briefly—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but we are operating under a Standing Order which denies debate on this item. Therefore, I must put the Question.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  BRITISH STANDARD TIME
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
  That the British Standard Time Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
  I should like to start by explaining the effect of this Motion. First may I make it clear that, although I am moving the Motion from the Government Front Bench, the Government are not taking a position in this matter. We feel that it is right that it should be decided by a free vote of the House, but the only way in which it could be brought before the House was by such a Motion of this kind.
  I should like to make clear the legal position. Either we pass this Motion and, if it is also passed in another place, British Standard Time will be made permanent or, if it is rejected, there will be a reversion to Greenwich Mean Time on 31st October, 1971. The normal period of summer time in 1972 and the subsequent years would be from the day following the third Saturday in March until the day following the fourth Saturday in October, which is about seven months. But there will be power for the Government to vary this period by Order in Council. Clearly, if there was evidence of substantial public desire for variation of the period, the Government would bring forward the necessary Order. The purpose of the debate today is to decide whether B.S.T. should be made permanent or whether we should revert to the previous system.
  My task is not to persuade the House to vote one way or the other, but briefly to put before the House the issues that we are considering. As the House is aware, we published a White Paper, "Review of British Standard Time", in October, based on work which had been commissioned by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). In this White Paper we have tried to set out as objectively as possible the factors involved in this decision.
  I should like briefly to run through them. First, there are the arguments in favour of making B.S.T. permanent. The first point relates to the social survey carried out by the Government, and the
  1332
  public opinion poll—and we all have our views about the accuracy of these polls—was very carefully conducted and was based on personal interviews. It involved some 7,000 people, which is a large sample as compared with other public opinion poll activities. Therefore, it is right for the House to give considerable attention to what the social survey indicated.
  It showed that in the mid-winter period 50 per cent. of the population favoured the British Standard Time, 41 per cent. wanted to go back to Greenwich Mean Time, and 9 per cent. were undecided—which by public opinion poll standards is rather a small proportion of "undecideds". In the spring period another check was taken and this showed that the percentage of the public in favour of B.S.T. rose to 51 per cent., with only 39 per cent. against, and 10 per cent. undecided. This was the social survey finding and, although it is in no sense decisive, it is an important piece of evidence. As I have said, it was commissioned by my predecessor in office and was carried out with care and conscientiousness.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Over which area?
  Mr. Maudling: Over the whole country. I will come to Scotland in due course.
  The second point which is often raised is in regard to schools. It is fair to say that the difficulties created for the schools by B.S.T. broadly speaking have been overcome and there are advantages in children being able to go home during a longer period of daylight.
  Thirdly, road casualties. Here again the figures, like most statistics, are open to argument; but it is fair to say that the crude figures show a certain saving of casualties over the period. I accept straight away that these figures must be accepted and treated with a good deal of reserve.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: This might be the deciding factor for myself and many hon. Members. Has the right hon. Gentleman got any more up-to-date figures about casualties in the evenings and in the mornings?
  Mr. Maudling: I cannot add any new information to that which is contained in

  1333
  the White Paper. We must treat these figures with considerable reserve. We have put before the House the best figures which we can obtain, because that is our duty.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the Road Research Laboratory's statistics which appeared in the Library today? My feeling is that those figures are different from those in the survey. Is there anything more up to date available?
  Mr. Maudling: I have not seen those figures, but I have not been told that anything produced by the Road Research Laboratory casts doubt on what is in the White Paper. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to mention that in the course of his speech if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  On the various special or particular interests in favour of retaining British Standard Time, it seems that commercial people feel that there is considerable advantage in having a time system in this country which coincides with that of Western Europe. Many people who have done business in Western Europe recognise that here is an important and clear factor; namely, that if we have the same time situation as in Western Europe throughout the year rather than having it broken, as under the old system, it is most helpful to the conduct of business and commerce.
  The tourist and travel organisations have indicated that they find British Standard Time a good thing from their point of view.
  The electricity people say that there will be a saving, which they quantify with some exactitude, of £100 million in capital expenditure and electric power generation under a system of continued British Standard Time.
  The sporting people, by and large, favour the retention of British Standard Time. They believe that the lighter afternoons in winter have led more people to participate in outdoor sports.
  Industry is divided, but, on the whole, as the White Paper shows, of the people consulted—employers and unions—60 per cent. had no strong views—this is rather interesting—35 per cent. were in favour of retaining the new system, and 5 per cent. were against it.
  1334
  Those are the main points which the Government have been able to gather together from their survey of public opinion and discussion with the interests concerned in favour of retaining British Standard Time.
  I now turn to the arguments against British Standard Time. Here Scotland particularly comes into the picture.
  Mr. J. T. Price: What about the North of England?
  Mr. Maudling: I believe that to get to Scotland one passes through the North of England.
  The survey shows that, despite the overall figures to which I referred earlier, in Scotland about 61 per cent. of people favoured reversion to Greenwich Mean Time in winter and only 34 per cent. wanted to stay with British Standard Time. This is an extremely important factor.
  In making a decision today on the basis of a free vote, I think that we should bear in mind what I saw in a leading article in the Daily Telegraph recently which seemed very sensible. It it not entirely easy for a democratic assembly to decide between a large minority which feels strongly and a majority which does not. This may be the situation here. None of us can be certain. But it is clear that those who are against British Standard Time feel more strongly about it than those who are in favour. What that means to the philosophy of our democratic process I leave to other philosophers than myself.
  Those who are opposed to British Standard Time and want to revert to the old system are led by the farming community, whose views on this matter are well known to the House, so I need not dwell on them.
  Similar views are held by the construction industry in which a substantial majorit of people concerned obviously are against British Standard Time and wish to see a reverision to the old system.
  A number of other people on outdoor work—for example, postmen and road maintenance men—also feel that the system of the long, dark mornings is bad from their point of view, and they are opposed to its continuation.
  When local authorities were canvassed about their views, it was found that 64

  1335
  per cent. held no strong views—possibly not unusual—28 per cent. were in favour of reversion to the old system and only 8 per cent. were in favour of British Standard Time.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: When my right hon. Friend says that 64 per cent. held no strong views, does he not mean that 64 per cent. did not answer that question in the questionnaire and that the authors of the review decided that they could not have held any strong views?
  Mr. Maudling: I think it is a fair presumption that they had no strong views; otherwise they would have expressed them. However, I cannot guarantee that.
  There is the further point about danger to children which is very much in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is difficult to produce any convincing figures one way or the other. There has been a surprising and sad increase in the number of child casualties between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. which is not wholly explained and rather bedevils the figures on this point. I honestly should not like to try to advise the House one way or the other. I do not think that the figures could prove that the increase in casualties in the morning is not more than balanced by the decrease in casualties in the afternoon. The figures are not clear enough to base a decision upon. I think that we should assume one way or the other that there is not a large margin either way.
  There has been a suggestion that offences against children have increased as a result of British Standard Time. It seems clear that this is not so. There is no evidence that that has come about.
  I have outlined the issues in this matter. I do not think that we should go upon detailed statistics of road casualties to children, which really cannot be argued in any detail because they are not adequate to base firm opinions upon. I do not think that we should be influenced too much by public opinion polls or even by the social survey, which I believe is a good one, carried out by the Government. This is pre-eminently a matter on which individual Members should make up their minds about what is right in the interests of the nation.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick) rose—
  Mr. Maudling: That is why I am putting this matter before the House. I am not taking a stand one way or the other. I am inviting the House to judge.
  Mr. Kaufman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? May I take it that, in the event of the House rejecting the Order, it will be necessary for the Government to come forward with a proposal for some new period?
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman was not present when I began my speech. I explained that the automatic effect of rejection of the Order is a return to the previous system.
  Mr. David James: On a point of order. I apologise for having been five seconds late in arriving. May I ask whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are proposing to call the Amendment standing in my name, at the end to add:
  'save that, at the end of paragraph (2) thereof there shall be added the following: "except for the period beginning with the second Sunday of November and ending with the third Saturday in February"'.
  or that standing in the names of several of my hon. Friends, at the end to add:
  'only when the draft has been amended so as to provide that Greenwich mean time shall extend from 14th November, 1971 to 20th February, 1972 and such other equivalent dates in future years'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): First, the Amendments to the Motion are out of order.
  Secondly, and perhaps of maximum interest to the House, more than 30 hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate have given in their names. These include six maiden speakers. I shall be able to call only four maiden speakers. It would be at least for the enjoyment of the speakers concerned if I were to say that the following maiden speakers will be called: they are the hon. Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), Preston, North (Miss Holt), and Ipswich (Mr. Money).
  I need hardly remind the House that, in view of what has already been said brief speeches would be welcome.
  Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. On the question of some 30 names having been submitted, including four maiden speakers, is the House to understand that unless an hon. Member has submitted his name indicating that he wishes to speak in the debate his prospects of being called in the debate are virtually nil?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be an unlikely assumption. Those hon. Members who catch my eye have an equal chance; but it is an indication of the general and widespread interest in the debate.
  Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order. May I take it that that is merely an invitation, and that it will have no effect on those hon. Members who are called to speak? I think that this is damaging to the debating practices of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think that I have made plain what the issue is.
  Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. I do not want to delay the debate, but may I submit that, as this is private Members' business, and not Government business, there ought not to be a selective list?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I must make plain that selection rests with Mr. Speaker. The names which have been mentioned are those of hon. Members who have indicated their interest in the subject, which shows the extent of the interest in it in the House. No doubt many hon. Members will seek to catch the eye of the Chair during the debate, and I very much hope that they will give themselves and the Chair an equal chance of being called and of calling them.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: We all applaud the Home Secretary for his usual sense of fair play. The right hon. Gentleman has cautioned us against the careless use of the statistics in the Blue Book, which he calls a White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman was lucid, and I hope that I may be as clean-cut as he was in putting my point of view.
  I declare a lack of interest in my constituency in this matter. I have received
  1338
  no correspondence on this issue. I have heard people saying that manual workers in the building industry and postmen who have to make morning deliveries of mail suffer because of British Standard Time. As the House knows, Hull has many dockers, and they and the fishermen in that area get to the docks at about half-past seven in the morning, but I have not received any letters from them complaining about the present situation, and, therefore, the view that I express today is my own opinion. I am no delegate of any constituency interest.
  I am incorrect in saying that I have received no correspondence on this subject. I have received one letter from a geography teacher, but she does not live in my constituency. Her point is that, being a geographer like herself, I should, for the sake of astronomic accuracy, vote against having a time system which is not based on G.M.T. or on any degrees of longitude. I should oppose having to go into what is sometimes called a Central European zone but is actually a Western European zone.
  Living, as we do, on an island off the west coast of Europe, we are intimately concerned with this issue of common time. I am no Euro fanatic, I am no Common Market fanatic, but I think that there is an argument for going in with the mainland, off which we are an island, when it comes to settling time zones. I have here a book entitled "In The Dark" by a distinguished former Member of the House, Sir Alan Herbert, in which he talks about
  "the shameless sucking up to the Common Market".
  I do not think that that is the case at all.
  It is suggested that this may even be a conspiracy by the wicked people of the cities and the south who wish to steal the sunshine and deprive those in the north of it. B.S.T. does not make the slightest difference to the length of the day. What we are discussing is an hour, on or off, in the morning, and on or off at teatime. Not even Alan Herbert can contest the physical facts of life. Because of our geographical position and the latitude at which we are situated, we have short winter days.
  The Minister has given us facts which need not be repeated. He has hinted that it is impossible to quantify many of the advantages or disadvantages of this

  1339
  system. This must be a qualitative judgment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. This is a matter of personal opinion, and in this context I speak as an individual and not as a constituency Member.
  Although I do not live north of the Tweed, I used to go to school in Northumberland on dark mornings. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we have to stand on our own two feet in the economic context. Is it because of their constituency interests that they cannot follow that philosophy now, but have to think of others? If I can stand on my own two feet, I am sure that many others can, too. I accept British Standard Time, and I call in aid this White Paper, Cmnd. 4512.
  I sympathise with people north of the Tweed, but I believe that the balance of opinion on the facts would tip the beam over on one side. On speaking to some of my constituents I find that they value the extra hour of daylight between half-past four and half-past five. Last night I saw a television programme about Stornoway. The hon. Member who represents that area must be present this evening. During the programme something extremely relevant to this issue was said by a distinguished inhabitant of Lewis. He is a qualified engineer, and he said something which I have had said to me by some of my constituents, by mothers of children who go to school in the morning when it is dark and return in the afternoon when it is still light.
  During the television interview he said that people in the area were getting used to this system, and that even in the far north, where they might hope to have a midnight sun at some time, they can, like the people south of Caledonia, also stand on their own two feet.
  I do not think that the present situation is impossible, as some people suggest it is. I find that old-age pensioners and housewives value the extra hour of daylight. The Blue Book refers to the effects on industrial workers, agricultural workers, teachers, women's organisations, sports organisations, and so on. On balance, standard time is not as unpopular as some of its more violent, or more vocal, opponents say it is.
  1340
  In 1968 I listened to David Ennals, the former Member for Dover, whom we all miss tonight, talking about this issue. He said that there was a substantial shift of opinion on the matter. The White Paper says that this substantial shift of opinion has continued since then. Reference has been made to a common time zone with the people on the mainland. I think that this is a good idea, even if we do not go into the Common Market. It is important that our business people can pick up a phone and speak to someone on the Continnt, knowing that there is a common time for them, and that they are on the same wavelength. I am told that there has been a gain in business contact hours of about 20 per cent. because of having a common clock.
  In my opinion we should consider not only economic matters. The Minister mentioned leisure. No sportsman in the Chamber can deny that it is a good thing to have an extra hour of light in the evening, be it for playing soccer or golf, having an extra hour in a car or outside it, or for a co-ed or single-sex exercise. No one can deny that in that situation we all value the extra hour of light in the evening. As the Minister said, the statistics bear this out.
  If one talks to one's constituents, particularly to women, they express the same view as other have expressed about accidents. They talk about their youngsters having to go to school in the morning when it is dark and returning at teatime when it is much lighter than it was under the previous system. We have the statistics of casualties. In England and Wales there was a betterment of 3 per cent. In Scotland—and I hope that this will be of some significance to my colleagues north of the Tweed—there was a betterment of 8·6 per cent. These figures are important to the mothers of young children who go to school. In the whole of the United Kingdom there was just under 4 per cent. betterment. This represents a net gain in human happiness, which should be borne in mind.
  One lady to whom I talked about this said that she felt miserable getting up in the morning when it was dark, but felt much happier to have her daughter coming home from school in daylight at ten minutes to four. As one who was born in the north and who has a northern

  1341
  constituency, I find some of the arguments insubstantial in the light of my own pattern of behaviour. Even in Caledonia, which is so stern and wild, the sun does not set until 4.45 p.m. B.S.T. whereas in the winter solstice it will set at nearer 4 o'clock G.M.T., which is much worse for people living north of the Tweed. British Standard Time is a boon to housewives, sportsmen and elderly people who do not want to get up in the mornings.
  I hope that no one will try to set the town against the country. There is a feeling that urban people gain by British Standard Time whereas country people dislike it. We must remember that we are now in 1970 and not at the end of the First World War or the Second World War. Enormous changes have taken place in the pattern of human settlements in the United Kingdom and in the pattern of human behaviour. People tend now to be urbanised and to have different attitudes. Our workers have much more leisure and prefer to have more hours of daylight at the end of the day.
  Although it may be unusual for me to do so, I come down in favour of what perhaps the Government desire, and I support the Order.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Hamish Gray: It is usual at the commencement of a maiden speech to make reference to one's predecessor, and this is frequently done in happy mood. However, the death of Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie so recently has introduced a sad note into what would otherwise have been for me a pleasing duty.
  Alasdair Mackenzie represented Ross and Cromarty from October, 1964, until June of this year, and during his term as a Member of Parliament he made many friends in the House. His quiet and friendly approach, coupled with his obvious sincerity, made him both liked and respected. In the constituency of which he was so rightly proud his sudden death was mourned by many friends, and the large and representative gathering which attended his funeral made a fitting tribute to a Highlander who had given much of his life to the service of others.
  For the benefit of hon. Members who may not have visited the area, I will tell them that the constituency of Ross and
  1342
  Cromarty stretches from east to west, from the North Sea to the Atlantic, and from its boundary in the north with Caithness and Sutherland approximately at Ardgay to the point at which it meets Inverness near Beauly. It is, geographically, one of the largest constituencies in the British Isles, but has an electorate of only 27,000. Ross and Cromarty includes some of Scotland's most prized beauty spots and attracts thousands of tourists each year, especially to its mild and beautiful western shores. It is unique in offering a relaxed holiday atmosphere, while affording facilities for development in the Easter Ross area unsurpassed in Western Europe. There is a natural deep water berth at Invergordon, where flat land at sea level is available for development, and much land is available for possible reclamation. The £37 million aluminium smelter is, I am confident, only the start of a Highland revival.
  I hope that over the years many hon. and right hon. Members will visit my constituency. I assure them of a warm welcome. None would be more welcome at this moment than my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such a visit would confirm to them, if confirmation is necessary, the vast potential of the area and the desirability of encouraging industry to move into the region. I would, however, suggest that, should my right hon. Friends plan a visit in the near future, they do not embark on any land inspection before 10 a.m. since, because of the adverse effect of British Standard Time, they would require the aid of artificial light until almost that hour.
  During the first winter in which this unfortunate experiment was imposed, I spent a night in a village on the west coast of my constituency. At 9.40 a.m. next morning it was necessary to use headlights while motoring south. B.S.T. is proving a completely unjustifiable imposition on all persons who have occasion to be out of doors for the purpose of early work or travel.
  I have had a vast amount of correspondence on the subject and, with the exception of one solitary letter, it has been entirely against B.S.T. My correspondents represent a wide cross-section of my constituents. Unions and

  1343
  employers' associations alike have protested, and their views are fairly represented by the General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, who wrote to me:
  "Our union is overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of B.S.T."
  The difficulties which have been created are immense. They include the care of animals; farm vehicles using unlit country roads, frequently in bad weather conditions; getting stock to market, with the impossibility of loading before daylight and the subsequent disorganisation of transport; the intense cold before sunrise; the hopeless situation on building sites even where the site is lit—and many are not. Men face dangers because of shadows and icy conditions, and many building operations which are relatively easy in daylight become impossible in artificial light. Postmen, Post Office engineers, municipal workers and delivery men all suffer a marked decline in their working conditions. B.S.T. causes hazards for children on their way to school, and for the elderly. Housewives who go early to shop or to work suffer difficulties.
  In addition, an overall depressing effect is experienced by all who have to suffer the dark mornings for a prolonged period in winter. An experiment carried out by the department of pharmacy at the University of Nottingham in May, 1960, is described in detail in the "Journal of Endocrinology", 1960. vol. 21, page 213. Volunteers were blindfolded before sleep and for three hours after they awoke. The scientific results proved unquestionably that the reactions of those people were impaired not only during the hours immediately after the blindfold was removed but for the remainder of the day.
  Apart from the physical and mental suffering which this abominable system imposes, there is a frightening aspect of cost. The building industry estimates that the annual cost of the system amounts to £30 mutton per year, the Scottish share of which is £8 million per year. The white fish industry—I know that this applies perhaps to the Scottish section of it, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) will, no doubt, take note—considers that it has lost an hour's fishing per day in
  1344
  winter, or nearly a day a week. Many forestry operations have a drop in production of 20 pet cent. or more, and, of course, there is the added danger for foresters of working in woods without adequate light.
  The cost to agriculture in Scotland alone is estimated at more than £½ million, plus a whole range of burdens which it is impossible to assess in monetary terms. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the two winters during which the experiment has taken place have been relatively mild and, therefore, the results could have been very much worse had they been severe.
  It has been suggested by some that the hour at the other end of the day fully compensates, but this is simply not so. The present state of morning darkness will gradually worsen, returning to today's equivalent at approximately the beginning of February, while the evenings will begin to stretch from about 30th December. Thus, the improvement in the mornings is negligible before February and will adversely affect the worst areas. The dark mornings are with us for a disproportionately long time.
  I ask hon. Members whose constituencies are not particularly affected one way or the other by British Standard Time—and we hear a lot in this House about compassion—to consider carefully the hardships experienced by many as a result of this annual four-month penalty. As far back as December, 1967, Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament opposed the move to introduce B.S.T. It will be remembered that the original Bill involved a permanent change, but this was subsequently reduced to a three-year experimental period. All the fears which my hon. Friends—and, indeed, hon. Members opposite also—expressed at that time have, unfortunately, materialised.
  Today, however, we have a free vote, and I hope that hon. Members, on both sides, will not hesitate to vote against the continuance of this most unhappy experiment. On a free vote Parliament has not always reflected the wishes of the people, but I hope that tonight this House will vote to end British Standard Time.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: In rising to make my maiden speech, I ask the House for its usual indulgence.

  1345
  I understand that I shall be in order if I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). I do it all the more readily since he has touched on several points which I had hoped to cover. My congratulations to the hon. Member are sincere for all that. The hon. Member suffers in his constituency the same disabilities as we do.
  If I stray into controversial matters, they will, in a sense, be impartial controversies, since as a Nationalist Member I shall be in controversy with both sides of the House from time to time. For that reason, if I stray I hope that it will be less objectionable to the traditions of the House.
  I have the honour to represent the Western Isles. My constituency has several records, many of which we would be better without. For years, if not decades, we have had the highest unemployment figures in Britain, running during the last few months at over 25 per cent. of the employed population. I invite hon. Members to consider what those figures would mean in their constituencies. Yet no Government, whatever their label, who have sat here have ever taken action to deal with the special problem of the Western Isles.
  Having said that, it would be churlish of me to pass from it without commending the Labour Government for setting up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Although we in the West, apart from the fisheries scheme, have not received from the board all that we had expected, the Secretary of State for Scotland has now appointed a Western Islander to the board. That is something for which I thank him and which has been widely welcomed in my constituency. We look forward, therefore, to a better share in the future.
  Our emigration figures are appalling Per head of the population, we send the highest number of students in Britain to the universities, and yet only a tiny fraction of them come back to take up employment in their own environment. The cost of living is extremely high. High freight costs prevent new development. The whole system of transport on the West of Scotland needs review, and I have already asked the Secretary of State to set up an investigation to that end.
  I would have preferred to deal in a maiden speech with the great problems of
  1346
  unemployment or high freight costs, transport and communities in my constituency without light, without piped water and without roads, but British Standard Time affects my constituency more than any other and, therefore, I decided to speak on this issue tonight.
  On British Standard Time, my constituents are again at the end of the queue. We are not the furthest north—the Orkneys and Shetlands are further north—but, as hon. Members will know, the sun rises in the British Isles in a line roughly south-west to north-east and in the middle of December it is 10.15 in the morning before we begin to see a blink of daylight.
  Demands for the abolition of British Standard Time have come from many sources. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has mentioned some of them. I have received letters from the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, the Scottish National Federation of Building Trade Employers, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the National Farmers' Union—which, I presume, is "shorthand" for the National Farmers' Union of England—the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the Union of Post Office Workers, the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association, and so on. The Church of Scotland presbyteries of the three northern counties have come out strongly against the continuance of British Standard Time. Local authorities in Scotland have voted four times as many for a reversal to Greenwich Mean Time as have voted for the retention of British Standard Time.
  In Glasgow University experiments have been going on which seem to prove that there is some compromise of physical and mental abilities due to this change in the clock, something on the lines of what occurs when one flies across the Atlantic. This is a serious aspect of the matter.
  Public opinion polls would indicate that there is a case for abolishing British Standard Time. I mention public opinion polls with diffidence, as I understand that they do not enjoy quite the status that they had before 18th June.
  Central European Time is really what we are discussing. It has little relevance to England and none at all to Scotland. It is pleasant to know that several hon.

  1347
  Members from English constituencies, some of them in the south, have indicated to me that they intend to vote for the abolition of British Standard Time.
  It would be presumptuous of me to issue a warning to the House in a maiden speech, but I invite hon. Members who may be thinking of voting to continue British Standard Time to consider the inference which may be drawn in Scotland if the will of a majority of the Scottish Members is frustrated by a majority from areas affected by British Standard Time in only a very minor way or not at all. The ridiculous imposition of this British Standard Time should now be ended in the name of equity and common sense.
  6.20 p.m.
  Miss Mary Holt: I ask for the indulgent ear of the House for a maiden speech.
  Preston, North is my constituency. The town of Preston has been represented in this House from at least 1295, possibly earlier. Since 1950 the northern part of the town, combined with the Urban District of Forward, has constituted the constituency which I represent.
  It is a combined industrial and residential area. As a native Prestonian, I am proud to represent my own town, and it will be my aspiration to try to display to hon. Members a few of the qualities of grit, determination, initiative, enterprise and, not least, good humour which characterises the people of Preston. A few of those qualities have made their aircraft, their engineering, their textiles and some of their other products world-famous.
  It must be borne in mind, from a reading of the Review of B.S.T., that it is largely based on sample surveys of the population. The first section describes the result of a social survey. After dividing the country into three zones, a survey was carried out in two stages, the first in December, 1969, and the second in February and early March, 1970. On page 10 the Review states:
  "The samples provided fully representative views within each of the three main zones and, in all, nearly 7,000 people were interviewed."
  Based on those samples, percentages are then given for the three different zones as to the possibility of reversion to the pre-
  1348
  vious dual time system. I have a grave distrust of sample surveys. Never will I forget the sample surveys with which the nation was regaled by various newspapers before the last General Election, and how they were almost universally proved to be wrong.
  As for the survey on B.S.T., during the whole of the time it was being taken I was resident in Preston, yet I have not met a soul who was interviewed in that survey. If one breaks down the survey figure between the three areas, it means that about 2,330 people were interview in the area described as "N and W", which I presume to mean North and West, and which, according to the Review, has a population of about 22 million. This must allow for a grave sampling error.
  Figure 4 in the Review purports to give the figure of those in favour of B.S.T. as against those in favour of the old system, but how these figures can be reconciled with chart 3 is inexplicable, since 53 per cent. in December, 1949, and 51 per cent. in February to March, 1970, in the North and West area are stated to be in favour of B.S.T. although it appears from the previous chart that everybody was undecided, apart from those who spoke definitely and those who spoke with the qualification "on the whole". If one adds those two figures together relating to the North and West, they do not add up to either 50 per cent. or 51 per cent.
  In terms of percentages, I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that if one totals up the figures for the North and West in chart 3, they add up not to 100 per cent., as they should, but to 101 per cent., which makes me even more suspicious of the figures.
  Preston falls within the Northern zone, where lighting-up time on 21st December would normally be 4 p.m. G.M.T. and 5 p.m. B.S.T. In the mornings, it would be 8.40 for G.M.T. and 9.40 for B.S.T. It is also in one of the wettest parts of the country where theoretical lighting-up time and sunrise seldom correspond with reality through the heavy clouds bringing in the rain formerly so beneficial to the cotton industry.
  Preston has many industrial workers who begin work at 7.30 a.m. and many building and construction workers who start at 8 a.m. It is a question not just

  1349
  of getting up in the dark—nobody minds that—but of going to work in pitch darkness and continuing to work in darkness as well as return home in total obscurity which saps a man's will to work. In a town like Preston, it is not just industrial and outdoor workers who are affected but also office workers and children. Under B.S.T., children going to school at 8.45 a.m. are in total darkness on many mornings while the rain pours down on them. People are not as prepared for darkness in the mornings as they are at night. As the traffic roars by, children on their way to school are put at a totally unjustifiable risk, despite their fluorescent clothing.
  I have seen Preston lollipop women escorting children across the road to school in the dark in the early morning having to jump back out of the way of traffic which has roared by.
  Admittedly, the Pedestrian Association on Road Safety has quoted a fall of 579 in the number of fatal and serious casualties among all road users in the two years following the introduction of B.S.T., but the association's figures include the results of the breathalyser, and, as has been pointed out, the resultant figures must be viewed with caution. However, the association quotes a net increase of 44 in the number of fatal and serious child casualties. Children are the least able to take care of themselves, and any system of time which helps to protect children will have my support.
  Outdoor workers are almost wholly opposed to B.S.T. The President of the Preston Association of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers wrote to me on 7th November asking me to vote against the continuation of B.S.T. I hasten to assure an earlier speaker that I have absolutely no interest in this subject other than my constituency interest. The president of this organisation wrote:
  "Surveys which have been conducted by the Ministry of Public Building and Works and by the British Federation of Building Trades Employers clearly show that B.S.T. is overwhelmingly opposed by the construction industry as a whole—both employers and operatives—on the grounds that it has been responsible for reducing productivity and for raising costs in the industry by at least £30 million a year."
  Dealing with the reasons for the increase in costs, he wrote:
  "Basically it is because the building industry traditionally starts work at 8 a.m.—or 7.30 a.m. in rural areas—and it is necessary in the darkest
  1350
  months of the year either for the hours of starting to be changed or for sites to be lit. If the hours are changed—and operatives by and large are not disposed to accept such change readily—serious difficulties arise by virtue of the fact that operatives, lorries delivering materials and plant get caught up in the main rush hour, and delays occur in heavy traffic areas which affect attendance on site in the first hour. If the hours are not changed, either artificial lighting has to be provided at considerable expense to builder and client—or it is impossible for work to be carried on satisfactorily in the first hour because it is too dark.
  Even if lighting is provided, there may still be serious problems arising from the fact that scaffolding may be frosty and dangerous. In either case, building firms have generally found that there is a considerable drop in output in the first hour of working in the darkest months. The difficulties, of course, are greatly intensified in the North of England and in Scotland."
  Postmen are also against B.S.T. Anybody who has seen a postman trying to deliver letters in the morning in the pouring rain with the aid of a tiny torch will have sympathy with the Preston postman who said to me only last week, "If this B.S.T. goes on, all the postmen will need spectacles."
  Outdoor workers represent some of the most important industrial workers in Britain. The building of houses is surely one of the main priorities of any Government. We cannot allow the construction industry to be hampered. Too many homes for too many families depend upon it. Farming is our largest industry and is of incalculable value to our balance of payments.
  The needs of industries such as these are vital to our well-being and should take priority over those who prefer B.S.T. for their sporting and leisure activities. Indoor workers and the South can manage with either system. The North and outdoor workers cannot. The nation should accommodate itself to them. I shall vote against the continuation of B.S.T.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: It is a very rare pleasure to congratulate three hon. Members on their maiden speeches but I am sure that the House will want me warmly and enthusiastically to congratulate the three colleagues who have just spoken. They have spoken with brevity, which is always commendable, and with lucid clarity. They have shown a logical approach which has led them to a conclusion which I regard

  1351
  as inevitable. I hope that on future occasions they will make the same approach and that all four of us will reach the same conclusion, probably to the upset of the Whips. I congratulate them, too, on seizing this opportunity to speak for their constituents: only rarely do we get the chance to speak directly for those who have sent us here. The three hon. Members have taken that chance, and I am sure that all their constituents will appreciate it.
  I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech. I am sure that you will be delighted to hear that, as will other hon. Members. I want only to follow the Continental custom of giving an explanation of vote.
  Some time ago I took the hazardous course of inviting my constituents to guide me on this matter. I regret to say that I got an infinitesimal response. However, statisticians would tell me that Sunderland is apparently unanimously against the continuance of British Standard Time. I do not have farmers in my constituency, but I have found, as have other hon. Members, that the constructional and building trades are against B.S.T., as are the Post Office workers. In particular, the mothers of small children going to school are against it.
  I also discovered, and this was the result not of my scientific survey but of a casual conversation with him, that one of our leading industrialists who has interests both on the Continent and in America believed that the argument about the present system affecting industrialists' relationships with those either on the Continent or in America was nonsense. He said that any firm that would be affected by such a consideration should not be in business. I believe that to be right.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: My right hon. Friend said that mothers of school children have told him that British Standard Time is a disadvantage. My own observation as a parent is that children have little time in the morning—the time schedule for getting to school is tight—but coming home from school they tend to have more time to linger, so that the extra hour then is bound to be an advantage. Does he agree?
  Mr. Wiley: I do not agree at all. I am acting as rapporteur for those who have made representations to me, and that view has been put to me.
  My own observations on travelling north lead me to believe that as a result of this present system things become more unpleasant as one proceeds. Having declared my reasons, I intend to oppose the Motion.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Ernle Money: I crave your indulgence and that of the House, Mr. Speaker. As successor to the proud title of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) as possessor of the smallest majority, it is with some trepidation that I now address the House. Nevertheless, I take great comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend has increased his majority by at least 2,000 per cent.
  It gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to Sir Dingle Foot, my predecessor as hon. Member for Ipswich. He is an outstanding adornment of my own profession. He contributed much to the life of the borough, and he is a man of the greatest personal and moral courage.
  Both Cobbett and Defoe found the Borough of Ipswich to be neat, thriving and well conducted, and I hope that a visitor to East Anglia would find it so today. One thing that most travellers have discovered about Ipswich is that it is certainly a place where the inhabitants are wont to speak their mind, and to speak it with some vigour. They did so on 18th June, and they have certainly spoken so to me on a variety of subjects since, but on none with greater vigour than on British Standard Time.
  My impression from speaking with hon. and right hon. Members on both sides is that there is an overwhelming preponderance in favour of getting rid of the present thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs, but from my own county borough I have had indications of a universal preponderance. Every letter I have had has been in favour of going back to the old and happier state of affairs. It may be that this is because we are a major industrial borough, relying for our prosperity on our docks and industry, and our connection with the farming industry around us.

  1353
  I respectfully submit that any hon. Member is bound to reiterate the arguments that have gone before, because the voice of the nation has spoken so clearly, but in every case I have had there has been reference to the same things—the loss of productivity, the danger, the disadvantage, the increase in accidents, and the sheer tediousness of the present experiment. Indeed, the only members of the population—apart from golfers, who were, I understand, mentioned earlier—who have felt strongly about keeping the present system are those of the criminal profession who specialise in burglary. I understand that the extra hour comes conveniently for them at one end. However, I am comforted by reflecting that what is bad for burglars may be good for the Bar.
  The overwhelming voice of my constituency seems to be echoed by the voice of the nation. Doubt has been thrown, perhaps with some reason, on the opinion polls. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) was even able to find an opinion poll which did not add up either numerically or by results. But the most recent poll—the Harris poll this morning—showed a figure of 57 per cent. in favour of Greenwich Mean Time, 37 per cent. in favour of British Standard Time, and 6 per cent.—perhaps the traditional 6 per cent.—"Don't knows". I hope that we are pushing at an open door, and I am quite convinced that we have the bulk of the nation pushing behind us.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: I represent a Scottish constituency, but I support the Order. The vote will be between the interests of Scotland and those of the rest of the country. That is quite wrong.
  British Summer Time was first introduced for the purpose of allowing more people to enjoy more daylight hours. We can neither reduce nor increase the number of daylight hours, but we can increase the number of people who can take advantage of them and enjoy them. British Summer Time had the serious drawback that it meant changing the clocks twice a year. Whether the reason for the opposition to it was simply normal British conservatism against change
  1354
  of any kind I do not know, but there was a job to get British Summer Time introduced. It has been in being for about 50 years. I know of nobody who wants to go back to Greenwich Mean Time all the year round. There was initially opposition to the former step, as there is opposition to this step. In the summer far more people can enjoy the extra hour of daylight at night than can enjoy it in the morning.
  How many people can enjoy the extra hour of daylight in the afternoon in the winter as against the extra hour in the morning? There is a fairly easy way to check this. How many people do we meet on the roads between eight and nine o'clock in the morning and between four and five or five and six o'clock in the afternoon? There are far more people and vehicles on the roads in the afternoon peak period than in the morning period. That is borne out by the accident rates.
  One of the most important considerations is the number of road accidents. Over 1,000 people are killed or seriously injured every day on the roads in this country, and anything we can do to reduce that number should be welcomed. There were objections to the breathalyser when it was introduced. Now everybody accepts it, and nobody would think of scrapping it. A book which has just been published clearly shows that the total of accidents has reduced. It is true that the number has increased in the mornings, but it has reduced in the afternoons. Taking the two periods together, the reduction is 3·8 per cent. over the whole of Britain and, for some reason beyond me, 8·6 per cent. in Scotland. Many people who would otherwise be involved in accidents are avoiding them. As over 1,000 people are killed or injured every day on the roads, many people's lives are being saved and many people are avoiding serious injury by British Standard Time. This is the factor which weighs most with me. How often have we said that no Government should object to spending money on measures which save lives?
  Let me turn to the objections to British Standard Time. Initially, the farmers' objection was that the feeding hours for cattle could not be changed. The farmers said that changing the clocks twice a

  1355
  year was a tremendous nuisance to them. Now that we have obviated that change, the farmers are still complaining. That is not surprising, because no matter what Governments do for farmers they will always complain. Therefore, I do not think we need worry too much about them.
  I am sorry, but I forgot to refer earlier to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). Although I disagreed with what he said, the speech was excellently delivered. It was made in a very capable way, and we shall be pleased to hear him speak again in future.
  I have no farms in my constiuency, but for some reason unknown to me the National Farmers' Union, the Scottish National Farmers' Union and even the farmers around my constituency continually send me literature. They continually want to take me round their farms. I go because I am an obliging person.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My hon. Friend is not doing himself justice. He is being much too fair to the farmers. Surely he will agree that one of the reasons for their opposition to British Standard Time is that it was introduced by a Labour Government. There is no more to it in that.
  Mr. Doig: That may be so. I have found that the majority of them are anti-Labour.
  With my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), I visited a number of farms in my area on a conducted tour. One farmer had read a speech which I had made some time ago on this subject in the Scottish Grand Committee. He said, "Here is the Member who supports British Standard Time." We had a lengthy argument, at the end of which he said to me, "Give me one good reason for it". I said "Right. It will save you changing the clocks twice a year. It will save you much trouble." He said, "That is the first good reason that I have heard for it".
  He then asked me to talk to his cattleman, who is responsible for doing the most awkward part of his work. I discovered that it was not two changes but eight changes a year which were involved. When the clocks were altered, he
  1356
  changed his animal feeding time four times at 15-minute intervals. I take it that that was the typical situation on most farms. The cattleman was not concerned about whether the system was changed or not, rather to the surprise of his boss, the farmer.
  I turn now to the question of the postmen, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. I object to postmen being bitten by dogs, and I introduced a Bill about it. I used to start work very early in the morning—four o'clock. I saw the postmen wending their way to the post office between five and six o'clock in the morning. They started their deliveries at six o'clock. Invariably, in a large constituency like mine, they finish their deliveries by eight o'clock. Therefore, British Standard Time does not affect them. They are having their breakfast at the relevant time. By the time they go out on their second delivery it is daylight.
  Of all the people who have written to me about this matter, the builders have a legitimate grievance. British Standard Time must cost them money—and money is always very precious to Conservatives and businessmen. If British Standard Time results in reducing accidents, as the survey clearly shows, the extra cost to the builders, which is passed on to somebody else anyway, is a small price to pay.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman seems to be worried about the question of reducing accidents. Has he noticed that in order to arrive at that conclusion the authors of the survey had to add together the results of the two years—the one before the advent of the breathalyser and the one after it—before British Standard Time was introduced. A comparison with the year before the introduction of British Standard Time does not show that there was a reduction in accidents. The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap which the impartial statisticians fell into.
  Mr. Doig: The report that I have read makes it clear that its authors have gone out of their way to make allowances for such matters as the introduction of the breathalyser and that, even so, a reduction in the number of accidents was still shown.
  It is simply explained. In the morning, drivers have only just started their day.

  1357
  They are still fresh. By the afternoon, they are not so fresh. It is a well known fact that drivers tend to become a little more reckless as they near the end of a journey than they were at the start. I used to have a boss who brought cars up from the South of England. Invariably, he crashed them on the last 20 miles. When a driver gets to the last lap of his journey, he tends to be that much more careless. He is more likely to be careful at the start of his journey.
  We have heard several references to the problems of school children. However, I think that the vast majority of children are accompanied to their schools in the mornings, whereas they are less likely to have their parents meet them out of school in the afternoons.
  If one attempts to discover the balance of advantages and disadvantages, it boils down to the greater number who benefit by having an extra hour of daylight at either end of the day. For example, the vast majority of non-working housewives rarely go out during the first hour of daylight in the morning under the old system. The same applies to retired people and very young children. However, nearly all these groups go for a walk in the afternoon. Under the old system, they will have to return home fairly early if they want to be sure of getting back safely. It must be remembered, too, that older people are more accident-prone than young children. In a period of twilight or darkness, motorists cannot see old people, but old people can see motorists, but, unfortunately, they have not the agility to get out of the motorists' way. Younger people have. As I say, these people are out in the afternoons far more than in the mornings, and this is probably one reason why the accident figures have been reduced.
  For those reasons, I support the Order, and I am convinced that it is well worth supporting.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I oppose the continuation of British Standard Time. There is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland wish to see this absurd experiment abolished. That is certainly the case in Edinburgh and among members of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce.
  1358
  In the last Parliament when I launched two Motions to get rid of the experiment, it was significant that they were both supported by every single Unionist Member, including two members of the then Shadow Cabinet, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). It is not usual for members of a Shadow Cabinet to sign Motions of this sort. They did, and their action showed the strength of their feeling and that of all Unionist Members representing Scottish constituencies.
  Like all other right hon. and hon. Members, I have received representations and documents from a great many organisations. They need not have sent them to me because I have been against the rotten experiment from the start, but they did. That from the National Farmers' Union in England and the N.F.U. in Scotland was extremely well argued and convincing. So were the documents and representations that I received from the building trade employers and the civil engineering organisations. There seems to be no doubt that B.S.T. is costing the building trade about £50 million a year, and I am told that it may be as much as £8 million in Scotland. These are sums that we cannot afford.
  The document which impressed me most was the one from the Union of Post Office Workers. It says quite definitely that work and efficiency have suffered as a result of B.S.T. With postmen having to deliver in darkness and in all kinds of weather, often in badly lit streets and even worse lit stairways, accidents have increased. The union tells me that for the first two years of the B.S.T. experiment accidents in the months of September to February between 7 and 9 a.m. have more than doubled. I do not know what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) will think but, according to official figures, the number of accidents to postmen has gone up from 1,104 before B.S.T. to 2,287 last year, during the experiment.
  I have received many letters from individuals, mostly in Scotland, though some from England. All except two have been against the experiment.
  I do not think that any case has been made out for B.S.T. We are told that

  1359
  it is better for people to communicate with the Continent. But Italy is on a different time scale. That argument is, clearly, exploded.
  I suggest that the whole problem, if it is a problem, is that those who favour B.S.T. are not all that ardent about it and very often are not personally affected. On the other hand, a large body of opinion feels strongly, for economic reasons, because of their children, because of the nature of their outdoor work or on grounds of health. In equity and because these people are so deeply involved, it seems to me that the decision should go in their favour. I hope that the House will agree. Certainly Scotland, Ulster and large parts of the North of England will welcome with relief and gratitude a return to the old system and to G.M.T.
  Before I sit down, let me join in the congratulations which have been extended to our maiden speakers. They have spoken shortly, clearly and with great confidence. The House looks forward to hearing them all again.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene at this point to give a personal view. We have now had nine or 10 speeches, and the beginning game is certainly over; we are now well into the middle of it, and, with all deference to hon. Members who may follow me, I am not sure whether there will be many new arguments. I think that we shall hear the old arguments, no doubt represented in more attractive ways.
  I, too, want to congratulate our maiden speakers. We have heard from the hon. Members for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), Ipswich (Mr. Money), and Preston, North (Miss Holt), all of whom spoke with real passion and concern on a subject which affects their constituents closely. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, they do not often get opportunities of this sort.
  Perhaps I might utter one cautionary word. In saying that hon. Members on the Opposition benches are to have a free vote, I hope that no one casting a vote tonight, whichever way he casts his, thinks
  1360
  that he will dispose of the issue or that if the Order is defeated we are likely to return to some Utopian state of bliss from which we were rudely plucked three years ago.
  The origin of the matter, if I may remind the House, was that there was great pressure both on the Conservative Government up to 1964 and on the Labour Government after 1964 to alter the system to which there is now such passion to return. The Government of the day, whether the Conservative Government or the Government of which I was a member, were consistently pressed by a growing number of interests which complained that the system for which there is now such enthusiasm was increasingly unpopular, was difficult, was leading to great distortions in industry and considerable unpleasantness for farmers. Generally, I think it fair to say, most of the arguments we have heard this evening were used in respect of the system to which hon. Gentlemen now want to return. I utter that cautionary word because I have had a feeling, hearing the enthusiasm with which some hon. Members have spoken, that they think that they will dispose of the issue. I do not believe that they will.
  In my view, what will happen if, as I gather, the Order is defeated overwhelmingly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In view of those loud cheers, let me say that, if there is any hon. Member on the other side who wants to tell, I shall be glad to go into the Lobby with him. Let there be at least one brave man keeping the gate.
  If the Order is to be overwhelmingly defeated, as I gather from the voices it is, the next pressures which hon. Members find will be, first, upon the Government to extend the period of summer time and, second, complaints about the double change of clock. That is what will happen.
  Mr. Money: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Callaghan: I shall not give way at the moment. I am trying to analyse what the situation is likely to be. The plain truth—no one can escape from this—is that we do not have sufficient hours of light in Britain in the winter, and it is a question of how we dispose of them to the best advantage. There are just

  1361
  not enough hours of light to go round, and however we play with them, however we change them, whether we make more hours of daylight in the morning or in the evening, we shall not satisfy everyone.
  It so happens—I respect this view—that Scotland, so we are told, feels very deeply on this issue. May I say a word about the philosophy of it? The Home Secretary, who kept his head down—to the point where he is now invisible—said that he was not quite sure what the philosophy of things of this sort were. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was."] All right, was. I always concede to the hon. Gentleman on a point of grammar, if on very little else.
  I think that the philosophy is this, if I may put it in a sentence. The majority should prevail, but they should take care not to outrage the feelings of the minorities. This is a pure matter of judgment, and, therefore, I feel that those of us who—[Interruption.] Perhaps I ought to put it the other way. Am I not in the minority, and should I not raise my voice? The real point in terms of population is that the comparatively small population in Scotland is very adversely affected, or feels itself to be very adversely affected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not only Scotland."] Not only—but the maps are drawn in a most interesting way. For example, I was not aware, until I saw Fig. 1 in the Command Paper showing sunrise and sunset zones on 21st December, that Plymouth, Cardiff and Hull are in the South-East of England. It will certainly come as news to my constituents.
  At any rate, in terms of where the thick line is drawn, South-East England covers a considerable proportion of the population, and the intermediate zone further up covers a large part, too. We are, therefore, talking basically about Scotland, although to some extent—
  Mr. Money: No, we are not—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, who has just made his maiden speech, must not persist if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has now tried to interrupt me twice, and he tried to interrupt the hon. Member who spoke before me. I am delighted to give way to him if he wants to create a precedent.
  Mr. Money: I am sorry if I am creating a precedent. The right hon. Gentleman has thrown doubt upon the figures as they apply to the South, but may I remind him of the latest returns given by an opinion poll for which, at least during the election campaign, he was heard to express some enthusiasm? This is the comparison between Scotland and the rest of the country, as revealed by that opinion poll. In Scotland 71 per cent. were against British Standard Time and 17 per cent. were in favour. In the North of England 56 per cent. were against B.S.T. and 32 per cent. were in favour. In the Midlands 57 per cent. were against and 33 per cent. in favour. In the South 54 per cent. were against B.S.T. and 32 per cent. in favour. It does not appear, with respect—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a second speech rather than an intervention.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming to those figures. I shall now make my own speech, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree or not. I was saying that, basically, the complaints are coming from Scotland.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: No, they are not.
  Mr. Callaghan: It may not be the hon. Gentleman's view, but I have the Floor and I intend to say this and stick to it. The majority of complaints are coming from Scotland. If hon. Members who do not like what I am saying catch Mr. Speaker's eye, they will be able to say something different. I am giving my view.
  I was saying, in relation to the fact that there is a comparatively small minority of people there, that it is vital, because the large population is elsewhere, that we do not outrage the feelings of a relatively small number of people. On the philosophy of the matter, I ask myself whether we should be doing that.
  Great doubt is cast on all these figures in the Social Survey. I congratulate the Home Secretary on the preparation of the statistics. Hon. Members will select the statistics which they like. There is only one statistic in this document which they do like, and it has been cited time after time in the debate. I refer to the statistic in the section on building and

  1363
  constructional engineering, which says that the increased cost to the construction industry is £30 million a year. Every hon. Gentleman who is opposed to the Order likes that figure. I wish to goodness that hon. Members would read the qualifications in paragraph 125. They might not place quite so much reliance on it then. But it is not my case to cast particular doubt on the figures, save to say that I agree entirely with the Home Secretary that all of them should be treated with considerable caution. If the other figures are to be treated with considerable caution, so should that figure of £30 million with reference to increased costs in the construction industry. I shall not weary the House by reading the qualifications.
  It appears from the figures on page 10 of the survey, if one isolates Scotland for this purpose, as though, between the first census in December, 1969, and the second one in February-March, 1970, rather more people thought that we should keep the new system—were not sure, but thought that perhaps we should keep it, and so on—than thought so on the first occasion. Is that not in accordance with the general experience of hon. Members? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is certainly in accordance with my experience that members of the public resisted the change very strongly and that, since it has been made, more have come to accept it or acquiesce in it.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: No.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I am giving my views, and I intend to continue, whether the hon. Gentleman likes them or not.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Callaghan: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has for some minutes been making noises from a sedentary position. He has a strong constituency interest which he has always represented, but he must make his own speech in his own time.
  I was saying that I believe it to be in accordance with the experience of a number of us that the public, having started off by disliking the system, have moved to a neutral or a favourable position. I venture the view that if we were to
  1364
  change back now there would be a large number of complaints because we were changing once again. I believe that that would be likely. So I do not take the view that we should be outraging the opinion of Scotland.
  I imagine that on an issue like this all of us have tried to ascertain what our constituencies feel. Here, I express my mistrust of percentages. If I report the percentage in my constituency who, on my information, are opposed to British Standard Time, I have to tell the House that the figures are 92 per cent. opposed and 8 per cent. in favour. That was made up of 12 letters against and one in favour, out of 70,000 constituents. But it is 92 per cent.
  I must say that I mistrust some of these other percentages which are being flung around just as much. I take the view that there is a large measure of indifference about this, but, on the whole, I believe that more people like the longer evenings than hate the dark mornings. This is exactly my view; I hate the dark mornings and I like the light evenings. If one can be subjective about it, I think I would prefer the light evenings to the beastliness of the dark mornings. Everybody has his own feeling, and that happens to be mine. I believe my opinion is shared by what I call the silent majority. I believe the silent majority take just about this middle view.
  There are more important issues. There is the question of road accidents. The latest information we have, which the Home Secretary did not have this afternoon although it was put into the Library today, is from the Road Research Laboratory. This information is interesting because it shows not only that there is no increase in accidents but, if the figures are to be believed, that there is an actual saving of life as a result of the change. According to these figures, the number of people who would have been killed or seriously injured has been lessened to the following extent: South-East England, 700; South-West England, 150; Central England, 450; Northern England, 900; Wales about 25; Southern Scotland about 25; Central Scotland, 350; North-East Scotland, 100; Northern Scotland, a small decrease—fewer than 20.
  This is the conclusion of the Road Research Laboratory. Everybody will

  1365
  dissect the figures as he likes, but I think this is a new piece of evidence which should be before the House. If it is right to say that there are 2,700 people walking about who might have been either dead or seriously injured, this is surely a factor which the House should take into account and should offset against the disadvantages which undoubtedly exist.
  I come particularly to the three groups which suffer disadvantage, first the farmers and agricultural workers, who have said that it causes disruption in work and that they would prefer to go back to the old system; and, secondly, the Union of Post Office Workers which says that the accident rate of postmen has increased. I quite agree, and so I think will everybody in this House. Any of us who has done any canvassing in an autumn election by torchlight will know exactly what the postmen have to put up with. But I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) put the matter into the right perspective when he spoke of the great number of postmen whose rounds are completed before it gets light in the morning and who use torches irrespective of what happens.
  Thirdly, there are the construction workers, whose case has been put very effectively in a maiden speech by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). There are, at a rough estimate, 1½ million of these construction workers. There are 25 million workers in this country. Where does the balance come down? Where is the scale? Is it the 1½ million who are being seriously inconvenienced or the 23,500,000 who either are not inconvenienced or do not mind? We can continue to argue as we have argued this evening, and I accept the point and support the 1½ million.
  Everybody is entitled to say how he thinks the balance of advantage will come down. I believe that if we take this figure of road accidents, which is a very important figure, speaking for myself, this would lead me to a different conclusion from that of the majority of the House. I am not particularly impressed by the commercial arguments or the arguments for the sporting interests or for communications with the Continent. In the end, if I had to decide, it would be upon this basis, that on balance the majority of people in this country do not mind, but there is, I believe, a pretty well estab-
  1366
  lished reduction in road accidents so far as can be shown.
  For that reason, therefore, if a Division is called tonight, because I do not believe that we shall solve the problem and the great majority of the House is against me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well, we shall see. But if a Division is called, I would feel that, on the whole, because we shall not dispose of this problem just by voting down this Order, but because I believe it is making a material difference to road safety and because I believe a lot of the complaints about it have been overstated, I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Order.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in the arguments which he has adduced because I am totally and utterly opposed to what he said, both in fact and in the effect that the present system is having upon my constituents and on the greater proportion of the population of Scotland. I think the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will agree that the effects on the people in Scotland are much more marked than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said. It applies not only to agriculture, to the postmen and so on; it applies even more forcibly to the man in the street.
  Let me take one example in my constituency. People with children who go to school and have to travel long distances find that their children, under the previous system, went to school in the dark. But now, they not only go to school in the dark; they have to come back in the dark as well. The whole thing is completely topsy-turvy, and I hope the House will throw out this Order.
  I want to make a specific plea on behalf of the inshore fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), in a most excellent maiden speech—and I join with others in congratulating him as well as the other maiden speakers this evening—has already touched on this point, namely, that the inshore fishermen, because of this timing, lose one shot per day. In other words, if they are making four shots per day in normal times, because they can only work in the light and because the markets do not alter their time of operation—obviously, the

  1367
  fish have to be got away south to the centres of population—the boats have to get in at the same time.
  Here is one industry that is definitely being badly affected. I am told that this applies to most of the inshore fishing industry in the United Kingdom. It certainly adversely affects the inshore fishermen in my constituency and in Scotland as a whole, from the west to the east coast, from north to south.
  I have a letter from the Secretary of the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association referring to the port of Ayr. He says:
  "… in the case of Ayr, the market closes at 7.30 p.m. and an attempt to extend the market hours was refused for various reasons and also because there would be a delay in icing and packing fish and at least an hour's delay in the departure of lorries carrying fish to the markets in the Midlands and South of England."
  I have no doubt whatever that the inshore fishing industry will benefit from a return to the former system. I hope very much that the Order will be turned down. I suggest that hon. Members who have any doubts on the subject should remember our brave fishermen who are suffering loss through British Standard Time.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: The words of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) are typical of the kind of argument presented on this subject. He said that he was totally and utterly opposed to British Standard Time. Those words are significant on a matter about which there is so much admitted indifference and in which many fine points are involved. Yet the hon. Gentleman can talk about being totally and utterly opposed. For anyone to use such words on a matter of this kind suggests to me that he has not done much thinking about it. He is simply allowing his emotions to well up.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if he, like me, had talked to his constituents, weighed up their opinions, taken account of the letters he received and then had a specific case of damage, he too would be totally and absolutely opposed?
  Mr. Lawson: I disagree. We should look into the history of the matter. If we do so we see how marginal the matter
  1368
  has been in many cases, and how in many others the nation has been compelled willy-nilly to accept greater and greater uniformity. For example, I was surprised to learn that it was not until about 1880 that Greenwich Mean Time was legally established for Great Britain as a whole. We talk as if Greenwich Mean Time were nature-given, but it results only from a line drawn arbitrarily. Many other lines could be accepted. The practice, certainly until well into the middle of the last century, which is not so long ago, was to base an area's time on local clocks or perhaps on the sun. But it was found that Great Britain had to have a uniform or agreed time, and accordingly we had the adoption of Grenwich Mean Time in about 1880. It was not until 1884 that it was adopted internationally.
  Mr. John Brewis: As the bulk of the British Isles is to the west of the Greenwich meridian, British Standard Time plus about an hour and a quarter would be the correct local time for us, so it has gone far too far the other way.
  Mr. Lawson: I have some of the figures here in the excellent White Paper. There are substantial differences in different parts of the country. I should like to compare London and Glasgow. I will take Glasgow, not Stornoway. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) made a powerful speech, but is apparently not interested in what other people have to say on the matter, so I will take Glasgow. In the middle of December, 1969, the difference between the time of sunrise in Glasgow and London was 42 minutes, and by the middle of February it was 27 minutes. The difference in the time of sunset was nine minutes in the middle of December. By January it had dropped to three minutes, and in February Glasgow had an advantage of seven minutes. Because of the geography of our country, Scotland has longer days during the summer, and during the winter we have longer nights. No juggling about with the clock will make any difference to that.
  In Dublin, where Greenwich Mean Time was not legally adopted until about 1916, there are even more substantial differences. We have to operate, as we have done during this century, within considerable differences in the time as measured by the sun. We cannot go by the

  1369
  sun in the highly-organised, interdependent society in which we live, and therefore we agreed on Greenwich Mean Time.
  When we look into the matter further we see that there has been considerable pressure for changes in that system. In about 1908–1909, some courageous spirits tried to introduce Bills to establish what we now call "Summer Time". They had a long battle to make best use of the rather meagre daylight we have at certain periods of the year. That is a very powerful argument in reply to those who say that the adoption of British Standard Time means the loss of a great deal of production. That argument is repeatedly made, but if the adoption of British Standard Time means fewer hours in which to work, and accordingly loss of production, it is very strange that it was precisely on those grounds that British Summer Time was established, as distinct from Standard Time.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the introduction of Bills earlier in the century to establish Summer Time, to use, as he said, the meagre daylight at certain times of the year. Would not it be more correct to say that they were to use better the ample daylight during the summer time, which is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman was saying?
  Mr. Lawson: There was evidence that by adjusting the clock we could get more useful daylight. It is interesting that over the years the pressure has been to extend Summer Time into the winter, to shorten the period for which we return to Greenwich Mean Time. There are two Amendments on the Order Paper, but they do not propose that we should return to a fifty-fifty division of the year. I think that they propose that we should go back to Greenwich Mean Time for only about 13 to 14 weeks. The pressure, arising from experience over a long time, has been to extend British Summer Time further and further into the winter. If we are left with only about 12 to 13 weeks of Greenwich Mean Time, those farmers about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) spoke so eloquently would properly have very much more to complain of.
  Mr. David James: In case I am not called to speak, as is likely, I should
  1370
  explain the way in which I worked out my Amendment. I understand that the farmers want one hour extra daylight during the winter months. It is clear from the Nautical Almanac that we need use Greenwich Mean Time only from the middle of November to the middle of February to accomplish that. For the rest of the year, I am very impressed by the recreational aspects, such as the needs of people who want to garden and play golf.
  Mr. Lawson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a substantial admission of the case of those who want to continue British Standard Time. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the farmers and the adjustments he would propose to make to suit them. I have nothing against the farmers. I should like to do all I can to help them. But there are many other people and we have to think in terms of what seems to be best for the majority, even if they have not written letters to us. We all know what we mean when we refer to "genuine" letters from constituents as distinct from an organised circular letter, and I have had only one genuine letter on this issue. I have to admit that it is against British Standard Time. If I went among my constituents, I would find, obviously, that many would be for British Standard Time and many would be against. In these circumstances, I have to use my own judgment.
  I want to take up the point about judging from experience. In 1916, the nation adopted British Summer Time and has continued with it, with certain modifications. What is important is that during our most difficult years—I refer to the last war—the years when the need to mobilise our productive capacity was greatest, we continued with what we now call British Standard Time. We did not go back during those years, from about 1940 until well into 1945, to Greenwich Mean Time. But during the summers we added an hour and had Double Summer Time. It is significant also that, in 1947, when the nation was in great difficulty over fuel supplies, we reverted again to Double Summer Time. Here is the evidence of what the nation did in circumstances when it seemed that it had the greatest possible need to provide daylight during which the maximum effort could be made by our people.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of loss of production but did not pursue it. Does not he agree that the loss of an hour's daylight is serious for the building trade, as it is for agriculture?
  Mr. Lawson: I agree in some cases, if there is no adjustment in time, but there can also be considerable savings. No one has yet mentioned the electricity industry. We understand that it calculates that, if it is allowed to operate on the basis of British Standard Time, which means spreading the load, it will save about £100 million in terms of equipment.
  I want to touch on one or two aspects which seem significant. For example, two surveys were made, one in the December period of 1969 and the second in the February-March period of 1970. There was a substantial movement of opinion between those two surveys in most of the areas of Scotland. For all the doubts one might have about sampling opinion, the surveys were quite scientifically done.
  On this basis, in December there was a net of those who, on balance, favoured British Summer Time. There was a net plus of 16 per cent. in the South-East in December and a net plus of 19 per cent in February-March; in the North-West, there was a net plus of 19 per cent. in December and a net plus of 20 per cent. in February-March. In Scotland, there was a minus against of 24 per cent. during December and this moved to a minus of only 4 per cent. in the February-March period.
  These figures are significant in indicating a shift of opinion out of experience of advantages. People were constantly being fired at by propaganda in Scotland of a nationalist character. They were told that Scots were being compelled to toe the line because of people in London, and so forth. Nevertheless, even in Scotland there was this shift of opinion.
  Let us look at the opinions of representative bodies. No one could be more concerned about this matter than the teachers. Yet, of all the educational organisations in Scotland, only the Headmistresses Association was against British Standard Time. The other teaching organisations were in favour of its permanent adoption. The local authorities showed themselves to be lukewarm.
  Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Coatbridge, there were spontaneously organised demonstrations by mothers taking their children to school in the darkness? Those demonstrations were in protest against British Standard Time. Would he accept that these mothers were not just nationalist minded?
  Mr. Lawson: Fair enough, but like myself, they are all subjected to the kind of propaganda that goes on. I might be described as nationalistic. I am a as Scottish as anyone. I am not bragging about it but I am as much concerned about my home country as anyone else is. I am well aware of what some people have tried to do to me and to the rest of my fellow Scots. The fact is that, despite the deluge of the nationalistic line we have been subjected to, over the months I have referred to there was apparently a decided shift of opinion following experience.
  I was interested to note from a programme earlier this week that even in Stornoway a mother was found whose children were going to school in darkness but who said that she would, if she could, vote for British Standard Time. She accepted it as a system which produced benefits as well as disadvantages. We all recognise that there are disadvantages. We should like long mornings as well as long nights. Unfortunately we cannot get them, and we have to choose.
  We have to face the question of how we want to use the limited hours of daylight we have. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) produced some very valid arguments. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that there is one argument he did not produce but which is nevertheless relevant. It concerns the children going to school in the morning. I have seen them going in bands to school and wearing luminous jackets and so on. These children are going to school more cautiously and in many cases accompanied. But look at them when they come dashing out of the school gate at night, getting out as quickly as they can for home or to play around the streets. One might well think of this matter in terms of the attitude towards the need for caution, and caution is more likely to be part and parcel of the attitude in the mornings when it is dark. I throw that point in for what

  1373
  it is worth as a factor. Even from that point of view, the evidence seems to be that this is a good change. But I am thinking principally in terms of time, of using the daylight hours we have.
  I shall vote tonight in support of British Standard Time.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I welcome the fact that we are to have a free vote, but, for reasons which I will deploy, I must confess that the exercise of a free vote on this occasion has caused me concern. I am convinced that if there were a referendum now or in six weeks' time, British Standard Time would be thrown out overwhelmingly. I am convinced, from the nature of the speeches we have listened to and the pressures that have been on us as Members of Parliament, particularly during the General Election, that we are being pressed to reject British Summer Time.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that if British Standard Time is voted down it is by no means the end of the road. We have still to consider what we must do in winter with a limited number of daytime hours. I come from an industrial area, and when British Standard Time was put forward organisations in my area deployed very good arguments for having a constant time in Britain throughout the year. I believe that during the debate in the House I was the only Conservative Member of Parliament to intervene and to say that I had good reason for supporting the Measure. If I was right then, why should I be wrong now in spite of all the pressures that have been put on Members of Parliament?
  The reasons were varied. In modern industrial society, particularly in South Yorkshire and Sheffield, more and more people work on shifts. The shifts starts at 6 in the morning, continue until 2 p.m. and then there is another shift, beginning at 2 in the afternoon and finishing at 10 in the evening. If the nation is to use to the best advantage its capital assets, then it is a fair assumption that an increasing proportion of the population will become used to coming home and going to work at awkward hours and in the dark.
  I am a little disappointed that we must now come to a decision. I have tried
  1374
  to canvass opinion among those who put forward ideas for supporting British Standard Time some three years ago. I accept that mothers of small children and housewives are still apprehensive, and I accept that many school teachers join in this apprehension, but the opinion among responsible members of society whom I have also canvassed is that it is a pity that perhaps the emotional wave of feeling means that Parliament must deal with this issue now. Could we not adapt the system and not switch from summertime to wintertime and vice versa?
  I was particularly impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) when he stressed the value of the long afternoon. I believe that the long afternoon will prove to be more valuable than many of us at present realise. Many people I have met value for a variety of reasons the longer afternoon for recreation and sport, particularly if they are on night shift or morning shift and can use the daylight to spend some time in the garden or allotment, or to pursue some type of relaxation, even walking, during these critical winter months.
  I should like for the purposes of clarification to examine what sort of system we could return to. Roughly, we could go back to four to five months of winter time and seven or eight months of British Summer Time, presumably as determined by the Home Secretary. If we were to go back, what would be the reaction of the population, and what would they prefer? I have discussed this matter with many industrialists who face this problem in my area, and I believe they would prefer a winter time of, say, not more than ten weeks. In England—and I am not here talking about Scotland, Northern Ireland and parts of Wales—the critical period with which we are dealing is 10 weeks where the dark early morning is quite intolerable to many of us who have not yet become used to it. If these 10 weeks are considered to be critical, do we value not having to switch over in spring and then back again in the autumn? There is a feeling that for a variety of reasons a changeover twice a year is inconvenient and that if we can avoid it we should try to do so.
  Could we not have a compromise? This is the point at which arguments in

  1375
  this debate have been far too weak. Somebody suggested to me that during this critical period we could have a Scottish winter time, a Welsh winter time, and a Northern Irish winter time. Others would suggest that this would be difficult and in a debate at this time we must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages. But this approach has not been seriously considered, as far as I know.
  I intervene in this debate, as I did in the original debate on this subject, to put the predicament that faces many people. We are told in the social survey that some 59 per cent. of the people consider that this present system has made very little difference to their lives, except in one area where the figure was 56 per cent. I believe that the light afternoons, when we have them, will be much more important during this intolerable period of, say, 10 weeks than many of us at present imagine. Many of us will regret having to return to a situation in which we have to switch from summer time to winter time and then back again in spring and autumn. I am sure that the people of this country would ultimately regret the decision to reject British Standard Time.
  We have not the full statistical information about the extent to which B.S.T. has reduced the number of serious road accidents, including deaths. The British Road Laboratory has given an indication that it could increase safety, but at this time have we enough firm evidence of a convincing nature? I personally would like British Standard Time to continue for a further experimental period so that we could be more certain of the alternative that is before us.
  I find myself in the predicament of having to go against the letters and telegrams that have been sent to me by constituents who generally dislike B.S.T. and pressure groups, and I include the construction industry and certain trade unions. But tonight at this time I ask for an extension of British Standard Time. I shall be one Member in the Conservative ranks who will be supporting this Order tonight.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to have the opportunity
  1376
  to speak for a few moments from the point of view of sport and recreation, but I wish to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn).
  This matter certainly involves a balance of considerations and I join in the general welcome to the fact that we are to have a free vote. However, as I look around the Chamber I see very few hon. Members who are likely to be swayed by any argument of any sort. And, sad to say, I am one of them. Perhaps we should have more free votes and then we should become used to regarding this Chamber as a great forum for debate in which opinions would actually change during the ebb and flow of argument.
  In regard to the arguments dealing with the effect of British Standard Time on schoolchildren, I feel that, on balance, there is likely to be a greater weight of argument in favour of the course recommended by the Order than if it is defeated. It is easy to whip up opposition, and we remember that emotions were aroused when the experiment began. We can take for what it is worth the evidence of the public opinion polls, but if the experiment is ended, there is likely to be a much more forthright body of opinion demonstrating in favour of a situation that will have gone by default.
  When the Labour Government were considering what attitude they should take originally, it fell to me as the Minister responsible for sport to ascertain the views of sporting bodies. The House will not be surprised that the sporting and other organisations involved with recreation and leisure were overwhelmingly in favour of British Standard Time. Their consideration is worth a moment's thought by the House.
  We are dealing here with the recreation and leisure possibilities of several million people. I know that the hon. Member for Hallam plays a leading rôle in Sheffield in the organisation of works sports. He knows, as I do, that people who try to organise sporting opportunities in which people can participate, as distinct from being spectators, regard the extra hour as of tremendous value in the life of the country, because they have the job of finding the pitches and making the opportunities for people to take part.

  1377
  When I became the Minister responsible for sport I found that for years nobody had thought seriously about the effects of the British climate on the sporting scene and opportunities. We still close most of our parks early in the day. We do not have all-weather floodlit pitches. The creation of sporting opportunies during the winter at times when most people, coming out of factories, offices and shops, might wish to use our limited resources, had, in our typically British way, gone unplanned for years. Therefore, I was not surprised to find that, when asked about it, all the governing bodies in sport responsible for the organisation of events in which people could participate were overwhelmingly in favour of the extra hour.
  It is worth noting the numbers involved. On any Saturday in this country there are more people playing soccer, our national game, than are to be found watching it. Every Saturday 1 million people play soccer. [Interruption.] This is true. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will accept from me that more people play soccer on Saturdays than watch it. This is a good and healthy thing.
  Mr. Callaghan: Thank God!
  Mr. Howell: Thank God, there are more people playing than watching soccer. One of our troubles on Saturdays is that too many people watch soccer who should be playing. I am sure that I carry the House with me on that point.
  Between half and three-quarters of a million people play rugby union on Saturdays and quite a large number—about 200,000—play rugby league.
  The numbers turning to golf are tremendous. Golf is probably the greatest of all the growth sports. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand, as I know that you take an interest in these things, that the extra hour for the golfer trying to get in 18 holes of golf, particularly at the weekend, is absolutely invaluable.
  Turning to the gardening and allotment move, it is interesting that the number of people engaged in the hobby of gardening—a great deal of research has been carried out by the Sports Council—transcends the number actively en-
  1378
  gaged in sport. That may be a good thing. Gardening is a timeless, ageless, hobby in which people indulge throughout their lives if they are keen gardeners. Hon. Members know that some of us speak feelingly on this subject.
  To reject the Order tonight would seriously inconvenience, at a minimum estimate, 6 million or 7 million people who actively engage in sport and hobbies in the winter.
  In addition, there are the great sports industries. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, but their case is not as important as that of the people actively participating in sports.
  We need to think about the sports which are having difficulty surviving. Horseracing comes to mind at once as a sport which is in a perilous state at the moment. I hesitate to advance Treasury arguments—[An HON. MEMBER: "Wigg."]—I venture to comment that, had it not been for the brilliant thought which promoted Lord Wigg to his present situation, horseracing would have been in a more parlous state than it is. I am glad that, whatever people may think of my noble Friend's activities, at any rate in his present activities he seems to have a large measure of support from all parts of the House. Lord Wigg is certainly doing a good job. But that is not the point. The point is that unless we can attract people to racecourses the future of horseracing, which is important from the point of view of the export of blood stock, betting interests, Treasury interests, and the man who wants a flutter, we cannot make a market in bookmaking on the course, which dominates the whole of these questions.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is talking about horseracing. Does B.S.T. have a bearing on the number of people who attend horseracing in winter?
  Mr. Howell: One matter which pleases me is that the support for National Hunt racing far transcends that for flat racing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As a matter of fact, it does. If the House is interested in statistics, there were more people at Newbury last Friday watching a National Hunt meeting than appear on any Saturday in the flat racing season. There is a great deal of public interest in jumping

  1379
  meetings, but that has not too much to do with the situation. However, as I was challenged, I felt that I should produce these statistics out of my head.
  Mr. David James: Will the hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister for sport, concede that there would not be National Hunt racing unless there was hunting?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I do not wish to declare an interest. However, I think that that would be out of order.
  Mr. Howell: I am glad to have your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this discourse on blood sports.
  It must be transparently obvious that the extra hour in the winter is of great importance to the racing authorities. People have to travel to get to racecourses. If the premise which I have put forward is sound, as I believe it to be, that it is in the interests of racing that we have a good attendance at the race track, it must be self-evident that the extra hour is of great importance.
  So it is with other spectator sports—particularly association football and rugby. It is clear that it matches have to start early or, alternatively, have to play on into the dark with floodlighting and so on, the effect upon attendances—[Interruption.]—Most rugby union grounds do not have floodlighting. I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman. I shall be interested to know how he will be voting tonight.
  The sports bodies which organise spectator events in the winter very much welcome the extra hour. From the point of view of recreation and sport generally, it seems that the case for British Standard Time has been more than made out, because of the opportunities which it gives to at least six to seven million people in the exercise of their leisure pursuits. For that reason alone, I shall support the Motion.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: Like so many hon. Members who have preceded me in this debate, I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was the first in this
  1380
  debate to mention Northern Ireland, because we are covered by this Order in the same way as Scotland, Wales and England are.
  A few weeks ago I appealed in the columns of the local Press for views on British Standard Time. I was not surprised to receive the heaviest mailbag that I have ever received on any subject during my seven years membership of this House. I realise that there is a danger in drawing too many inferences from a certain number of letters that one receives, but I believe that as there were many more letters than I have received on any other subject, the facts which I seek to deduce from them are not wholly unreasonable. About 4 per cent. advocated a continuance of B.S.T., and these were all from the teaching profession.
  A point which it is valid to make in a debate of this kind is that Northern Ireland is the most westerly part of the United Kingdom, particularly when one thinks of County Fermanagh. Before we start we are 25 minutes behind G.M.T. When it becomes one hour and twenty-five minutes, as it does under B.S.T., it strains one's tolerance considerably. It was therefore with total astonishment that I read in paragraph 156 of the White Paper that there was a large measure of indifference on the subject in Northern Ireland but that the arguments weighed fairly evenly for and against B.S.T. I am not disputing that somebody somewhere made such a suggestion for inclusion in the White Paper, but I should like to know who that person was, and what on earth he had been doing for the three years when he should have been seeking information about the general feeling on the subject. The balance of view is certainly not in favour of retaining midmorning darkness.
  In the middle of December the sun rises in London at 9.04 a.m. In Belfast it rises at 9.45, and in Fermanagh, at about 10 o'clock. It is intolerable, in an agricultural area, to have this sort of burden to face in the mornings. One of the letters which I received, and which I found vastly amusing, was from a gentleman who wrote:
  "Last Christmas I saw the sun rise at 9.50 a.m. Looking at it I said 'You are not going to make the meridian by noon today'."
  The argument which has been frequently advanced is that it is desirable,

  1381
  perhaps with a view to looking towards Western Europe, to standardise the time with Europe. I think that this argument has been demolished in the speeches that we have heard today. The world's largest consumer market, the United States of America, has four time zones, and its next door neighbour, Canada, has five. I think that that demolishes any argument that there may be some merit in the standardisation of time.
  What about the position in the construction industry? Very few sites in Northern Ireland are lit and we are, therefore, dependent on daylight. What is more, frost does not clear until daybreak, and, therefore, it is nearly ten o'clock before the building industry is operating at reasonable stretch.
  I do not wish to duplicate the arguments which have been advanced in connection with the postmen.
  The case on behalf of dairymen has not been made, and again I am drawing on the correspondence that I have received. One man says:
  "Notes are left on the doorstep. I cannot see them in the darkness. I have to read them, so I have to go out to my van which has its headlights on, read the note, see what is required, and then go back to the house to deliver the milk."
  This is intolerable for such a person. Added to that, my mailbag has contained several complaints about the 50p. piece being confused with the 10p. piece.
  I think that the argument about schoolchildren having an hour's daylight when they leave school in the afternoon has been overplayed, because that omits the question of homework, which normally has to be done before anything else. One therefore has the situation that children go to school in the dark, and by the time they have finished their homework and are free to play it is dark again. They are two-way losers.
  There is a kind of psychological point which I have never fully been able to understand. It is that on a dark morning one is unwilling to work, that there is a slowing down of one's actions and reflexes, and it seems darker at 7 a.m. than at 7 p.m., even though at both times it is pitch dark. This is part of the illogicality of the argument, but everyone who has been in the House knows and accepts late nights rather more than early hours.
  1382
  One has to consider, too, shoppers. There is a tendency in Northern Ireland for people to do the bulk of their shopping in the morning, rather than during any other part of the day. With dark mornings they will not set off and do their shopping. The result is that the shopkeeper is hanging around in the afternoon. He does not get his usual custom, but he has to pay the cost of increased electricity, and so on, in the morning. Quite often the shopper tends to adjust to a concentrated Saturday morning's shopping, rather than doing it throughout the week.
  Then there is the question of sport. Is it really valid to argue about the sacrifice of those who may be sportingly inclined when for the months that we are discussing, 16 weeks, it is normally too cold or wet to go out at all?
  One reason why accidents to children have, thank goodness, declined in the morning is that it is not uncommon for working mothers to miss an hour's work to take their children to school. This fact has not so far been adequately expressed in our deliberations.
  I conclude with a quotation on, I think, the most delightful postcard that I received. It contains just six words with which I wholly agree:
  "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee".
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I have been impressed with the sincerity and conviction that have characterised every speech so far. Equally, I was impressed with the impartiality of the Home Secretary in presenting this White Paper Cmnd. 4512. Having examined the White Paper in detail, I consider it to be a lucid analysis of the experiment that has taken place since the introduction of B.S.T. I think that only the uncharitable would question the impartiality of the authors of the White Paper but, having seen the effects of this experiment of introducing B.S.T. I invite the House to resist its continuance and to vote against the Order.
  Perhaps the most illuminating point on this somewhat dark subject is to be found in paragraph 18 of the White Paper where it says:
  "North-west of a line running from Devon to Tees-side, particularly in Scotland, people, especially women, the elderly and outdoor

  1383
  workers, felt greatly inconvenienced by the change and strongly favoured a return to the old system …"
  I suppose it was not altogether surprising that the less direct the effects of B.S.T. on individuals the more readily they accepted the continuance of the experiment. B.S.T. has produced two new developments in the British way of life. We have seen the advent of darker mornings and of a completely new industry, the manufacture of luminous armbands for school children.
  I wish to reflect not only the interests of my constituents, but those of postal workers. I should declare an interest as a former postal and telegraph officer and a member of the Union of Post Office Workers. Postal workers feel most concerned and aggrieved about the continuance of B.S.T. They make a tremendous contribution to community life. Whether they be postmen on their daily walks, telephonists serving in isolated telephone exchanges or postal and telegraph officers serving as clerks in the administrative offices or on public counters, all make an individual contribution to an essential public service. They serve the nation in many different spheres, whether in the Highlands and Islands, the Yorkshire Dales, the Devon moors or the busy urban areas of London and the provincial centres. The consensus of their views, based on their experience, is that British Standard Time must go.
  A central feature of their argument is contained in the statistics in paragraph 116 on page 50 of the White Paper. Figure 27 shows the increase in the number of accidents affecting postmen during their normal delivery work. The figures break down into the following categories:
  Fall on level outdoors, increase—10 per cent.
  Fall on level ice and snow, increase—325 per cent.
  Fall on level due to uneven ground, increase—150 per cent.
  Fall down steps outdoors, increase—75 per cent
  Striking against objects, increase—30 per cent.
  It is clear from those brief statistics that there has been an appreciable increase in accidents to postmen and postal workers because of the effects of B.S.T.
  1384
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) made an impressive speech in which he said that postmen he had seen in Dundee were about their work at 5.30 or 6 o'clock in the morning. At that time, irrespective of B.S.T., they were doing their work wholly in darkness. It might be of interest to my hon. Friend that the postman spends his first hour or one and a half hours sorting out the mail before he goes on to the streets.
  In dealing with this point I will refer to a letter which I have received from the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers in which he says:
  "… with deliveries commencing at 7.15 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. respectively …"
  He is there referring to conditions in the provinces and London—
  "… British Standard Time means delivery postmen are delivering the first mail of the day in darkness and before the first light of dawn."
  I think that postmen generally will be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West for making on their behalf on a previous occasion a tremendous speech about their susceptibility to bites from dogs. I say with the greatest kindness that the stance he has taken up tonight is somewhat inconsistent with the stance he took up on that occasion. It is all right protecting the postman from being bitten by dogs, but if the postman can in the darkness fall over the dog from which he is seeking protection his susceptibility to bites might be that much greater.
  Mr. Denis Howell: As a dog owner I would not dream of putting my dog out in the dark. Does it not follow that people are more likely to keep their dogs in, and does not this act against the argument which my hon. Friend is putting forward?
  Mr. Morris: It all depends on the individual dog owner.
  If we accept the argument in favour of retention of B.S.T. that it will keep us in line with Western European time, we shall go out of line with American time. It is not unusual for a nation to have several different time zones. The United States of America has four time zones, yet I have never heard that commercial interests in the United States complained about the difficulty of contacting

  1385
  their business colleagues in different parts of the country. The argument about coming into line with European time is not valid.
  My hon. Friend the former Minister of Sport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), said that if we voted in favour of the abolition of B.S.T. we should be doing a disservice to golfers, gardeners, footballers, punters, racegoers and those who want to enjoy their leisure. I do not mind people enjoying their leisure, they are entitled to follow their hobbies; but I cannot in all honesty accept that people should be allowed to follow their leisure if it means that other people who are serving the community in many different ways are, as a consequence, obliged to suffer.
  There is evidence that accidents have increased. There is evidence that, because of British Standard Time, productivity has fallen. One has only to read the White Paper. In the Post Office, it is estimated that productivity of postal workers has fallen a significant 1 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who speaks for the building workers, can talk about the impact and loss of productivity which has affected the building industry. We are having increased accidents, loss of productivity and increased costs as a consequence of British Standard Time.
  This House must seriously consider which way it should vote tonight. Many people have argued that the White Paper indicates a massive indifference by the British people to the question of British Standard Time unless they are directly affected. This House tonight should have regard to those industries and individuals who are affected and say, "No" to the extension of British Standard Time.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. David James: I entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) that we should consider the people who work dark and dangerous hours before we consider the sporting aspect.
  Having said that, I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye after an absence of two Parliaments, particularly as it is 11 years almost to the day when I made my first maiden speech and you were good enough to congratulate me—misguidedly, no
  1386
  doubt—upon it. I have taken advice on this matter and I understand that in Parliament, as in life, one cannot lose one's maidenhood twice. So I am not seeking any privileges as a result of my comeback.
  I do not want to rehearse arguments which have already been covered, but I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he suggests that this is a Scottish plot or something concerning only the countryside, because I listened with interest and pleasure to the maiden speeches, from both sides of the House, by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), all of whose speeches I enjoyed, and I can assure hon. Members that the inhabitants of North Dorset take exactly the same view.
  I have had a very large number of letters and I have canvassed a very large number of opinions. Unlike some hon. Members who have found one or two dissentient voices, I have found no dissentient voices whatever. Everyone in my rural constituency wishes to revert to the G.M.T. arrangement.
  I will not go into details about agricultural workers, building workers and others—that has all been done before—but I should like to make two particular points. My horticulturists tell me that, as a result of British Standard Time, they cannot, in winter, cut their lettuces and get them to market on the day on which they are cut. For about four months, they are deprived of their fresh market because their produce cannot arrive in time.
  My second point is one which was made to me by a businessman this afternoon and rather tends to demolish the business argument. The business argument is that we will possibly join Europe and that it is convenient to have the same time system when telephoning one's opposite number in Paris or Bonn. As my friend pointed out to me, however, it is no earthly use arriving at one's office at 9 o'clock in the morning with a view to ringing up one's opposite number in Paris or in Bonn if the girl who operates the switchboard does not arrive until 9.45. There is, I think, a marked tendency on the part of junior

  1387
  staff not to observe B.S.T. but unilaterally, as it were, to revert to G.M.T. This, therefore, is not working in practice.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Openshaw that those of us—and I am one of them—who are dedicated Europeans should utterly reject the European argument, because, in so far as we may or may not be going into Europe, what we have to learn to do is to think continental, in the same way as the Australians and the Americans think continental. One does not have to be in either of those countries for 48 hours before one becomes perfectly accustomed to dealing with time zones.
  If I might be frivolous for a moment, I would say that one has to get one's answers right. The first time I went to America, I was taken at 5 p.m. to the then fashionable new Bunny Club in Chicago for a drink. I thought that it would be rather amusing to telephone my wife in Sussex from those surroundings. Unpardonably for a sailor, I applied the G.M.T. correction the wrong way and got my wife out of bed at 1 o'clock in the morning when I imagined that I was telephoning her at 11 o'clock at night. As a result, I was not popular. I mention that cautionary tale because one has only to be in a continent dealing with zonal times for even a matter of hours to realise that there is no argument against time zones.
  None of us would wish to leave this debate without paying tribute to the kindly shadow, which to me is very present here, of Sir Alan Herbert and all the work that he has done concerning this matter. I hope that everyone read his letter in The Times yesterday. He pointed out that this country was given the great privilege of Greenwich as the standard meridian but that the obviously convenient arrangement was a 15-degree limit of longitude for the zone; that owing to the fact that we have adopted Central European Time we now have a fantastic 33 degree distorted time zone; that Warsaw and Cork keep the same time even though the sun rises 2¼ hours earlier in Warsaw; and that this arrangement simply does not make sense, and never has done.
  I know that I would be out of order if I spoke to the two Amendments, neither
  1388
  of which has been called. Among others, however, I detect from both sides of the House—I gather this from conversations outside as well as inside the Chamber—some sensitive points of view put forward by, for example, the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), and others, that consideration should be given to the recreational impact of the Order, although it must take second place to the working impact. I believe that the way in which we can do this best is by cutting down the period to an absolute minimum.
  As I said in an intervention—in case I was not fortunate enough to be called—all that one has to do is to consult the Nautical Almanac. If one is firmly based in London, one looks at the 52 degrees south column. Those who, like me, happen to be half-Sassenach, look at the 56 degrees south column, which takes in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and one reaches a bracket where one makes good the hour. It is not, as one or two hon. Members have said, 10 weeks. It is not, as it used to be in the old days, 20 weeks. It is a mere matter of 13 weeks. As has been pointed out, the 13 weeks involved are those which are least useful to gardeners, golfers and others because, generally speaking, through late November, December, January and the first fortnight in February the weather tends to be lousy.
  I hope that the Home Office will look at this suggestion, which has come from hon. Members on both sides, with a considerable degree of seriousness because I am almost certain that, as a result of the vote tonight, new arrangements will have to be laid before the House. I hope that attention will be paid to the proposition of reverting to G.M.T., but for a very much shorter period.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: I wish, first, to congratulate the four maiden speakers, who have made excellent contributions to our debate. Without naming them all, I must refer to the hon. Member the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), whose predecessor, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, was highly thought of in the House.
  I was intrigued by the humour of the Nationalist from the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), who is likely to need

  1389
  in his somewhat lonely position, being the only member of his party represented here.
  A great deal of the discussion has taken place as if the vote had already occurred. Everybody seems to think that it is a foregone conclusion that B.S.T. will go. I suggest that at this stage we should wait and see what happens. An amazing number of people seem to think that because we have B.S.T. they are losing an hour. That is not the case. It is merely a question of the country organising its time in the way it sees fit; and we have arranged things so that we have an extra hour at night during a short period in the winter when we have so little daylight.
  A lot has been said about the difference between living in the extreme North compared with living in the South. However, the ratio of difference, if it can be put that way, between living in the North of Scotland and the South of England is precisely one hour. That is the ratio whether one lives in the far North of Scotland, the North-East of England, in the South or in any other part of the country. There is only one hour's difference.
  Bearing this in mind, it is extraordinary how the Scottish argument has come into the picture. If anything, it is an argument not against B.S.T. but against living in Scotland in the winter time. [Interruption.] Hon. Members know my interest. I have spent a lot of my life in Scotland—in the North-East of Scotland at that—and a lot of it in England. I can therefore, speak with knowledge of this issue. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who is my M.P., will accept that it is also an argument for living in Scotland in the summer time, when that part of the country has a lot of daylight.
  The advantages of B.S.T. were explained by the Home Secretary and I will not repeat them. I urge hon. Members not to put aside the question of timetables and communications, particularly as today we have increasing communications with the Continent in every respect, by which I mean by every means of transport, for business and holidays, by road, air and sea. All these advantages should not be swept aside as if they were of no significance. Whatever arguments are adduced about the time in the morning
  1390
  when typists or others begin work in this country, it is easily seen from the map in the Command Paper that the same time zone applies over a very wide area.
  It should not be forgotten that many alterations must be made twice a year when the clock is shifted under the old system. Indeed, far more work is involved than many people appreciate. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) refer to farmers making a change eight times during the year, on four occasions when the clock was changed twice. That may be overdoing it, but it demonstrates some of the problems that arise.
  I have spoken to many elderly people and they have assured me that they appreciate the extra hour in the evening, particularly in the winter. They do not want to get up early. Young people undoubtedly like it, and we have heard how it suits sportsmen. This latter point cannot be easily cast aside. While we must think about farmers and building workers, we must also consider sportsmen because millions of people are affected by this extra hour.
  I have been slightly annoyed by the arguments adduced by some of my neighbours in Scotland, who have genuinely declared that the extra hour is designed merely to allow Southern sportsmen to have an extra hour of leisure. We had the same argument many years ago when we had Double Summer Time. This extra hour enables many people, including my constituents, to, for example, dig the allotment or collect the cabbages. In any event, in Scotland I know many of my neighbours who make this claim, who are self-employed, who are able to take the day off to do a spot of fishing or shooting. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that this is so. I know many members of the farming population and how they organise their time.
  There seem to be three main groups of objectors; farmers and farm workers, building contractors and postmen. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) thought that the critical period lasted about 10 weeks. I doubt whether it is as long as that. The weeks from about now to the middle of January make up the critical period, with the longest night—21st-22nd December—corning roughly in the middle.
  Mr. David James: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will appreciate that as the world is going round the sun as well as itself revolving the mornings do not start drawing out until 2nd January, while the evenings, thanks be to God, will start drawing out on Thursday of next week. The middle point, therefore, is 2nd January and not the shortest day.
  Mr. Mackie: I appreciate that point, which is very ably shown in the sketch in the Command Paper. Nevertheless, the critical period is still only six or seven weeks and not as much as 10 weeks. It stretches out at one end or the other.
  It should also be remembered that in the middle of this period the school children have a couple of weeks' holiday. A little alteration in school times might almost solve their difficulties over the other weeks.
  We all insist on getting our mail as early as possible, but as we are presumably soon to be under new management at the Post Office perhaps something can be done to help the postmen. I have seen them going about with torches rather awkwardly fixed across their chests and trying to do their work in the dark by that means, but a miner's torch worn in the hat might be more suitable. They would then only have to bend down to see what they were doing. I seem to be giving Lord Hall's successor some helpful tips. I am sure that the postmen could be helped a lot, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West is right in saying that in the winter postmen in any case do the bulk of their work in the dark.
  I think that I can claim to speak fairly knowledgeably about farmers. Most of their work in the period I have given is with stock, and at that time most stock is indoors. I think that it was the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) who made a point of the great difficulty experienced by farmers in loading stock on dark winter mornings. He spoke as though farmers were loading stock every day during that six or seven week period, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) knows that that is not the case. A farmer probably loads stock once a month, and if he cannot pen the animals the night
  1392
  before or make other suitable arrangements he is making a bad job.
  When I was at the Ministry I had a letter from a farmer in Lincoln complaining about B.S.T., and it was obvious that he had not tried in any way to adapt himself to it. When I wrote and told him so, he very courteously replied that I was quite right.
  Cows—and other stock—hate the change that comes with the G.M.T. system and there is a drop in the milk yield. They just do not like any change in milking. It is wonderful what can be done with a routine. For instance the milking routine can start at 10 o'clock in the morning and finish at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. That leaves the cowmen with time off from 2 o'clock until 10 o'clock in the evening, when milking starts again and finishes about 2 o'clock in the morning. The men then go to bed. Many people think that that is ridiculous, but the point is that the cowmen have those hours between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. seven days a week for their shopping and social life. It is wonderful what can be done by a little reorganisation.
  Men working outside with tractors may find some difficulty, but most tractors are fitted with lights nowadays and it is quite easy to deal with that problem.
  There is a lot of inside work to be done in the winter—dressing potatoes, and so on—and I am quite certain that over this short period, or even a period of 10 weeks, farmers can quite easily organise themselves so as not to lose any time at all. A little organisation and planning would not cause too much trouble and would obviate any possible loss. We should note what the Ministry of Agriculture says in the Command Paper on this subject.
  I started farming in 1926 when we worked a 9¾-hour day on six days a week. In many places that is now down to an 8¼-hour day on five days a week. Because of this the amount of overtime for which the farmer has to pay has been considerably reduced. It will not be long before we are down to an 8-hour day for five days a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said, if we talk to the farmers and other people, they come round to a different way of thinking.
  I am no authority on the building industry, but I have had a word about

  1393
  it with the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I appreciate that British Standard Time causes difficulty in the building trade. The situation could be helped by making a small alteration in times and some planning. I appreciate that loss has resulted in the building industry, but grave doubt is cast on the figure of £30 million in the White Paper.
  I think that we must take the Command Paper as a guide. The hon. Lady the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) doubted its authenticity because of the 101 per cent. which one column added up to. I know, having been in it, that the Ministry rounds off percentages to the nearest whole point. Therefore, I hope that she will not be too hard on the ladies and gentlemen in the box on her left. Sixty per cent. of the people affected by British Standard Time are prepared to accept it. Only five per cent. of industry and commerce is dead against it. This is a point of which we must take cognisance.
  Other than the circulars from the National Farmers' Union, the building workers' organisation and the Post Office workers' union, I have had only two letters of protest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asked a statistician to work out the figures. If we do that, we come to the wrong decision, because the majority of people who are in agreement never write to us and say so. It is only the protestors who write. We must take the Command Paper as our guide and not the dozen letters or so which we receive.
  We have had British Standard Time for only two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred to the fantastic rows which there have been about it. Between the wars there were rows about ordinary Summer Time and then about Double Summer Time during the war. Nobody wants to do away with British Summer Time now. After a suitable lapse of time, when people realise that they have to adjust themselves to and plan for these things and that there are advantages in them, we receive no more letters about them.
  We have heard a great deal about the North and North-West of Scotland. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), whose constituency
  1394
  undoubtedly is the furthest north in Scotland, apart, of course, from that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), held a poll among his constituents and, according to a report in the Aberdeen People's Journal, they came out in favour of British Standard Time. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) also canvassed a number of his constituents. They, too, are in favour of British Standard Time. If hon. Members have any doubts, I suggest that they read the leader in The Guardian today which says that there are more of us like owls than larks, and we prefer an extra hour of daylight at the end rather than at the beginning of the day.
  I appeal to hon. Members to give this matter very deep thought. I hope that they will not scrap British Standard Time out of hand.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) made a powerful speech on behalf of sportsmen who, naturally enough, prefer light evenings. I sympathise with them, but I feel that their interests must be balanced against those of working people. The hon. Gentleman talked about football and the weekends but, with respect to him, this debate is not about weekends. It is concerned with the working week.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred several times to Scotland and suggested that practically all the opposition to British Standard Time came from Scotland. However, I speak as a Wiltshireman, and I can assure the House that there is very strong feeling among my constituents against British Standard Time.
  I agree that opinion is divided. I have received about a hundred letters, in contrast to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) who said that he had received two or three. It may be argued that a hundred letters is not a great number to receive in terms of the size of my constituency. The fact remains that the vast majority opinion is against B.S.T., and I intend to vote against it.
  We last debated the matter two years ago, when less than a third of the House voted for the Bill. I did not feel very

  1395
  strongly about it at the time, and I do not think that my constituents did. Certainly I did not receive a hundred letters on the subject on that occasion.
  Two years ago, we were assured that industrialists and exporters wanted the change. The Under-Secretary of State said that the National Union of Agricultural Workers approved of the change, and we were assured that there was growing support in the country as a whole. As I do not have to leave my house very early in the mornings and the idea of light evenings appealed to me, I abstained at the time. However, the position is very different today. There is now strong feeling in my constituency against B.S.T. and, whatever my personal inclination, I must represent that majority feeling in my vote. I still like light evenings but, if the majority of my constituents want to abolish B.S.T., I must vote in that way.
  Most of the points for and against have been fully covered already, but perhaps I might give four brief reasons for the strong feeling among my constituents. The first concerns agricultural workers. Whatever they felt in 1968 and whatever their union said, they disapprove of B.S.T. today. All hon. Members have been sent a document from the N.U.A.W. It held a survey among its members, and the view taken is that B.S.T. has created extra overtime, a reduction in their leisure time and disruption to their leisure and social life. In addition, it is felt that children are exposed to greater risks. It is clear that the union is overwhelmingly against B.S.T., and I have a great many of its members in my constituency.
  I then come to the farmers. I cannot pretend to have received a great many letters from them. Farmers do not make a habit of writing letters to me. However, I have attended meetings of farmers, and it is clear that the majority, though not all of them, want us to abolish B.S.T. The National Farmers Union has written to hon. Members saying that there is a substantial majority of farmers against B.S.T. Their view is that it creates traffic hazards, causes loss of production in mid-winter and gives rise to extra costs as a result of farmers having to use electricity on tractors and in yards and buildings. The hon. Member for Enfield, East said that farm workers can have
  1396
  lights on their tractors. They can, and they do, but this costs money.
  We have had a great deal of discussion about builders, and there is little more that one can say on this topic. No doubt, the dark mornings increase the costs to the builders. They traditionally start work at eight o'clock in the morning, and in my constituency very often at 7.30 Either they start work in the dark or they delay their start by an hour. If they work in the dark the have to use artificial lighting, and it is difficult for a small builder to arrange to have artificial lighting on the site. If they start an hour later, the lorries bringing the plant come during the peak periods of traffic and this causes dislocation and additional expense. I believe the builders have an overwhelming case.
  What about the general public? I would say that 80 per cent. of the letters that I have received are very strongly against continuing British Standard Time. At meetings with my constituents, this has come through very clearly to me. I do not know what time hon. Members think the average person leaves home in the winter to go to work. In my constituency I would say that he leaves not later than 7.45 or perhaps 7.30 a.m. He leaves his house in the dark. He travels to work in the dark and he arrives at work in the dark, and this is exceedingly depressing, particularly in a foul and beastly winter. The same worker gets back at 5.30 or 6 p.m. It is already dark again, even under the present system, so he does not get much benefit from the extra hour of light in the evening. True, it may be slightly more pleasant during the weekend, but as I have said before I do not think this is a debate about weekends. It is a debate about the working week.
  I should like to conclude by reading a letter which I received today from a constituent. It is revealing. My constituent writes:
  "As a parent and a head teacher of a country school I am sure that it is not in the interests of the children. Under the old system of reverting back to G.M.T. for the winter period all the children were able to go to school in daylight. Darkness in the evening was only for one or two days prior to the end of the autumn term and this did not apply to the youngest children who leave school either at 3.15 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. At present children of all ages have to be in school at the same time and so go to school in the dark.

  1397
  I do not think either that road safety figures prove anything as we have not had very severe conditions for the last two winters.
  Apart from children, most country people, who do not have the benefit of brightly lit streets, are penalised by this experiment.
  I am sure that however your personal views may be, you will be expressing the views of the majority of your constituents if you vote against this Measure."
  I can assure my constituent that I shall.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: As one who made my maiden speech at 4.30 in the morning. I can claim a little experience of the dangers of a dark morning.
  As a Member for a West Wales constituency, may I express a difference of opinion with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who made this a Scottish issue? There is a great deal of concern in Wales, and especially rural West Wales, about British Standard Time. I have one concern about the presentation of the White Paper. The White Paper should have been presented in a form which did not include England and Wales together. Wales should have been presented separately, as was the case with Scotland. If one considers the zones shown in the first few pages, one can see that it would have been quite possible to do this and the figure for Wales could have been presented separately as they were for Scotland. In that case, my right hon. Friend would not have been quite so sure of himself in saying that this was a Scottish issue.
  As a Member for a rural constituency, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the retention of British Standard Time. Obviously, the rural areas are affected, and affected much more than many other parts of the country.
  I shall not go over the reasons put by hon. Members for voting against the Order. As a statistician before coming to the House, I must warn those who are basing their intention to vote to retain British Standard Time on the accident figures that those figures can be most misleading. We are told that the number of accidents has decreased. What do we see in the record of accidents to children?—probably a net decrease when we put the morning and the evening from 4 to 6 o'clock together. Yet if one were to take the period from 4 until 7 in the evening, an hour longer, the figures would
  1398
  be very different. There would be a net increase in accidents and deaths among children between 5 and 14.
  There are unquantifiable factors in the emphasis which is put on British Standard Time as improving safety for children. We know the circumstances in which children go to school in the morning. Undoubtedly, the public disquiet and concern has meant that mothers have been taking their children to school, or that drivers have been more careful because of the possible public reaction. We cannot measure how long this state of affairs will prevail, how long a mother will continue to take her children to school or how long a driver will continue to take special care. After British Standard Time has been accepted and the public concern for the safety of children had receded a little, the driver may relax his concentration in the early morning.
  The situation in rural areas is of significant importance with regard to children. Many of the roads in Carmarthenshire have no pavement such as there is in urban or suburban areas. Children have to go to school in Carmarthenshire in the dark. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and I travelled up by train together, he would notice the difference in daylight in the morning between Carmarthen and South-East England. It is probably nearly an hour.
  Hon. and right hon. Members have said that the majority of people are basically not really interested or they are apathetic. The White Paper tells us that about 68 per cent. of people cannot give a reason one way or another why they are against or in favour of British Standard Time. Generally speaking, they are apathetic. We are concerned about the people who matter, and the people who matter are those who have to get up in the morning, builders, agricultural workers, farmers, and so on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is becoming almost like a revivalist meeting in South Wales. I am tempted to suggest that we should have television here to make a great impression.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) has spoken of the farming fraternity. Not only has the National Farmers' Union sent me a letter but both the Carmarthenshire branch of the Farmers' Union of Wales and the agricultural workers of South Wales have expressed concern, deep concern in the

  1399
  case of the agricultural workers. It is just not true that the agricultural fraternity are satisfied with British Standard Time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), among others, has referred to the fact that in February and March, 1970, people were more ready to accept British Standard Time than they were in December, 1969. I am not sure what use one can make of that. Obviously, in February and March the impact of British Standard Time is not so great as it is in December. Whenever a survey is made, people tend to react to the situation of the day, and the situation in December is vastly different from that in March.
  I could go on to highlight the importance of the lighter morning for the worker. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will say something about the construction industry if he catches the eye of the Chair.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), the former Minister for Sport, referred to sport in general. Perhaps I may refer to one in which I claim to be a slight expert, which is rugby, as is natural for someone from South Wales. Did he realise, when he spoke of his concern that the rugby player cannot play his game in the dark hours, that the sport with the greatest appeal to the people of South Wales these days is floodlit rugby? On any midweek night when Llanelli plays Aberavon, Cardiff or Newport there will be a full house for a floodlit rugby football match. I am sure that the same applies to association football.
  As the son of a colliery carpenter, and knowing the colliery workers, steel workers and builders, I know that if they have done their share of work in the day they do not fancy running out in their rugby shorts at 3 o'clock in the afternoon in midweek. If a miner has been underground for seven hours he has quite some stamina if he goes out at 3 o'clock and runs for 90 minutes.
  Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend must not put too much emphasis on South Wales. He must remember that shop workers and many other people have Wednesday or Thursday afternoon off,
  1400
  and there are no floodlights in amateur grounds. My hon. Friend must think of them as well.
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend should make a survey of the rugby grounds of South Wales. Most of the first-class grounds there have floodlights.
  I do not want to pursue this matter. Suffice it for me to say that I have every intention of voting against the retention of British Standard Time.
  9.3 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeith: It is very agreeable to be able to agree with such an agreeable speech from an hon. Member opposite. I endorse everything the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) said.
  Throughout the debate I have listened with great care to every argument in favour of keeping British Standard Time. One, and one only, I suggest, merits serious consideration, and that is the argument about road casualities put forward by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). We should consider that point, and I hope that I shall be able to deal with it a little later.
  I was not at all impressed by the other arguments in favour of its retention, particularly those from my compatriots on the other side of the House, including the exiled compatriot. Probably the best thing that I can say about the hon. Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is that I salute them for having the courage to take a line which I am certain will be extremely unpopular in their constituencies. I only hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, West will not be bitten by a postman when he goes back home at the weekend.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), our exiled Scot, spoke with a rather different voice from that of many of the farmers in Scotland. He seemed to be particularly concerned about the problems which will arise with regard to his winter holidays on the Continent or elsewhere abroad through the complications arising from the timetables.
  We have heard excellent maiden speeches in the debate. If it is not invidious for me to do so, I should like in particular to congratulate my hon.

  1401
  Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on a most exceptionally good speech. I am certain that, for the way in which he has championed this cause, all his constituents will have undying love and support for him and that we shall see him remaining in that seat for many years.
  Praise should be given to those who have taken a great deal of trouble to compile this review. A great deal of work has gone into it, and it should be recognised. I make one exception, and that is the omission about the medical and health aspects, which have been barely touched upon.
  The Road Research Laboratory statistics merit serious thought. But I suspect the figures because it seems to me that no credit has been given to various other contributory factors which have helped to reduce the casualty rate during these years. For example, no credit has been given to the massive road safety campaigns which have been conducted, nor to the increase in the number of seat-belts fitted to cars, nor to "breathtaking Barbara". Although one does not find a great many people drinking before they go to work early in the morning, and therefore, this may not be a very significant point, I feel that, as a result of the good work which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) undertook in bringing in the breathalyser, a great many people no longer drive to work with a blinding hangover, which can easily be the cause of an accident in the mornings. If one takes these other factors into account, I do not think that the statistics are necessarily as valid as those who promote them would have us believe.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On the question of the Road Research Laboratory's figures—-and one obviously takes them seriously—does my hon. Friend recall that when this experiment was originally introduced the laboratory confidently announced that if British Standard Time had been in operation in 1964, there would have been 290 fewer casualties on the roads—neither more nor less? Does it not follow from this that the laboratory had a certain vested interest in the experiment?
  Earl of Dalkeith: That may well be my hon. Friend's interpretation of the
  1402
  situation and I have no evidence for disagreeing with him.
  The link with Europe has been mentioned as one of the reasons for keeping British Standard Time, but that argument has been demolished absolutely by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). He did so by pointing out that Italy juggles with its clock, and if Italy can do that there is no possible reason why we should not do so. It has been said that a number of business men are in favour of British Standard Time because it makes their contact with the Continent by telephone easier. Only about 45 minutes ago I was handed an up-to-date opinion poll taken in the Edinburgh City Business Club, which is comprised of business men. It shows that 75 per cent. were against British Standard Time and only 15 per cent. in favour. This is the view of business men, and one could not have a more up-to-date poll. It came to me only 45 minutes ago.
  The difficulty about public opinion polls is that, although they may produce a significant answer, they give no indication of the strength with which somebody holds a view. It is my experience that everybody I have met who has been in favour of keeping B.S.T. has been mostly in favour in a rather lukewarm way, whereas practically all those who have been against B.S.T. feel passionately about it. It is a case of comparing real hardship with perhaps fairly minor inconvenience.
  The view put forward by the ex-Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), that sportsmen would regard it as convenient to continue with B.S.T. should be seriously taken into account, but he neglected to mention that presumably sportsmen are included in public opinion polls. They are not singled out and excluded, and, so far as we can see, all the most recent polls show that a decided body of people throughout the country are on the whole against the continuation of B.S.T. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the leader in the Daily Telegraph that hit the nail firmly on the head, and he made a valid point in that respect.
  The other point I wish to mention is that relating to the health aspect. Only

  1403
  eight lines are devoted in this excellent review to the health side of the matter. I personally believe that the psychological effect of longer darker mornings should be taken seriously. It undoubtedly leads to a greater feeling of depression when people know that there is one more hour of darkness in the morning than there needs to be. I am not saying that it necessarily drives people to suicide, and if I were to make that suggestion the statistics would prove me wrong, because in the last two years the number of suicides has declined rather than increased. However, the statistics do not indicate how many people there are who at times feel pretty depressed and suicidal. They are reduced to a general state of b—mindedness. This may account for our having had so many industrial disputes in the last year or two. At any rate B.S.T. may have been a contributory factor. Any hon. Member who is a strong supporter of B.S.T. will merely say that the Labour Government caused all these disputes, but I believe that it has an effect on people since it is unnatural to have to get up one hour earlier during darkness.
  I should like to quote an extract from a letter written by a woman doctor to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe that she also sent a letter to the Lancet and to the Scottish Sunday Express. She said in the letter:
  "It is well known that we have a biological rhythm and that heart-rate, blood pressure, temperature, liver function, all show increased daytime levels and a corresponding nocturnal reduction and that these changes are largely governed by light and darkness. Pathological depression, mental illness and suicidal tendencies are characterised by early-morning wakening. An extra hour of darkness in the morning only makes the agony worse."
  It may not be within the knowledge of all hon. Members that light has definite effects on the animal, whether human or otherwise. Let me quote what happens to sheep. It may not be generally known that the ewe reaches the stage when she desires the tup due to the effect of the number of hours of daylight and the changing length of the day, which cause this process to take place. This is a photoelectrical process which results in the ewe coming to the right state of affairs for the tup. It may be that human beings are similarly attracted—
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: What do Eskimos do in the winter?
  Lord Dalkeith: I went through all the statistics that I could find last night. One thing which struck me was that the birth rate has been falling in the last two years.
  I must pass from that to an agricultural subject which I thought was beautifully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) in her maiden speech. I should like someone to answer one question. I do not know who is to answer the debate. Perhaps I might ask the Home Secretary to bear this point in mind. If we are to continue with the same kind of agricultural support system that we have enjoyed for some time, I wonder whether the additional cost which falls upon Scottish farmers as a result of B.S.T. will be taken into account in future farm price reviews. This point, so far as I know, has never been answered specifically.
  My last point concerns building. I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. In Scotland alone the cost of B.S.T. is about £8 million. This is at a time when we are desperately short of housing and there are 18,000 building workers out of work in Scotland. Can anything be crazier than to saddle this vital industry with such an unnecessary burden? I therefore hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will join in throwing out B.S.T. for good.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to make one or two comments, because I spoke against the Order when it was originally brought forward. I confess that I did not vote against it, because we got an assurance at the time that it would be an experiment for three years. Some hon. Members argued that it should be for only one year.
  I felt passionately about this matter at the time, and nothing has happened since to change my mind. In fact, I am more convinced that we should get rid of this measure at the earliest possible moment. I remember saying when the Order was introduced that I could not understand why it should be brought forward. The thought that occurred to me then was that one day the Minister went into his office and the civil servant who gave the Minister the benefit of his advice

  1405
  said, "Mr. Minister, here is a little proposal which has been tucked away in this pigeon-hole for a number of years. I have brought it out on odd occasions and the Minister at the time has put it back again. As you have nothing to do next week, perhaps you would like to introduce it." I could not think of any other reason for the Order being introduced.
  We were told that it was important for the business men because they had to be able to phone their counterparts in Europe at the same time. I then discovered that there was a difference of one hour between Italy and the rest of Europe—and Italy is in the Common Market. So what about the business men in Italy and France? They apparently did not lose any sleep because there was one hour difference between those countries. We then discussed this whole matter in relation to the United States where there is five-hour difference. It was an absurd and ridiculous argument. The main reason I opposed it at the time, and why I have continued to oppose it, is that it has such an effect on the lives of the people who work outside, in the construction industry, as postmen, as agricultural workers, and as other outside workers. They are badly affected by B.S.T.
  On the previous occasions I tried to explain to the Ministers concerned—and they happened to be our Ministers—that when a building worker starts work about one hour later in most cases—it has been three-quarters of an hour later sometimes—it means that he gets home that much later at night, and he loses that time at home with his family. Some people do not seem to understand that building workers may have long distances to travel. Many of them are employed at large sites, building power stations, which may be half an hour's journey away from a big city.
  No one seemed to think that that was a serious argument, and I can understand that 68 per cent. of the people do not mind one way or the other which system we have. One reason is that a worker in an engineering factory, for instance, goes to work and switches on the light. B.S.T. makes no difference to him, but it makes a big difference to the building worker.
  We have heard the accident statistics. Unfortunately, I do not have them with
  1406
  me, but I believe that there has been a marginal increase in the number of accidents in the building industry over the last two or three years. I argue that this is due to people working in the dark, often with artificial light. Working in the building industry is dangerous anyway, but with artificial light the incidence of accidents is increased, because with artificial light one can get a black spot. A worker thinks that a board is in place. He walks over what he thinks is a board, but discovers, too late, that it is hole, and down he goes to the bottom of the scaffolding, and he is either killed or seriously injured.
  That is why I am against this Act, and why I have always been against it. Building workers are opposed to this experiment, and I hope that the House will have sufficient sense tonight to throw out this Measure and let us get back to some reality.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) because, for the first time in my life, I agree with every word that he has spoken.
  I am anxious to get rid of B.S.T. for ever. I agree with what the former Home Secretary said, that the main problem is that we do not have enough hours of daylight in the winter to begin with. This is our basic problem, and what we have to do is to try to put the few hours of daylight that we do have to the best use.
  I strongly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he tries to make out that this is solely a Scottish problem. It is nothing of the sort. It is a problem which worries people in the north of England, and particularly those in my constituency. For a long time I have felt strongly about this matter. I was one of a number of hon. Members who supported a Private Member's Bill brought in during the last Session of Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who has been here for a good deal of today, and I was sorry that that Bill did not get a better hearing in the House.
  I do not apologise for referring a good deal to my constituency to show why I and most of my constituents are so passionately against B.S.T. I think that my

  1407
  constituency is a good geographical example of the effect of B.S.T. on the British Isles. If one draws a line from the southern part of Cornwall to the northern part of the mainland of Scotland, my constituency falls exactly in the middle. The maps on pages 8 and 9 of the White Paper show the way in which the dawn moves across the country from the south-east and the sunset moves across the country from the north-east. My constituency falls almost precisely in the middle as the light arrives and as it fails.
  My constituents are almost unanimously against B.S.T. Within the last six weeks I have attended and have answered questions at three fairly large social gatherings in my constituency. I asked my constituents for their opinion about B.S.T. and on each occasion there was an almost unanimous vote for its abolition. On two occasions, less than five wanted to keep it and on the other occasion less than 10 wanted to keep it. It is not surprising that people living in Westmorland, where with B.S.T. the sun rises after 9 o'clock between 26th November and 1st February—which is 67 days—want to get rid of B.S.T.
  Some hon. Members have said that they have received relatively few letters on this subject, but I have had a great many letters which are almost unanimously against B.S.T. I will quote examples of the hardship which B.S.T. brings to my constituents. I have received a letter from a small builder in the Langdale Valley who employs 12 people, in which he says:
  "As an individual builder I find that during last winter B.S.T. cost me about £200 in lost time, and when I say lost time I do not mean time lost other than the inability of the men to see what they were doing."
  That small builder is being put to great trouble and expense at a time when in rural areas small builders are going out of business and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find builders to do maintenance work.
  I have also received a letter signed by seven farmers in the Langdale Valley. This is very different farming from that referred to by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), who said that in the dark mornings people on farms could do jobs indoors. My constituent says:
  1408
  "I would like to draw to your attention the trouble and financial loss which the present state is causing myself and other farmers in the country. My wife and I are having to arise at 6.30 a.m. in order to breakfast and get the children off to school; I myself have breakfasted and milked usually by 8 o'clock and then perforce have to sit on my backside and await sufficient daylight to do outside work. This wastage of time is about one hour daily and spread over the affected period means a loss of individual production of some 80 to 90 hours, and in terms of hard cash somewhere between £50 and £100 per winter. Life on a hill farm is difficult enough without us having to endure something which I feel is needless and not really helpful to the general well being and economy of the country and certainly not to us people who live in remote areas of the countryside."
  These are two typical examples of the feelings of people who live in a constituency which lies geographically in the middle of the dawn and the sunset. In my part of the country B.S.T. is detested, and I intend to vote against it tonight.
  I should like to mention the figures from the Road Research Laboratory to which the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. I took note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I prefer to rely on what was said by my right hon. Friend. I hope that I paraphrase him correctly in saying that he found it difficult to judge the accident figures one way or the other in view of other factors such as the breathalyser and other matters which have been introduced. I feel that those figures are not significant enough.
  I hope that this issue will not become clouded in the minds of hon. Members by considerations affecting the possibility of our joining the European Economic Community. The fact that British Standard Time fits in with the time in a large part of the Community is no ground for retaining British Standard Time here. My position on the approach to Europe is that I have always hoped that this country would be able to join the Community and I have always hoped that, when we knew what the price was, we should feel able to pay it. I plead, however, with any hon. Members who are enthusiasts for Europe not to vote for B.S.T. in what I regard as the misguided belief that to do otherwise would be to commit an un-European act. B.S.T. is unsuitable for us. Let us get rid of it because we think that it is a bad system for Britain I do not think that voting against B.S.T. could

  1409
  matter less for our application to join Europe.
  In paragraph 162, on page 55 of the Command Paper, it is suggested that 50 per cent. of the people were in favour of B.S.T. in mid-winter and that the figure rose to 51 per cent. in the spring. Those figures were obtained in the survey which was conducted last spring. My belief from my contact with people throughout the country is that there has been a massive swing against B.S.T. during the last few months. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who made such an excellent maiden speech, referred to the latest public opinion poll which has been published during the last few days. I believe that people have moved, and are moving, rapidly against B.S.T. I hope that in the Lobbies tonight, the House will reflect that massive swing against the system and that we abolish B.S.T. for all time.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. John Golding: A ninth-century litany begins:
  "From the fury of the Northmen
  May the Lord God deliver us."
  Tonight we can add to the Northmen Post Office engineers working outside, postmen, builders, agricultural workers, milkmen and newsboys. They will have good cause to be furious with this House if it votes tonight for the retention of British Standard Time.
  Members of this House are used to working in the dark. We are used to arriving late and working late. What we are not accustomed to is working very early in the morning in the dark on icy roads and icy paths.
  People employed in distribution are affected not just by the darkness but by the coldness as well. When people, in the comfort of their homes, go to the front door and see the milkman, newsboy or postman coping with the cold, they may begin to realise that these people, who cannot wear gloves because of the work they do, suffer hardships of cold as well as of darkness in their working lives.
  The public are often selfish. They want their extra hour of daylight at the end of the day but insist on having their post delivered before they leave home, their milk on the doorstep before break-
  1410
  fast and their newspapers to read on the train. They should think of the working conditions of the men and women who provide these amenities.
  I was shocked to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) in which he spoke of what he called the advantages of B.S.T. to the National Hunt racegoer and the golfer. I do not know how many hon. Members are able to view the clientele of National Hunt race meetings and golfers on winter afternoons. They are certainly not the people whom I shall support in the Lobby tonight if that support means that the postman, newsboy and milkman must suffer as a consequence.
  Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) pointed out, among other things, that more young people were playing football on Saturday afternoons than were watching the game? He estimated that probably a million youngsters were playing. Does not that come into the matter?
  Mr. Golding: It is, of course, open to people to play whatever game they wish on Saturday afternoons, and many of these youngsters are able to play games at school. I am speaking about those who must go to work and who, after a hard day's graft in manual and other trades, do not feel fit to play football at the close of a winter's evening.
  Mr. Bob Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly in the part of the county I represent, workers are on their way to work long before daylight, whether we have G.M.T. or B.S.T.?
  Mr. Golding: There is a great difference between people travelling to work, even upstairs in a smoke-ridden bus, and those walking the streets delivering milk, the post and newspapers. I urge hon. Members who are trying to adduce genuine arguments in this matter not to scrape the barrel. There must be cogent arguments in favour of retaining B.S.T. My only point at the moment is that an argument on behalf of sport is not a cogent one in favour of retaining it.
  Mr. Tom King: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's main thesis, but he

  1411
  seemed to draw a distinction between the interests of people who might attend afternon race meetings and those of people who might have to work in the early mornings, but might it not be true that with the increasing amount of shift work a great deal of the attendance at race meetings comprises those who have been on the early morning shift?
  Mr. Golding: There is no evidence of that. One has only to look at the timing of shifts. A man on the 6 o'clock to 2 o'clock shift cannot get to Haydock Park, or wherever it may be. The best he can do is to get into the betting shop. British Standard Time has no relevance whatever to those men who come off shift and can only go into the betting shop.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I fear that this is becoming an almost metaphysical argument, but perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that, whatever view his constituents take, people still like a flutter and take an interest in racing every day. All I tried to argue was that that would be impossible without a sufficiently large attendance at race meetings so that a market on the race could be properly formulated. If that proposition is true, my argument must be in the interest of the working men in his constituency.
  Mr. Golding: I was shocked by my hon. Friend's argument earlier, and I am further shocked now. How, at this present time, anyone can encourage bigger attendance at mid-week race meetings I do not know. I know that the hard working shift workers I represent would not agree with that point of view.
  On all sides at present increased productivity is being demanded of the work-people. In fact, postal workers have recently been given the stick by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications because of the fall in productivity in the postal services in the last two years. The significance of its being in the last two years has evidently not sunk into the mind of the Minister, but it is the period during which we have had B.S.T.
  The report itself makes clear that B.S.T. has led to a 1 per cent. fall in productivity in the postal service; to a decline in productivity of almost half of 1 per cent. on the Post Office engineering
  1412
  and telephone side; and to a significant loss in productivity in building. It is quite wrong to castigate the workers when the cause of the fall in productivity is clearly B.S.T.
  Many of us have received many letters from constituents demanding an end of B.S.T. The significant thing is that those who support B.S.T. do so in a lukewarm fashion, and that is true of our constituents. The people who oppose it very strongly suffer from it.
  The House should consider the postmen and the occupational groups who are badly hit by British Standard Time, and we should go from the comfort of these benches into the Lobby to support them.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: There are four large vested interests in favour of Greenwich Mean Time. I am in favour of British Standard Time. First, there is the big farmers lobby and the agricultural lobby as a whole; secondly, there is the construction industry; and, thirdly, there is the one for which I have the greatest sympathy, the post office workers and the men who deliver the letters. But there is a fourth lobby which has not been mentioned, namely, the "burglars' union". In the belief that I would be very well suited to put their case, it was suggested to me that I should put it, but I had to say that I could not support it in view of other larger constituency interests. Most good burglars like to do their work, as the French would put it, "cinqàsept". Much more burglary would take place if we reverted to Greenwich Mean Time. An additional hour of darkness means a great deal more business for the burglar and more trouble for the police.
  One section of the population has not been mentioned. The elderly and the retired are entitled to as much consideration as the working man. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who made a slashing attack on British Standard Time, will now hear the situation concerning retired people. Unfortunately, the Isle of Thanet does not have a very large population of hardworking people and therefore I am not able to say with great pomposity that we all work in the Isle of Thanet. We have the largest proportion of retired people in the country, an enormous number of

  1413
  elderly ladies, and, thanks to the policies of the Labour Government, the highest unemployment record practically anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  Between three and half-past four in the afternoon many of my constituents can be seen playing bowls in Broadstairs. A large number of children enjoy themselves in sport which can be played until half-past four in the afternoon. I am sorry to say that, unlike the miners of Wales, we cannot afford beautifully flood-lit rugby grounds. We look forward to having a good centre for recreation, but we have nothing like that at the moment. The area is not like the rich industrial Midlands or like parts of my own country of Wales which, I am glad to say, are much better off than they used to be.
  Most old people want to enjoy their afternoons out and not have to return home in the dark. If I remember aright, it can be completely dark at about 3.45 p.m. In my constituency there are about 50 old-age pensioners' clubs and associations. At present, all their meetings take place in the afternoon. They can enjoy their afternoons and still get home before dark. If we return to Greenwich Mean Time, they will have to go home in the dark, and more and more old people are getting worried about the prospect.
  In my view, old people should have our first consideration. They represent between 20 and 25 per cent. of the population and, as a large group of people, in my view they should receive priority. It does not matter all that much to a builder if he leaves home in the morning in darkness and, after all, builders are just one section of industry.
  I turn now to the point which has been made about sport. Obviously a number of hon. Gentlemen do not understand the racing fraternity as I do. I have been associated with the sport for some years. I am not concerned only with bowls. It is a terrible situation when the first race of the day has to be at 11.30 a.m. in order that racing may finish by 2.30 or 2.45 because it is too dark later in the afternoon.
  Greenwich Mean Time also affects those who play football of all kinds, since it does not enable them to practise after finishing the day's work. They are not all miners working on the coal face. All
  1414
  sorts of people belong to amateur clubs. We see a great increase of youthful participation in active sport today. Whether people play football or rugger, whether they are interested in racing or whether they play bowls in a more leisurely fashion, all of them want the present experiment to continue. We have a seven-day week, and people have two and a half days in which to enjoy their respective leisure and pleasure sports which need an extra hour of daylight.
  In any event, going back to G.M.T. means going back to its for nearly six months of the year, under the old Summer Time Act of 1922. That seems to be ludicrous. If we have to make a change, it would seem that it is needed only for part of November, December, January and February. In my view, it would be much better to keep on the present excellent experiment.
  For a long time, I was a member of the all-party committee on tourism. The subject of British Standard Time came before that committee, and we were united in putting forward the proposal that, for the sake of the travel organisations and tourism generally, the experiment was a good one. The British Hotels and Restaurants Association, catering firms, B.E.A., B.O.A.C. and all the other tourist organisations are supporters of the present situation for many reasons which I need not go into now.
  Within three years, tourism will be our greatest industry. It is well on the way to being that now. It far overshadows the great industries which are opposed to the present position. On grounds of humanity for the old, of recreation for the young, and of major industry, I say that we have been far too narrow in the lobbies that we have received and that we should take a broader view. If we take that view, let us stick to the present and then work a compromise for the really difficult months of December, January and February, which this House might easily be able to reconcile.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Throughout this debate so many have used arguments of preference for some kind of convenience. Those who are looking for the convenience of their constituents, for other interests which they may claim to represent, can do so honestly and with considerable validity.

  1415
  But what is much more important than the convenience of some particular section of the community is to consider the real issues in this debate as I see them—the issues of the cost in lives and in money. This is really what this debate should be about. We can all think of people who will benefit from some part of the change in or the continuation of the present system. What is important is that we consider the whole cost in lives and in money. It is when we look at this that the position becomes a little clearer.
  One very large element in money is the cost of electricity that could be saved if we were to continue British Standard Time. This is estimated at about £100 million. All the arguments of the hill farmers, those people who want to go to betting shops and those who want to obtain advantages for tourism do not match this advantage that can be estimated as it is done in the White Paper.
  Even more important than the cost in terms of money is the cost in terms of lives. I do not think sufficient notice has been taken of the Road Research Laboratory's paper that came out today. It is shameful that we have underestimated the impact that this should be making upon our debate. It is all very well talking about special interests, but when it is estimated that lives are being saved as a result of British Standard Time, each one of us as we go into the Division Lobby must weigh very carefully indeed how many lives are likely to be saved as a result of what we are doing and as a result of the way in which we vote tonight.
  The evidence of this is clear. Paragraph 162(c) of the White Paper states:
  "There is little doubt that British Standard Time has led to an overall improvement in road accident casualties …".
  It was not possible to quantify that statement at all precisely but the Road Research Laboratory—not a pressure group of any kind—has made that quantification which is available before we vote tonight. It has shown that as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time the number of lives saved and of those who have avoided serious injury has increased by 12 per cent. during the affected hours. This means that serious accidents and loss
  1416
  of life have fallen by 12 per cent. during the affected hours as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time, that 2,700 people have been saved from death or serious injury—in England 2,200, in Wales 25 and in the whole of Scotland 455.
  Anybody who thinks that there are issues much more important than this should re-examine his priorities. In view of this reduction of 12 per cent. in the number of those killed or seriously injured, we must surely weigh this consideration with the other special interests which have been advanced. On that basis, I feel that we should agree that British Standard Time should continue.
  10.0 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East) rose—
  Hon. Members: Vote!
  Sir J. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a strong plea that, on the ground of money saved and lives saved, we should continue the present system. All the speeches in the debate so far have shown that there is an extra cost incurred as a result of British Standard Time. On the question of lives and injury saved, the argument is far more difficult. The principal difficulty is that, because of British Standard Time, we have taken various steps to protect, for example, the lives of children in a way which we have never sought to do before.
  I hope that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members will come down on the side of abolishing British Standard Time. I am sure that those who live in the South can overcome any difficulties which they will experience as a result, and I am confident that those who live in the North and the West would find it extremely hard to overcome their difficulties if British Standard Time were continued. For these reasons, I feel that we should reject the Order and go back to the systetm which we used to have.
  Mr. Tom King Mr. Tom King rose—
  Hon. Members: Vote!
  Mr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me

  1417
  to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the Amendment standing in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends, bearing in mind what the situation will be if the Order is not approved?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. That would be quite out of order.
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I sense that the House wishes to come to a conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that the remainder of what I have to say will command the same universal assent as my opening remark.
  I join in the congratulations already given to the three hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady who have made their maiden speeches today. They brought the views of their constituents to the debate and showed how strong is the concern felt in their own areas on this matter.
  There are a few questions on which several of us have hoped for an answer. For instance, I did not succeed in interrupting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and neither did anyone else—[Interruption.]—and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) asked for elucidation upon one matter which should be gone into—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House will agree that we have had an interesting and enjoyable debate. It is obvious that the House wishes to come to a conclusion. We ought now to listen quietly to the hon. and learned Member who has the Floor, so that we may come soon to that conclusion.
  Mr. Bell: I have no intention of standing for more than a few minutes between the House and the Division which we are obviously approaching. But a few points were raised that I said that I would try to deal with, and it is right that I should try to do so. I shall leave all the matters that have been generally canvassed and turn to the questions that were left outstanding.
  1418
  Some hon. Members asked what would be the effect of defeating the Motion in the Division Lobby tonight. It would be that we should return to the British Summer Time Acts, as amended in Schedule 1 to the 1968 Act. That is, we should go back to Greenwich Mean Time from the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October until the Sunday after the third Saturday in March. But the right to make Orders prescribing different dates would also revive, so that there would be the flexibility and the possibility of adjustment which some hon. Members particularly wanted.
  The question of road casualties appears to concern some hon. Members very greatly. The document from the Road Research Laboratory which was put in the Library today was produced. It is rather odd that it should suddenly appear on the day of the debate, headed in a way which suggests that it is for use in the debate. I point out to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who raised the matter in an intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and then developed it in his own speech but would not allow any intervention, that the Road Research Laboratory is saying in it not that there has been a reduction in casualties as a result of British Standard Time but that it thinks that if there had been Greenwich Mean Time during the winters concerned more people would have been killed. That is not statistics but an expression of opinion. It is just the Road Research Laboratory saying, "We think that more people would have been killed." [Interruption.]
  I hope that I am correct in thinking that all hon. Members who wish to take part in the Division have now arrived. If there were any doubt about that, I should, in spite of the noise, continue to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for several more minutes. But I feel reasonably satisfied about that, and that hon. Members on both sides will take the United Kingdom view of the subject and vote in a way that will show that we are as thoughtful and as mindful of the interests of the further reaches of this Kingdom as we are of the coastal resorts mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).

  1419
  I hope that the House will now reach a decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and throw out the Order, and with it British Standard Time.
  Question put,
  That the British Standard Time Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 81. Noes 366.

  Division No. 40.]

  AYES

  10.9 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Ogden, Eric

  Barnes, Michael

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Barnett, Joel

  Harper, Joseph

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hon. James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hunter, Adam

  Roper, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Lawson, George

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

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Small, William

  Doig, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.

  Dunnett, Jack

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Garrett, W. E.

  Meacher, Michael

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Molloy, William

  Mr. James Johnson and

  Grant, John D. (Islington, East)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. John H. Osborn.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eadie, Alex

  Adley, Robert

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Edelman, Maurice

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Channon, Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clark, William (Surrey, East)

  Ellis, Tom

  Atkinson, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Evans, Fred

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clegg, Walter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)

  Coombs, Derek

  Fernyhough, E.

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fidler, Michael

  Baxter, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Costain, A. P.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Benyon, W.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Biffen, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charies

  Bishop, E. S.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Blaker, Peter

  Curran, Charles

  Fortescue, Tim

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Foster, Sir John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fowler, Norman

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Dance, James

  Fox, Marcus

  Booth, Albert

  Davidson, Arthur

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

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fry, Peter

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gardner, Edward

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Braine, Bernard

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Bray, Ronald

  Deakins, Eric

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Brewis, John

  Dean, Paul

  Glynn, Dr. Alan

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Golding, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Dempsey, James

  Goodhart, Philip

  Buchan, Norman

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Goodhew, Victor

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

  Dormand, J. D.

  Gorst, John

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Driberg, Tom

  Gower, Raymond

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Gray, Hamish

  Green, Alan

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rossi, Hugh (Homaey)

  Grieve, Percy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McManus, Frank

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gurden, Harold

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Madel, David

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hamling, William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Marten, Neil

  Sillars, James

  Hardy, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Silverman, Julius

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maude, Angus

  Simeons, Charles

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mawby, Ray

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Havers, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J>

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hay, John

  Mendelson, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soref, Harold

  Heseltine, Michael

  Millan, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hicks, Robert

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Speed, Keith

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Sproat, Iain

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stainton, Keith

  Holland, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Stallard, A. W.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Molyneaux, James

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Money, Ernie

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Horam, John

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hordern, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  More, Jasper

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Strang, Gavin

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hunt, John

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Mudd, David

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

  James, David

  Murray, Ronald King

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Janner, Greville

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Neave, Airey

  Temple, John M.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Jessel, Toby

  Normanton, Tom

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Nott, John

  Tinn, James

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Torney, Tom

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Trew, Peter

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Jopling, Michael

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Waddington, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kelley, Richard

  Pardoe, John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Kerr, Russell

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wall, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wallace, George

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pendry, Tom

  Walters, Dennis

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Pentland, Norman

  Ward, Dante Irene

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Percival, Ian

  Watkins, David

  Kinnock, Neil

  Pounder, Rafton

  Weatheill, Bernard

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Knox, David

  Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)

  Wells, William (Waisall, N.)

  Lambie, David

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lambton, Antony

  Probert, Arthur

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Lamond, James

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Whitchead, Philip

  Lane, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Raison, Timothy

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Latham, Arthur

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rankin, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Redmond, Robert

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Loveridge, John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodnutt, Mark

  MacArthur, Ian

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Woof, Robert

  McCann, John

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)

  Younger, Hn. George

  MacColl, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Mr. Charles R. Morris and

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmamock)

  Mr. Ronald Bell.

  McLaren, Martin

  BANK CHARGES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]
  10.24 p.m.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I rise to draw the attention of the House to the co-ordinated increase in bank charges recently announced by the clearing banks. This increase is only the latest manifestation in a whole series of manifestations of the cosy little cartel that has been operated by the clearing banks in this country over a great many years.
  This latest increase has affected hundreds of thousands of people. It might not be putting it too high to say that millions of people could be affected. There are, according to reports, no fewer than 30,000 people in one firm who have been affected by this increase. Everybody whose firm is in a scheme where the staff have their salaries or wages paid directly into their bank accounts is affected by this latest increase in charges.
  These customers of the banks have no redress whatever. They have not even had any individual notification of the increased charges which they are going to have to pay. The customers are unable to take their accounts to any other bank. If they do so they will find the same increases in charges there. The only thing that they can do is to transfer their money and their business to an entirely different section of the banking industry, and until the events of last week, at any rate, these latest increases in bank charges were proving to be the best possible recruiting sergeant for that invaluable institution the Giro; in fact, the best recruiting sergeant it has had since its foundation.
  Tonight, however, I am concerned not so much with the amounts of the increases—though these are steep enough in all truth, and plenty of people in the country, as I know full well, are hopping mad on the subject—as with the collusive way in which these increases have been introduced. All the banks, in one announcement, said that they intended raising their charges, by the same amount, on the same services, with all the increases coming into effect on the
  1424
  same day. One could hardly have a clearer textbook example of the operation of a cartel.
  This is not the only recent manifestation of the cartel. During the last couple of months the matter of evening closing and the introduction of charges on cheques backed by cheque cards issued by the banks other than members of the British Bankers Association have all been the subject of the same sort of identical announcement. The cartel operates on the hours of business which the banks transact, and on the rates which they pay for their deposits, and although it has been rumoured that the banks themselves would like to have done away with this aspect of their own cartel, it should be borne in mind that the reason they would like to do away with it is that it would be in their own interests to do so.
  They are not hoping to do away with the interest rate aspect of the cartel in order to compete more effectively among themselves. Perish the thought. That is the last thing that they have in their minds. The reason they were talking of doing away with the interest rates side of the cartel was that they hoped to attract more business from other financial institutions.
  This cartel operates, moreover, over a whole range of different charges made by the banks for their various services, and until quite recently it sustained a persistent refusal to publish proper statements of account, and even to recognise duly constituted trade union bargaining agents for their staffs.
  It is not my purpose tonight to examine all the implications of this cartel: sufficient to say that it is of such an all-embracing nature that it is obvious that its existence could not be hidden if it were tried. This is not just a cartel. It is an open cartel. in fact, it is more than that. It is a brazen, self-flaunting cartel. If we had in this country the sort of effective anti-trust legislation that is known elsewhere, conduct of this sort would have landed the boards of directors of the clearing banks behind bars a long time ago, and quite rightly so. In this country we do not enjoy such protection.
  We have the various Monopolies Acts and Restrictive Trade Practices Acts.

  1425
  They have proved to be puny tools indeed. It is not my purpose tonight to weary the House with citing chapter and verse of the legislation that bears on this matter. Suffice it to say that the Government themselves recognise that the case has been proved.
  Towards the end of September I wrote a letter to the then Board of Trade in connection with the introduction of charges on bank cards other than those issued by the clearing banks. I had a reply from the newly-constituted Department of Trade and Industry a couple of weeks ago. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not read the full text of the letter, and that he will accept the following as a fair extract from it:
  "So far as the Monopolies Commission is concerned, it does appear that the clearing banks' action could be made the subject of a limited inquiry under the power to refer to the Commission situations where at least one-third of the supply of a particular service is in the hands of firms who conduct their respective affairs in such a way as to restrict competition."
  Those are not my words. Those are the Government's words—" as to restrict competition".
  The Minister went on to say that he thought it would be more appropriate to see this in the round—I quite agree with him. He says that he wants to look at this action in the wider context of the structure and practice of the banking industry and the various arrangements between the clearing banks. I thoroughly welcome that decision. He said:
  "The Government are looking closely at these in the light of their declared intention of promoting competition in areas where it is not at present effective."
  Again, those are not my words, but the Government's words. The case is proven beyond doubt.
  Just to rub the point home, I wrote again to the Minister on the occasion of the introduction of the new increases in the group charges. I received a reply from him a couple of days ago which said that my letter:
  "… raises similar issues to your earlier letter … and I have nothing to add to my letter …"
  The Government are saying that here is a second clear case for a reference to the Monopolies Commission. We are very glad that the Minister accepts our case. I am quite prepared to sympathise with him in his predicament in this de-
  1426
  bate. He has clearly agreed that something should be done, and yet he is not apparently in a position to announce that anything will be done. I do not expect this to be the occasion for a major revelation of Government policy, but the Minister has accepted that in the space of less than two months we have had two clear cases for reference to the Monopolies Commission. It is there in black and white. Despite these admissions, the Government, to all outward appearances, are doing nothing more than studying the situation, the facts of which have been an open public scandal for many years.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will accept that this matter has been raised tonight in a non-partisan manner, despite what I have said about his inaction. I deeply regret that my own party did nothing about this when they were in a position to do so. Equally, I am confident that most of the sentiments I have expressed tonight will be echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister does not need very much strength or courage. All he has to do is to lean on the banks. If he does so, I am confident that they will yield without a fight in a matter of weeks. If, however, the months roll by and nothing further transpires, he will not expect us to be as gentle with him the next time this matter is raised in the House, as surely it will be.
  10.35 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) has done a service in raising this matter tonight and in the form in which he has raised it. I am surprised that this move has come from his side of the House and not from this side in view of all that is involved in it, but I am delighted, whichever side has brought it, that it is having an airing tonight.
  I do not think that the hon. Member's message is to the Government or to the Treasury Bench. It is to the banks themselves. I believe that they must take a stand in this matter. I want to see private enterprise banks. I want to see the sort of competition which a private enterprise system must have from the banks. I agree with the hon. Member that whatever the reasons, whatever urges from Governments, of both parties, there may have been on the banks in

  1427
  the past, we do not at present have the competition and the free working of the banking facility that we ought to have. I would urge the banks to pay heed to what the hon. Member has said.
  I want to say only a few words, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have an answer to give from the Treasury Bench. But I do not really want to hear his answer. I want action from the banks themselves. I believe that it is far too easy, perhaps to suit their own ends or, perhaps, because they feel that they have a special responsibility to help Chancellors of the day to overcome their problems—whatever the reasons, the banks seem to have deviated from what I consider to be the sound banking base that the country must have if it is to continue as a free enterprise country.
  Too many decisions are made by the joint banks which are blanket decisions covering all. This is dangerous for the country. One recognises the inflationary problems, and they must be dealt with. The Government must restrict inflation by, perhaps, restricting household purchases, but I believe that if they allow it to interfere with the free working of the small and medium-sized businesses, the general economic strength of the country will suffer.
  I ask the banks to show a little bit of independence. They showed a little bit about 18 months ago, and I ask them to go further. I join the hon. Member for Dudley in asking them, whether it be a cartel outlook or whatever the other outlook is, to take an independent line on occasions, so that we will feel that one can go from one bank to another, when an honest discretion will be shown instead of their having to work to a rather narrow loyalty within themselves.
  I agree with the hon. Member that this is the beginning. Unless the banks themselves—never mind the Government—heed it, they may well put themselves out of business. Free enterprise banking has been the facility which has allowed the country to become one of the leading trading countries, and a wealthy country at that. The banks may be helping to bring about their own demise, and I do not want that to happen.
  I ask the banks to heed this Adjournment debate. If my hon. Friend the
  1428
  Under-Secretary can give them some sort of lead which will allow them to use their own discretion and feel that they do not have to be tied to the edicts which come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department, he will be doing the country and them a good turn. I thank the hon. Member for making the point. I hope that it will be listened to outside. If it is not, I agree with him that this is a subject which will be raised on more than one occasion in the future.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) and the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this Adjournment debate, since basically both my hon. Friend and I have been at one in writing to the Department on various occasions concerning the collusive raising of bank charges and the business of charging other bank customers 4s. for cashing cheques at the clearing banks.
  I certainly do not want to inject a partisan note into the debate, because I am very pleased with the contribution of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). I think we are all at one tonight in this Chamber in wishing to promote further competition within banking. I wonder, however, why the Government should appear to be a little bit reluctant to enforce competition on the clearing banks by the very fact that they are rather reluctant to refer the whole issue to the Monopolies Commission, which, one would have thought, was the statutory authority for dealing with monopoly circumstances of this kind.
  Could it be, perhaps, that competition in bank charges might well become competition in other aspects of the clearing banks' operations, such as competition in attracting deposit accounts, possibly in paying higher interest rates for deposits? The clearing banks get their money remarkably cheaply in view of the long-term trend in interest rates. It might even be that the clearing banks would be forced, if there was a system of real competition, to pay interest rates, albeit rather small ones, on current accounts, from which they at present get a fair amount of money from their customers which they are able to put to good use but for which they give little in return. There is no doubt that competition could reduce the charges which the banks make

  1429
  to their customers, and not only in the I.C.I. type of scheme.
  The recent collusive raising of charges is not in the public interest and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, I should have thought that it represented a full justification for a reference to the Monopolies Commission and not merely to an inter-departmental inquiry.
  It is stated Government policy to promote competition throughout all sectors of British industry and commerce. The test of the Government's intentions will be seen by their attitude to competition in the monopoly position of the clearing banks. This is a time for action rather than words and I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley when he said that we do not want to wait for several months and find that little is done in this respect.
  It is up to the Government tonight to show, even if they cannot promise immediate action, that they have the courage of their convictions, that they really believe in competition and that they will take the first tentative steps to enforce competition in a sphere of British financial operations which hitherto has not been subject to this very important principle.
  10.42 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Gilbert), the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) have raised a matter which I agree is of the greatest importance.
  The co-ordinated increases in bank charges to which reference has been made are, I take it, the increases announced by the Committee of London Clearing Banks in the special terms made available under group schemes to employees of large firms and Government Departments—the so-called "I.C.I. terms". The essence of these arrangements is that they are, in general, more favourable to individual account holders who are employees of those organisations.
  These terms have remained unchanged for the last 10 years. Individual banks are, I understand, reviewing other charges made to account holders but are not, as far as I know, taking concerted action in this sphere.
  1430
  There has also been much reference to the decision of the clearing banks to impose a 4s. charge for the cashing of cheques against Co-operative Bank cheque guarantee cards. These are credit cards, as the hon. Member for Dudley pointed out.
  These are, first and foremost, matters for the clearing banks and their customers, and it would be out of place for the Government to deliver an "instant" opinion on the justification or otherwise of the banks' actions.
  Dr. Gilbert: This is not a question of the clearing banks' customers paying this 4s. It is the customers of the other banks.
  Mr. Ridley: In connection with the points to which I have referred, I simply said that it would be wrong for the Government to make an instant judgment in these matters, whether they apply directly to the customers of the clearing banks or, as the hon. Gentleman said, to the other banks in question. At least one of the organisations affected by the proposed increase is reported to have taken the matter up direct with the clearing banks.
  The clearing banks are doubtless well aware of the public criticism of a number of their recent actions and will, presumably, be considering whether any action on their part, individual or collective, is called for to meet this criticism. No doubt also the directors of the banks will read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what hon. Members have said in this debate.
  At the same time, the recent publicity will have drawn the attention of the public to the fact that some of the range of facilities provided by the clearing banks are also provided by other institutions. There may well be a number of individual customers of the clearing banks who would be well advised to investigate whether their own particular requirements could be met more satisfactorily, and perhaps more cheaply, by one of these other institutions. Indeed, it must not be assumed that charges for services which the banks make to individuals or firms are necessarily uniform either as between different clearing banks or even different branches of the same bank. Individual managers have a good deal of discretion, and there is therefore scope for shopping around and bargaining. The charges actually

  1431
  made may reflect the extent and range of services used by the account holder, and the balance maintained in the account.
  The hon. Member has suggested that the activities of the clearing banks should be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Before dealing with this suggestion specifically, I should like to confirm that the Government attach the greatest importance to competition and to rooting out restrictive practices as a means of ensuring the best allocation of resources and of safeguarding the interests of the consumer, and financial institutions are in no different position from any other bodies in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be announcing the Government's proposals for improving the effectiveness of the machinery now available for promoting competition.
  Because we attach such importance to the promotion of competition, the Government naturally give serious consideration to suggestions from hon. Members, and from outside the House, that particular industries in which competition appears to them to be ineffective should be examined by the Monopolies Commission. When we receive such suggestions we see, first of all, whether the statutory criteria for reference to the Commission are satisfied; that is, whether one third of the supply of the product or service concerned is in the hands of one firm or of several firms which conduct their respective affairs in such a way that competition is restricted.
  If these statutory criteria are satisfied, we go on to consider whether there is any evidence of abuse of a monopoly position, whether by unfair action against competitors or exploitation of customers; and we also take account of any evidence that the absence of competition has led to unnecessarily high costs or the misallocation of economic resources. Finally, we consider any elements peculiar to the industry concerned which may be relevant to a decision on whether to refer it to the Monopolies Commission.
  The hon. Member wrote asking me to refer to the Commission the action of the clearing banks in relation to the charges they make for cashing Co-operative Bank cheques. In my reply, I pointed out that
  1432
  this action appeared to fall within the statutory criteria of the monopolies legislation, and that a reference was therefore technically possible. I said that I was considering the matter. This is indeed the invariable practice when suggestions for reference are made.
  I have now considered all aspects of this suggestion very carefully, in the light of the criteria I have already mentioned, and have decided that I should not be justified in making a reference to the Monopolies Commission in the immediate future. I have listened carefully to all that hon. Members said this evening, but I do not think that they have raised any new considerations which have not been in my mind. I realise that this decision may be disappointing to the hon. Member and his hon. Friend, and perhaps to others, but I welcome the opportunity which this debate provides to make the position abundantly clear.
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: I know that my hon. Friends will be a little disappointed with that reply. The hon. Gentleman has announced a decision on their suggestion that a reference to the Monopolies Commission should be made, but has given no reason for that decision. He has indicated the considerations he bore in mind, and those considerations are well known to the House. The House has been told many times what type of conisderation Governments have in mind in deciding whether such reference should be made. What he has not told us is why a Government which claims to be dedicated to the promotion of competition have decided, when faced with circumstances such as my hon. Friends have described, not to make the reference. It would have been interesting to hear the reasons which led the Government to their conclusion.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) expressed surprise that this matter should have been raised from this side of the House, but it is not at all surprising. In my view, it is this side which has from the beginning shown the greatest interest in promoting competition. The powers under which this reference could have been made are powers given to the Government by the Monopolies and Mergers Act passed when the Labour Government were in office in 1965.
  Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not use those powers to do what he is now advocating should be done?
  Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has criticised the Labour Government for not making a reference, but he is referring to certain current facts which, in his view, call forth a reference. The Labour Government produced greater revelation by the banks of their financial position, something which was never done by previous Governments.
  1434
  I am sorry that the Minister has not felt able to tell us the reasons for his decision. We are afraid that this decision may be indicative of the realities of the competition policy which the Government propose to put forward in the next few weeks. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the light of his decision, we shall look at those proposals a great deal more critically.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Bridge of Cally, Perthshire (Water Supply)
  Bridge of Cally, Perthshire (Water Supply)
  M90, Glenfarg—Bridge of Earn
  M90, Glenfarg—Bridge of Earn
  Winter Works Programme
  Winter Works Programme
  Hospital Building Programme
  Hospital Building Programme
  Victoria Hospital (Nurses)
  Victoria Hospital (Nurses)
  Aberdeen (Hospital Ward Closure)
  Aberdeen (Hospital Ward Closure)
  Primary Schools Lanarkshire
  Primary Schools Lanarkshire
  Educational Expenditure
  Educational Expenditure
  Island of Bute—Mainland Bridge
  Island of Bute—Mainland Bridge
  Clyde Steamer Services
  Clyde Steamer Services
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Electricity Boards (Pensions)
  Electricity Boards (Pensions)
  East Dunbartonshire (Rents)
  East Dunbartonshire (Rents)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Inshore Fishing (Report)
  Inshore Fishing (Report)
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Planning Permissions (Plot Ratios)
  Planning Permissions (Plot Ratios)
  Secondary Schools (Staffing)
  Secondary Schools (Staffing)
  National Certificate of Education
  National Certificate of Education
  Clean Air Act, 1956
  Clean Air Act, 1956
  Sewerage (Scotland) Act, 1968
  Sewerage (Scotland) Act, 1968
  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
  Selkirk High School
  Selkirk High School
  Potatoes (Crop Destruction)
  Potatoes (Crop Destruction)
  Foreign Visitors (Medical Treatment)
  Foreign Visitors (Medical Treatment)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Geriatric Beds, Glasgow
  Geriatric Beds, Glasgow
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Private Nursing Homes (N.H.S. Beds)
  Private Nursing Homes (N.H.S. Beds)
  Retirement Pensioners (Aid)
  Retirement Pensioners (Aid)
  Heart and Chest Diseases
  Heart and Chest Diseases
  Mental Hospitals (Nurses)
  Mental Hospitals (Nurses)
  Thrashbush Home, Airdrie
  Thrashbush Home, Airdrie
  Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1970 (Sections 3–6)
  Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1970 (Sections 3–6)
  Highlands and Islands (Peat)
  Highlands and Islands (Peat)
  Vallay Strand, North Uist (Bulb Project)
  Vallay Strand, North Uist (Bulb Project)
  Larkhall (Stonehouse Redevelopments)
  Larkhall (Stonehouse Redevelopments)
  Blantyre (Redevelopment)
  Blantyre (Redevelopment)
  Hamilton, Larkhall and Blantyre (Health Centres)
  Hamilton, Larkhall and Blantyre (Health Centres)
  Clyde Valley (Park)
  Clyde Valley (Park)
  Aberdeen (School Toilets)
  Aberdeen (School Toilets)
  Investment Grants and Regional Employment Premium
  Investment Grants and Regional Employment Premium
  Electricity Boards (Investment Programmes)
  Electricity Boards (Investment Programmes)
  Feuing System
  Feuing System
  St. Andrew's House (Civil Servants)
  St. Andrew's House (Civil Servants)
  Housing Programme
  Housing Programme
  Midlothian (Teachers)
  Midlothian (Teachers)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Fife (Police)
  Fife (Police)
  Unpaid and Overdue Fines
  Unpaid and Overdue Fines
CIVIL SERVICE
  Staff (Central London)
  Staff (Central London)
  Salaries and Expense Allowances
  Salaries and Expense Allowances
ENVIRONMENT
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Labour-only Sub-Contracting
  Labour-only Sub-Contracting
  Harassment and Unlawful Eviction
  Harassment and Unlawful Eviction
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  A1 Road Bridge, Hornsey Road
  A1 Road Bridge, Hornsey Road
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Ports
  Ports
  Railway Services (Grants)
  Railway Services (Grants)
  Shelter Neighbourhood Action Projects
  Shelter Neighbourhood Action Projects
  New Towns (Development Plans)
  New Towns (Development Plans)
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Goods Vehicle Drivers' Hours
  Goods Vehicle Drivers' Hours
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Local Authority Rates, Lancashire
  Local Authority Rates, Lancashire
  Growth Areas
  Growth Areas
  Regional Economic Planning Council (Cost)
  Regional Economic Planning Council (Cost)
  British Rail's Land, Perivale
  British Rail's Land, Perivale
  Destruction of Waste and Rubbish (Research)
  Destruction of Waste and Rubbish (Research)
  Road Casualties
  Road Casualties
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Paper Industry, Aberdeenshire
  Paper Industry, Aberdeenshire
  Investment Incentives
  Investment Incentives
  Industrial Development Act (Grants)
  Industrial Development Act (Grants)
  Wales (New Jobs)
  Wales (New Jobs)
  Horticultural and Agricultural Produce (Imports)
  Horticultural and Agricultural Produce (Imports)
  Empty Factories, Larkhall Industrial Estate
  Empty Factories, Larkhall Industrial Estate
  Advance Factories (Hamilton, Larkhall and Blantyre)
  Advance Factories (Hamilton, Larkhall and Blantyre)
  Restrictive Practices Act
  Restrictive Practices Act
  Agricultural and Horticultural Produce (Import from Romania)
  Agricultural and Horticultural Produce (Import from Romania)
  Clothing Trade (Animal Pelts)
  Clothing Trade (Animal Pelts)
  Wales (New Industry)
  Wales (New Industry)
  Birkenshaw Gas Works (Closure)
  Birkenshaw Gas Works (Closure)
  Gatwick Airport (Night Jet Movements)
  Gatwick Airport (Night Jet Movements)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pensioners (Additional Allowance)
  Retirement Pensioners (Additional Allowance)
  Homelessness (Report)
  Homelessness (Report)
  Hotels and Restaurants (Kitchens)
  Hotels and Restaurants (Kitchens)
  Migraine
  Migraine
WALES
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Hospital Service (Cardiff and District)
  Hospital Service (Cardiff and District)
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth
  Roads
  Roads
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  School Population (Saddleworth)
  School Population (Saddleworth)
  School Leaving
  School Leaving
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Teacher/Pupil Ratio
  Teacher/Pupil Ratio
  Institute of Geological Sciences
  Institute of Geological Sciences
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Crop Failure (Compensation)
  Crop Failure (Compensation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Medic-Alert Bracelets (Purchase Tax)
  Medic-Alert Bracelets (Purchase Tax)
  Scotland (Investment Incentives)
  Scotland (Investment Incentives)
  Development Value Realisatons (Taxation)
  Development Value Realisatons (Taxation)
DEFENCE
  Officers (Release from Service)
  Officers (Release from Service)
  Conscientious Objectors (Claims for Discharge)
  Conscientious Objectors (Claims for Discharge)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Accidents
  Lost Working Days (Hamilton and Larkhill)
  Lost Working Days (Hamilton and Larkhill)
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  Scottish Manpower
  Scottish Manpower
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Federal United States of Europe
  Federal United States of Europe
  Kenya
  Kenya
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
  Jurors (Property Qualification)
  Jurors (Property Qualification)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  BANK HOLIDAYS
  BANK HOLIDAYS

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

CAVENDISH SQUARE: UNDERGROUND WORKS AND AMENITY
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they reconcile the present state of Cavendish Square with the provisions of the London Squares Preservation Act 1931.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, by reference to Section 3(2) of the Act, which specifically permits works to be carried out beneath the Squares of London, including the erection of temporary buildings and the provision of entrances, exits and ventilation shafts. The disturbance during the construction is of course to be regretted, but my right honourable friend is satisfied that, once the work of restoration following the construction of an underground car park and the construction of the Victoria Line has been completed, the state of Cavendish Square will in no way offend against the provisions of the London Squares Preservation Act.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I cannot give very profound thanks to the noble Lord for that reply, but I should like to ask him two questions. First, is it proposed that the new carriageways and pedestrian islands at each corner of the Square will be taken away, and that the land will be restored to the normal use that existed before? Secondly, can the noble Lord say what amount of land will have been taken from the gardens of the
514
Square—when these further road works are completed?
LORD SANDFORD: Virtually none, my Lords. The perimeter of the Square, which has now been enclosed by, I think the noble Lord will agree, a much more sightly wall than was there before, is almost exactly the same area as was there before. It is quite true, of course, that further works have been installed inside the Square. But I think the noble Lord will also agree that, when the area has been grassed over and re-landscaped, this will look a great deal more attractive than it does at the moment. I do not know when the noble Lord last saw the Square, but there has already been a tremendous improvement from the condition we have had to put up with for the last three or four years.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, once again I cannot give the noble Lord very deep thanks, but I will certainly visit the Square again. I last saw it about a week ago.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether it will be possible to plant trees of any size when the site is in normal use again, or is the car park so close to the surface that the drainage of the car park will affect the trees, as has been the case with some trees in Cadogan Square?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; it is fully intended to replant and to landscape the Square and eventually get it back very much to the condition it was in before. It is very much regretted that, in addition to the two trees which had to be sacrificed in order to undertake this work, three more trees were lost by accident during the construction, and three more were lost as a result of disease, which had nothing to do with the construction.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me what is the expert opinion among those who understand these things as to the possibility of replacing with forest trees the trees which have been removed from the Square?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, there is no reason why that should not be done. The fact that several large trees are still standing and are in good condition after all this work shows that it is perfectly

515
possible to grow full-sized trees in the Square again.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the damage might not show as yet, and that the subterranean constructions under the Square will prevent the satisfactory growth of anything but the smallest shrubs?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, I do not think there is any evidence to lead one to come to that conclusion.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they are aware that in Cavendish Square, which I happened to sec yesterday, the only trees now remaining are the few in the middle of the Square? And are they also aware that the whole beauty and design of the Square garden is now lost? Will they give an assurance that no further underground garages will be constructed under London Squares, whatever promises may have been given beforehand?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; I cannot give any such undertaking; for applicants for these Squares have a right of appeal to my right honourable friend. But I can assure the noble Lord and the House that any scheme of this nature will be subject to the most critical examination. I am sure that we all want to preserve the character of the London Squares.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the London Squares were among the great glories of our capital and one of the principal contributions of English genius to the grammar of town planning, and will he take great care that these wider interests are not sacrificed for the temporary convenience of motorists?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the whole House is certainly aware of what the noble Lord has said, and I will certainly take the very greatest care to bear it in mind.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will also take great care in regard to accidents to trees? Are any statistics published on this particular aspect? Such accidents seem rather unnecessary. May
516
I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that both his Government and mine share the responsibility? That being so, I hope that he will undertake to do his utmost to restore the Square to as nearly similar a state as possible to that which existed previously.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, certainly, my Lords. It is important to bear in mind that in the case of this particular Square (and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, when he gave permission for this work to be carried out, also had this very much in mind) there were two hazards to be met. First of all, there was the construction of the Victoria Line; and it was during this much larger operation that the accident occurred which led to the loss of two large trees and one medium-sized one. Nevertheless, there is a degree of hazard all the time when underground works are undertaken in London Parks and Squares. Valuable lessons have been learnt and a great deal of care will be taken in future if any more of this work is done.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the nature of the accident to the trees?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, if the noble Lord will undertake not to draw me any further to-day. The loss of the largest tree was occasioned by an accidental fire occurring immediately underneath it.

GIBRALTAR FOOD SUPPLIES
2.43 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that there are adequate supplies of fresh food reaching Gibraltar to satisfy the requirements of the inhabitants.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, my Lords.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that extraordinarily short reply. Can he say what steps will be taken to ensure that

517
the plight of the inhabitants of Gibraltar, who have been extremely loyal to this country, is alleviated, in so far as they do not at the moment receive any fresh milk but only bottled homogenised stuff; no fresh vegetables but only frozen and canned vegetables, and no fresh meat but only frozen meat?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is my understanding that fresh fruits and vegetables are imported into Gibraltar from Morocco, and in recent times, in smaller quantities, from Portugal. Fresh meat is imported from the United Kingdom, albeit in small quantities. The bulk of the meat imported into Gibraltar is in fact frozen meat, and I think my noble friend is partly on the target so far as milk is concerned. Fresh milk is not available in Gibraltar at the present time, but he is wrong in thinking that only homogenised milk is available: tinned and pasteurised milk are also available, and also small quantities of what I am told is "long life milk". I might perhaps add, for his information, that there are adequate supplies of powdered and tinned milk. Baby foods are imported from the United Kingdom.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Earl on the amount of information he has given when answering for a Department for which he is not directly responsible? May I ask him a further question? The problem is not one really of adequate supplies but of the quality of the fruit and vegetables and the fact that they are left lying in the docks in Tangier, waiting for shipment. Can the noble Earl press the Department to proceed with the suggestion that refrigerated containers might be bought for Gibraltar, so as to ensure that fresh fruit and vegetables do not lose their quality while awaiting shipment from Tangier into Gibraltar?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to acknowledge the noble Lord's knowledge of and interest in this matter, which of course he went into very carefully on his visit to Gibraltar in September of last year. I know he looked into this position, but the suggestion was not followed up, following a report made by a representative from a prominent Covent Garden firm. But on the noble Lord's suggestion I will certainly look into the matter and see that it is pursued.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make one other point? I hope the noble Earl will do so, because when we paid the sums available to the Government of Gibraltar there was an amount which would have been available for this purpose. We left that sum in the hands of Her Majesty's Government and of the Government of Gibraltar. I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will press on in this matter.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly see that it is looked into further.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions. First, as price control in Gibraltar is only on the landed price of fresh food from Morocco, will Her Majesty's Government exert their influence, such at it may be, upon the Tunisian Government, so that the prices of foodstuffs from Morocco are not grossly in excess of their price in that country itself? As my noble friend has referred to the supply from Portugal—that is, from Faro in the Algarve—of fresh fruit, vegetables and fish, I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will encourage the Portuguese proposal to run a ferry service between Faro and Gibraltar.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, my noble friend has put me in some difficulty. He has asked me three supplementary questions, all of which I acknowledge to be genuine, but one of which I am afraid I have forgotten at the present time. Also the first caused me some difficulty because it was dealing with imports from Morocco, and my noble friend was asking Her Majesty's Government to bring pressure to bear upon the Tunisian Government.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I will re-phrase my question. Will Her Majesty's Government consider approaching the Moroccan Government with a view to seeing that the landed price of Moroccan foodstuffs is more in keeping with the price of those foodstuffs in Morocco? As I have mentioned before, the price control in Gibraltar is purely on the landed price.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, these are of course serious matters, because the welfare of the inhabitants of Gibraltar is of great concern to Her Majesty's

519
Government, and indeed to all members of your Lordships' House. I will certainly see what can be done in respect of the particular question regarding Moroccan foodstuffs which my noble friend has asked me about, and also the question regarding the import of foodstuff from Portugal.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why the people of Gibraltar have small quantities of fresh meat imported and not the amount they might need?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid I should need to look into the precise reasons for that rather more closely. I have not the information available.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Gibraltarians should be very satisfied to learn from his answer that they can receive pasteurised milk rather than untreated fresh milk?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while being extremely grateful to my noble friend for the supplementary replies which he has given, will he please give an undertaking that he will look seriously at this matter? Because there is genuine concern in Gibraltar about the lack of fresh food supplies to the inhabitants.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should have thought it was clear from the replies I have already given that I take this matter very seriously, as do Her Majesty's Government, and I really do not think it was necessary for my noble friend to ask that particular supplementary question.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, cannot the Government depend upon private enterprise as a supplier of food?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it is private enterprise that is in fact supplying these things.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is that why there is a shortage in Gibraltar? May I ask whether it is possible to bring some pressure upon Spain to be more decent in the supply of food, particularly by imposing an embargo on the
520
importation of Spanish sherry into this country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the continuation of the restrictions is a serious matter, and it is one which we have very much in mind. If at any time holding talks with the Spanish authorities seems likely to help the people of Gibraltar and bring a solution nearer, then of course we are very ready and willing to enter into such talks with them.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS IN HOTELS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further regulations have been, or will be, issued to improve fire precautions in hotels and similar buildings.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Fire Precautions Bill, which was introduced in another place on November 4, is designed to improve the fire precautions in hotels and other residential establishments as well as in places of public amusement and resort.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that this will prevent the recurrence of the sort of fires that have taken place, including the one at Saffron Walden in Essex?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is because of the defects in the existing legislation, particularly as regards hotels and places of public amusement, that this Bill has been introduced.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that there is an adequate supply of inspectors to see whether the precautions are in fact being carried out?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the number of inspectors is, of course, extremely important. The Bill has been introduced only recently in another place. I understand that it is going into Committee in another place to-morrow and that it will be before us fairly shortly. I think that this is the sort of point that

521
we might take up and debate further when the Bill is before us.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether these precautions also extend to accidents to trees in Squares, which are places of public amusement and resort?

HIJACKING OF AIRCRAFT
2.55 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken, in conjunction with other Governments, to deal with the prevention of hijacking of aircraft.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, a Diplomatic Conference at The Hague, at which the United Kingdom is represented, is at this very moment working on a draft Convention on Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, drawn up by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. if all goes well, the Convention should be concluded within the next fortnight and thereafter be open for signature. This will be a great step forward in the fight against hijacking. We also played our part in the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly last week of a resolution strongly condemning hijacking and supporting the draft Convention now being considered at The Hague.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, can the noble Earl give some indication of the main provisions of the Convention under consideration at present; and would he be good enough to tell the House whether we are in fact pressing that once the Convention is signed there should not be the kind of unconscionable delay that has prevailed hitherto in getting Conventions ratified? Perhaps between the agreement of the Convention and the ratification some precautions should be taken, particularly in view of two very serious pronouncements which have been made recently, one by the murderer guerrillas who say that they are plan ping more hijacking, and the other which has just come from Rome to the effect that a plot of that description has just been discovered?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Convention is a complicated matter, but if I may try to sum up in capsule form its main content, it is this. Each party will undertake to make hijacking an offence subject to severe penalties and to establish jurisdiction in cases where it is committed in an aircraft on its register or where an aircraft lands in its territory with the alleged offender still on board. That is the main "guts" of the Convention, if I may so term it. So far as bringing it into force is concerned, Her Majesty's Government cannot of course speak for other Governments, but so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned I can assure the noble Lord that we will introduce any necessary legislation to give effect to the final text of the Convention as soon as possible after it has been concluded.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the statement he has made—because it has been a very serious position hitherto: ratification of conventions, by our own Government as well as by others has taken a very considerable time—would he say whether steps are being taken to ensure that in future extradition agreements the offences committed in respect of hijacking will be among those included for the purposes of extradition?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I fully recognise the difficulty over the delays which take place in the ratification of conventions. I think we are all familiar with this in less serious matters than this, where there has been inordinate delay. But certainly it will be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do all within their power—though our power is of course limited—to see that this Convention is brought into effect as soon as possible. I am afraid that I should need notice of the other supplementary question which the noble Lord put.
LORD JANNER: I am much obliged.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Russian Government is represented at The Hague?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, my noble friend may ask me that question: the trouble is that I do not know the answer. But I will find out and let him know.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on air-buses at a convenient time after 3.30.
Perhaps I may also inform your Lordships that, in view of the number of amendments tabled to the Courts Bill to-morrow my noble friend Lord Derwent has decided to postpone until Thursday, December 10 the Second Reading of the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to excise duties on mechanically propelled vehicles, and to the licensing and registration of such vehicles with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. My Lords, the Reports of the two Law Commissions are published to-day and are available, as usual, in the Printed Paper Office. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. ADMINISTRATION
The Committee were informed that The Queen had approved the proposal of the Lord Chancellor that the post of Serjeant-at-Arms should be amalgamated with that of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
2. YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee authorised the salary of the post of Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms.
3. PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
The Committee were informed of the appointment of a Security Co-ordinator for duty in the Palace of Westminster. The Committee sanctioned the payment of the proportion of the cost attributable to the House of Lords.
4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. M. A. J. Wheeler-Booth as Clerk of the Journals in the place of Mr. J. C. Sainty on the transfer of the latter to the University of London, and of the promotion of Mr. P. D. G. Hayter to Senior Clerk.
The Committee authorised the payment of a transfer value to the University of London in respect of the service of Mr. Sainty with the House of Lords, under the Superannuation (the Civil Service and the Federated Superannuation System for Universities) Transfer Rules 1953.
5. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 28 dated 20th July, 1970—Pay of the Higher Civil Service;

(b) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 18 dated 22nd July, 1970—Personal Secretary Class;

(c) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 16 dated 22nd July, 1970—Typing Grades and Proficiency Payments;

(d) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 15 dated 20th July, 1970—Security Officers;

(e) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 27 dated 18th August, 1970—Special Increases;

(f) D.E.O. (70) (PAY) No. 23 dated 31st July, 1970—Office Keepers

to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
6. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised the payment of increased charges under the Agreement with Haynes Secretarial Services for the supply of typists for the Reporting of Debates.
7. ESTIMATES
The Estimate for the House of Lords for 1971–72 was laid before the Committee and approved.
8. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation Awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:—

(a) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. William Thomas Harrison, Principal Doorkeeper, who retires on the 28th February, 1971.

(b) Gratuity to Mrs. Lucy Mackay, Housemaid, who retired on the 12th September, 1970.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERCROWDING IN PRISONS
3.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM rose to draw attention to the gross and increasing overcrowding in Her Majesty's Prisons, and to ask what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to deal with this danger so as to avoid the consequent breakdown of the prison, probation and after-care services; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that there are to-day more than 40,000 men, women and teenagers detained in Her Majesty's prisons—that is four times the pre-war population—and that the number is rising at an average of some 3,000 a year. Moreover, the overall figures do not convey an accurate impression of the real incidence of overcrowding. There is total accommodation in our establishments for 32,000; but out of that number some 12,500 are in women's prison, borstals, detention centres and open prisons which are not overcrowded—indeed, there are empty beds waiting to be filled in open prisons. The surplus bodies are all crammed into closed prisons, which have 27,500 men but only 19,500 places. So a few prisons in large cities have to bear the whole burden, and they do it by doubling up or trebling the occupation of cells intended for one man: 8,000 little "black holes of Calcutta"—that is what it amounts to. If the numbers are allowed to increase at the same rate there will be 12,000 such places in 12 months' time.
At weekends, as your Lordships will know, men are often "banged up" for 23 hours out of 24. There are men who do five years, the whole of their sentences, like that. Just imagine the lack of air, the lack of privacy, three chamber pots—all the unimaginable discomforts and sheer proximity imposed on men with but little hope and often badly disturbed. It must mean grave disturbances and I think an actual explosion, unless something is done about it soon. I believe it was the late Sir Winston Churchill who said that you can judge a country's civilisation by the way it treats its prisoners. By that standard we do not rate very high—one of the lowest in Europe.
I ventured to draw attention to these problems in the debate on the gracious
526
Speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was kind enough to write to me subsequently. He said that he agreed with me that the only two solutions were to build the new prisons planned by the previous Government and to make available to the courts new forms of noncustodial sentences. Naturally, I welcome that assurance. But it is not enough. We want action now, if the Prison Service is to be saved from utter breakdown, and also if the Probation and After-Care Service is not to become overloaded to the point of collapse. If that should happen we should be throwing away all the improvements made in penal reform in the last fifty years.
Of course the Government have not been in office long enough to make an impact on this problem; but they have been there long enough to assess it and to decide policy; and I should like the noble Lord to say to-day whether he can now confirm that they are proceeding in full with the policy of new prison building which they inherited and, perhaps still more important, that they are continuing the five-year rolling building programme, so that we may one day have hopes that the oldest prisons will be demolished. This, of course, is for the future. It can give us no immediate help, but it would he a happy augury if the noble Lord was able to say "Yes" to those two questions.
Would the noble Lord also have a close leek at the fortnightly occupation returns, first to see that the open prisons are filled up by transfers from overcrowded local prisons. I know there are difficulties about the class of sentence in which you can send a man to an open prison; but the noble Lord will find that those difficulties will yield if he will have talks with local authorities serving adjacently. May we also have a reversal of the stupid and very costly security policy that the Home Office is pursuing, which has had such a disastrous effect on prison progress in the last year or two? The Class C social inadequates who form the bulk of our prison population, will be a great deal less trouble in open prisons than they are sleeping three to a cell in an overcrowded local gaol.
I think, too, that something can be gained by taking a close look at women's prisons. There are, all told, just over

527
1,000 women and girls in prisons. Some of the women's prisons could be closed now and used for men if we transferred the present occupants to empty places at Holloway and Styal. The remand services also want looking at, for a very different reason—because they are overcrowded and there are constant demands for more accommodation. I do not think that these should be complied with, for I am convinced that the present overcrowding is brought about because the courts are largely misinterpreting the mandatory bail provisions of the 1967 Act, although I thought those were clear enough when they left your Lordships' House.
Despite the fact that I am inviting a flood of angry letters, I say that this matter has to be faced. It is really a grave scandal when you think that last year 19,000 offenders who were sent to prison on remand—that is to say, sent to prison innocent and unconvicted—were not imprisoned subsequently on conviction. That means that in the courts' own judgment they did not deserve imprisonment; their offence was of a nature which did not call for imprisonment. But many of those people had actually been four or five months in prison, some of them six months, and they came back before the court and were discharged. This is a scandal, and whatever the cause it has to be settled. Not only is this a case of overcrowding; it means utter ruin for ordinary decent people, thousands of them every year. Your Lordships will not, I hope, think that an injustice of this kind can be tolerated.
Fortunately, other provisions of the 1967 Act have been well used and have kept a number of people out of prison. In the first year, 30,000 prison sentences were suspended and only a small proportion of those concerned committed another offence in the first year. Then again, parole has been remarkably successful. Indeed, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, last week indicates that in his view the field should be extended. Well it might be, although the size of the parole field will have to be most carefully studied. Unquestionably, it has been overwhelmingly successful, and its importance lies in the fact not that many thousands of men have been released early, but that
528
so few of them have had to be recalled. This is due, I think, to the care which the local review committees have devoted to every case and to the high skill and discernment of Lord Hunt and his Committee in making their final decision.
I do not think it is sufficiently realised that the men who are considered are "pretty bad lots", because they cannot be considered until they have served one-third, or twelve months, of their service. This means that they have probably committed a serious crime which has called for a sentence of three years or more. So these are the men, the bad lots, whom, if their prognosis is satisfactory, the Board have had the courage and wisdom to release. They have been abundantly justified, and this justification is the main hope for the future of the Prison Service. I say it is the main hope because it is the offenders, the men themselves, who, given the chance, have justified it; and that is very important.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the calm, steadfast and unswerving courage he has shown in carrying out the decisions of Parliament, and for sailing so surely uncharted seas. Every prisoner now knows he has a chance, and if he fails once, he has a second chance. More important still, the release is carefully prepared, and the Probation Service is giving full and extremely successful after-care. This is but one of the many tasks the Service is shouldering. I should like to know the extent to which the Government are prepared to back the expansion of the Service. The previous Administration recognised that, of all the ways of treating offenders, the use of the Probation Service was, from every point of view, the best. Special and successful efforts were made to expand it. Starting with a force of 2,000, recruitment brought us to a strength of 3,300. But I believe that to do the tasks which will now fall upon them the Probation Service will need to be 7,000 strong. It is for the Government to say whether they are prepared to reallocate the necessary resources. I say "reallocate", because it would not be an extra expense, since it costs ten times as much to keep an offender in prison as it costs to keep him in the community. It is the soundest of good sense. We shall be interested to know whether the Government will follow it.
I say that 7,000 officers will be required because we must reduce the average case load to 35. With the present level of case books offenders cannot be effectively supervised. That change alone will call for a thousand more officers. I believe that this ties in with the Government view, because in his statement the Under-Secretary mentioned going to a figure of 4,400 merely to give the Service the chance to do its present jobs properly. We need that amount of increase before considering any further tasks. Then the number seconded as prison welfare officers needs to be increased from the present figure of 200 to 500. Only by staffing of that order shall we make a reality of the claim that rehabilitation of offenders begins on the day that sentence starts.
Then there is the very large question of non-custodial care. The proposals of the sub-committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, were published on September 8, but we do not yet know the Government's decision about them. What we do know is that the Probation Service will be very much involved. The National Association of Probation Officers recently published an invaluable statement of policy on the future development of the Probation and After-Care Service. It is a firm and enlightened expression of opinion on the place of the Service in a society faced with increasing problems in the control of crime.
After discussing the many new burdens thrust on to them in recent years they say:
"A certain defensiveness has developed in the attitude of many officers who are working all the time at full stretch and cannot easily contemplate being asked to do any more. And if there were any suggestion of asking the Service now to add the supervision of noncustodial treatment to its ever-growing range of duties without the very great increase in staff which would be required, it must be clear that the Service would be united in its resistance to such a development.
"However, we think it crucial to add that these remarks are concerned only with the inadequacy of present resources: they are not in any way to be construed as criticism of the idea of new experiments in non-custodial treatment. On the contrary, we think such experiments are vita], and that the Probation Service must inevitably be deeply involved in them. We suggest, indeed, that the Probation Service is uniquely placed to make a positive, constructive contribution to the urgent problem of containing crime, but on one condition—and that is that the authorities are willing to finance
530
an expansion of it commensurate with the magnitude of the task. This means finding money to pay a vastly increased number of officers; money also to increase salaries very considerably in order to make it possible to obtain sufficient recruits; and money for all kinds of other services "—
which they detail.
They conclude with these words:
"It appears to us that the time has come when a new approach to the problem of controlling crime is being forced upon the community. We do not claim that the idea is original but we do think that it is of great importance. It is impossible to contemplate an indefinite expansion of the prison population when everybody knows that, generally speaking, prison sentences neither deter nor reform those who receive them. The only alternative which we can envisage is the rapid building up of a strong Service committed to rehabilitating criminals in a non-custodial setting—a Service large enough to make a real impact on the situation. And meeting both humanely and effectively the understandable public demand for law and order'; and the Probation Service is peculiarly fitted to meet this need because of its independent role."
That is a clear and realistic assessment of the situation, and I support it. It is an assessment by people who know their business, and who are confident in their ability to tackle it, given the means. As recently as November 25 there was a Times leader on this subject, which was a remarkable article for its small compass. It set out all the essential facts in the argument objectively and drew its conclusions cogently, and I think, unanswerably. The article ended with these words when it urged the Government:
"to pay the necessary price for a policy that is in fact cheaper than any other that stands a chance of success."
So the Government have "got it made"; all they have to do is to say "Yes" and find the wherewithal.
It may be a shock to some noble Lords to hear the almost casual statement by this highly responsible body that everyone knows that
"prison sentences neither deter nor reform those who receive them."
But it is true and the facts are inescapable. We have to accept that fact as basic and start thinking and working again from there. Prison is evil, and despite the skill and devoted efforts of prison staffs the most they can hope for is to prevent some of the evil from rubbing off on to the best prospects. Prison can make criminals of offenders; it cannot make them decent citizens. As an

531
instrument of rehabilitation it has failed. That is why the proposal for a new type of hostel order with after-care is so extremely promising. There are many offenders who, though they must be sentenced as a deterrent, do not need to be sent to prison. There are inadequates, and others who show a sense of guilt, who want help, and who are not identified with the criminal community. They need to be removed to some extent from society, but they need not be subjected to the contagion of prison; and they are desperately in need of support in a casework setting. This would mean setting up hostels throughout the country, with seconded probation officers in charge. The offenders could keep in touch with their families, but they would be receiving support; and as a result of their working in the locality their entry into society on leaving prison would be much easier. This transformation could soon be done and the cost would not be large, because the machinery for it is already there.
One of the more successful ventures of the last Government was the setting up of a voluntary body—the Bridgehead Housing Association—which was charged with the duty of organizing houses for homeless ex-offenders wherever there was a proved need. Its cost to public funds was only £5,000 a year for administrative expenses, with a modest capital allowance to cover the difference between the cost of a house and the amount the local authority would lend on it. No proposal is approved until the need is acknowledged by the regional committee, and until a suitably qualified committee has been formed to run the hostel. That committee accepts responsibility for repayment of the cost of the property and eventually we shall get our hostels at no public cost.
Unfortunately, Bridgehead is the victim of its own success. Having secured houses and obtained planning consent, despite bitter and unscrupulous public opposition, they are unable to go ahead because the Treasury have not come up with a capital grant. At present there are six proposals, providing 66 places, which are held up in this way; and again I say that this is money that will in any case be repaid. I would ask the Government to reverse this
532
inexcusable decision immediately, and to let this very useful organisation get on with its job untrammelled by these senseless restrictions.
Will they also consider using Bridgehead to locate, to assess and to obtain the properties needed for the new adult hostels, because one or more of these should be available to every court throughout the country? Nothing elaborate is needed—just a comfortable home, with a man and wife team and some ancillary help for cleaning and cooking, and in every case a seconded probation officer to act as warden. I would point out that the courts will make hostel orders only in respect of the very people whom they are now sending to prison. On every hostel order which they make out, the Home Office will be saving £15 a week in keeping the prisoner, plus £5,000 per person, the capital cost of providing a new prison place. When that is multiplied by only the projected increase in the prison population, it makes a very favourable proposition for the Home Secretary to submit to his colleagues.
I hope that he will also consider the suggestion in the Report by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, that suitable offenders should be sentenced to a period of work in and for the community. The more I look at this proposal the more I see the difficulties, but the more I am convinced that it is the most satisfactory way to place a duty on offenders so that they will have to work, and in jobs which are of benefit to the community as a whole. In this way, those who feel that offenders should work in such a way that they can make reparation will be satisfied.
Those are the main proposals, my Lords, but there are other very worthwhile ones, such as remedial day centres for young people, direction to youth centres offering courses of the Outward Bound variety, and week-end centres for adults, including such offenders as delinquent drivers. Members of your Lordships' House may be interested in the last one. They are all worth consideration. But this new concept which I am proposing to-day, whatever the details, really means prison for the few, not the many; prison for the professional criminals—those who commit violent crimes or who are thought to be a threat

533
to society. If I am asked, "Why send those to prison? What good does it do them?", I say that it will not do them any good, but there are some who for the protection of society must be kept within. You have to cage a wild animal before you can tame him.
The fact is that most offenders are already very quiet, even harmless. They may also he—indeed, I think they are—hopeless and stupid, but we do not need costly prisons, 18 ft. fences and guard dogs to contain them. By the methods I suggest, we could help them in a constructive way and save upwards of £30 million into the bargain. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is something which you could and should support.
Also, may we know what the Home Secretary is doing about drunken offenders, of whom about a thousand are serving short prison sentences to-day? For the last three years Bridgehead has been going ahead providing hostels for alcoholic offenders. They are sited adjacent to the National Health special treatment centres, so that the best of medical skill is always available. Will the Home Secretary therefore now activate Section 91 of the Act, and relieve the Prison Service of a thousand prisoners who cause prison staffs more than their share of trouble and effort?
Speaking of alcoholics, I must pay a grateful tribute to Lady Reading and her special after-care committee for the really marvellous work they have done. It is briefly and modestly described in the pamphlet, Homeless from Prison, which I hope your Lordships will read. With a grant of money from the Carnegie Trust, the Committee set up and maintained five hostels, all with a different purpose, as the pamphlet indicates. They were not all equally successful, for reasons which I need not go into, but the one which is transcendentally, marvellously, unbelievably successful is Rathcoole, the hostel for alcoholics. They did not pick their men, except that they chose the worst. They took them right from "Skid Row"—men who had sunk to the lowest depths of degradation that it is possible for a human being to reach.
I had supper with those chaps after they had been there a few months. They were eight men who had more than 200 prison convictions between them. One or two were past middle age, and they
534
had never been employed before. They were all now employed. But, what is more, they were all rational. They were not sorry for themselves, or anything of the kind: they were people you could talk to. They were also capable of being in charge, and had shown it by running their hostel. Indeed, they were allowed to do so, and they ran it so well that eventually the warden was able to go to another place. In the end, three of those men were considered fit and able themselves to serve as wardens in hostels. As I say, my Lords, these chaps were the "Skid Row" types; the meths drinkers. It is the most marvellous work that could possibly be imagined. I would assure the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who is Chairman of the Carnegie Trust, that in my view no money was ever spent to better advantage, because it has served as a pattern for all future ventures of this kind and, of course, has been of enormous help to Bridgehead. We are tremendously grateful to Lady Reading for what she has done, and I hope that we shall hear more about these hostels when she comes to speak.
My Lords, 15 National Health Service hospitals have now established intensive care units for alcoholics, and there are 12 after-care hostels which are adjacent to 12 of those 15 hospitals. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that the necessary facilities are available and that he would be justified in abolishing imprisonment for drunkenness in those areas.
Finally, I want to refer to the one division of the Prison Service which offers the hope of rehabilitation. I refer to prison industries, to which the previous Government paid particular attention. When we started in 1964 prison industries were not taken seriously. They were regarded as something to keep men from getting into further mischief. There was no question of running them on proper business lines. The right encouragement and the efforts of our dedicated staff changed all that. To-day, all real prison industries—that is, all except social services—are showing a profit, and not a heavy loss. There are now nearly 3,000 prisoners on higher earnings up to a top limit of 33s. a week compared with the average prison pay of about 6s. These 3,000 men now earn enough profit to be paid £5 to £10 a week, which is the rate for the job.

535
That is equal to the record of outside industry considering that the prison population changes completely four times a year and considering that these men work only 28 to 30 hours a week.
My Lords, I hope that this is the present position. But we do not seem to be making any progress, and I should like to know what the present position is, because that 3,000 can be increased to 14,000, provided there is enough vision at the top and enough faith. First, we have to be sure that the objective of the staff of the prisons is not merely to maintain the prisons per se, but to concentrate on certain objectives for the prisoners and for the community as a whole. It is fair to ask, and I do ask: Why is it that only some prisoners are now earning profits equivalent to the rate for the job? Why not all physically fit prisoners instead of just a few? Why do some prisoners produce goods worth £1,400 a year and others only £200 a year? Why can some work for 40 hours a week and others only 14? My Lords, these questions have been asked before, and the answers normally given are not satisfactory. We are usually told that it is the obsolescence of buildings, workshops and machinery, and the shortage of discipline staff. With sufficient determination the workshops and the machinery can be provided. As for the discipline staff, I hope that the noble Lord will assure himself that they are being used efficiently. I could mention quite a few prison workshops where there is no discipline staff, where they manage without.
It requires Home Office support in the selection of staff, in building maintenance, penal planning and so on. It is all too common in prison workshops for the key workers—and there are key workers in every factory—to be transferred to another prison without the governor informing the industrial manager. Imagine being the manager of a workshop and coming along in the morning to find nothing being done, nobody on the job. You ask the reason for this, and you are told, "The foreman"—that is the chief prison worker—"is not here". "Why is he not here?"—"Oh, he has been transfered. Didn't you know?" It is an indication of the esteem, or lack of esteem, in which industries are held in
536
the hierarchy, and it has got to be altered.
The Anson Committee said that we must be brave enough to aim for outside conditions in prison industries. In six years we did this, and we proved that most prisoners will respond to these conditions if they can be made similar to outside industry. Our plans were wholeheartedly approved by the T.U.C. and not so wholeheartedly by the C.B.I. We made arrangements with five of the largest trade unions—and, incidentally, they were the ones we were always told were the most awkward—for them to send their regional officers into the prisons to examine the work of the chaps there. If the work is good enough they see that when they come out the prisoners get a union card and are settled into a worthwhile job. They are then halfway back to a decent life—and this could be so in the case of the 3,000 men that I was speaking about.
My Lords, we want a good deal more of that kind of arrangement. I say that this is the way to reduce the army of criminals. Bring those who run prison industries into closer contact with the community at large; bring them into contact with the employment agencies, with the employers and the probation services, with the providers of homes for men who need them. Having trained the men in prison they should be allowed to smooth their paths into the world outside. At present our prisons are a prime example of costly waste and scandalous misuse of public money. Overcrowding is crippling the services and bringing ever-escalating calls for more money. And so it will continue unless we realise that half our criminals need organised support into freedom, with integrated and powerful means of providing them with the boost to industrial achievement. We need to give them, in other words, a pride in their work, adequate contingency funds, a home, some basic social skills and an appropriate job.
We should realise also, as Lady Wootton's Committee has realised, that this half of our prison population can be more effectively and more cheaply provided with these skills in the community than in prison. We have to divide our prisoners up. It is being done elsewhere, my Lords, and it can be done here. It will be done, I believe, provided that the

537
community puts its foot down and says, "We are not going on paying through the nose for nothing. We want something for our money. There is a better way of doing things and all those things can come to pass." In the last six years the previous Government made a beginning. It is now for this Government to say whether it is all to be thrown away or whether they will be bold and will build wisely on the foundations that we laid. I beg to move for Papers.

AIR-BUS PROJECTS DECISION AND B.A.C.
3.41 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation Supply. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware that the British Aircraft Corporation and Rolls Royce have asked for launching aid for the BAC 311 and its RB211–61 engine at a cost to the Government estimated at some £144 million at present prices. We have also had an invitation from the French, Federal German and Netherlands Governments to rejoin the A300B project. The initial cost to the Government would be some £30 million if we took a share in the airframe part of the A300B project alone, or some £100 million if in addition the RB211–61 engine were also launched for this aircraft. This takes no account of further costs likely to be incurred during the production phase.
"After very careful consideration, the Government has decided that it cannot support either of these proposals, in view of the size of the public investment required. We have to take into account the large sums of money already being devoted to the support of civil aircraft and engines, and to bear in mind other calls on public funds.
"In the light of this B.E.A. will have the opportunity to choose between two alternatives, the Lockheed L 1011 and the A300B. Both include a large contribution by British industry. The Lockheed L 1011 has Rolls Royce RB
538
211–22 engines, for which Her Majesty's Government recently announced an increase in launching aid up to a limit of £89 million. As for the A300B, Hawker Siddeley are designing and manufacturing the main part of the wing.
"The decision in regard to the A300B does not imply any weakening of our interest in joint projects such as the multi-role combat aircraft, Jaguar and of course Concorde, to each of which Her Majesty's Government is making a very substantial contribution.
"I have already discussed with my colleagues in the other Governments"—
these are of course the words of my right honourable friend in another place—
"proposals for a joint study of the possibilities of increased co-operation between European aero-engine industries, and they have recently proposed that we should meet. I welcome these proposals and hope that they can be extended in due course to the rest of the aircraft industry."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am sure the House will be aware that it has heard from the noble Lord a Statement of the greatest seriousness and one on which there will be wide repercussions both immediately and ultimately. There are many questions which at once spring to the mind. I trust that the noble Lord can tell us whether it is the intention of the Government with urgency to provide, either by means of a White Paper or in another appropriate form, the full background of this extremely important decision.
But I must at once ask certain questions which fall into three categories. First of all, will Her Majesty's Government not tell us whether the launching aid of £144 million to which the noble Lord referred would have been, as launching aid normally is, in fact a partnership between the Government and the companies concerned? Furthermore, will he tell us whether, on a reasonable expectation of sales, BAC 311 would or would not have been a viable proposition, clearly viable and beneficial to the national balance of payments? Will he not further comment on the fact that the airframe company

539
concerned has been continuing the work on this at its own expense for a considerable time? After five months in office, do the Government feel that they have no obligation to the British Aircraft Corporation in respect of that period of time? That is the first question: would the BAC 311 in the Government's opinion have been a viable proposition?
Secondly, can the noble Lord tell us what will be the effects upon employment and prospects in the aircraft industry over a foreseeable period of time?—because obviously in the aircraft industry one has to try to look ahead a number of years. For example, what does he expect are likely to be the effects of this decision in the '70s on the British Aircraft Corporation? What is the basis upon which the British Aircraft Corporation are to consider the possibility of Government launching aid in the future?
The third question is this. The noble Lord referred to British European Airways being (I think he said) free to choose. Are they to be completely free to choose in this matter? Will it be entirely a matter for B.E.A. to make the decision between types of aircraft which in the light of this Statement will be available to them; or will there be any kind of Government influence or Government suggestion in any form as to which choice they should make?
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement he has made. I have the same fears as the noble Lord who has just spoken as to what this Statement really means. In the first instance, I must ask whether abandonment of the BAC 311 really means the end of the British Aircraft Corporation as a manufacturing organisation. If it does mean that, what is to happen to the staff, to the expertise, to all the monies poured into it and, if there are such things (and I believe there are) to the pension funds and ancillary benefits. If it is to be abandoned, perhaps he would tell us about that.
Secondly he goes on to speak of the abandonment of participation in the airbus or in building the airframe or in the installation of Rolls Royce engines, leaving it to Hawker Siddeley to build a part, but not all, of the wing. Very well! The
540
noble Lord went on to say that the B.E.A. have a choice. But do they have a choice, my Lords?. The noble Lord who has just spoken asked that question; I ask it again. So far as I know, B.E.A. do not want either the Lockheed or the airbus; they want the BAC 311. Are they going to be inhibited from getting this?
Furthermore, would the noble Lord say whether, if the BAC 311 were allowed to go on, it would be viable? The Government have poured a lot of money into Rolls Royce enabling them to participate in the engineering of the Lockheed aircraft. Can he tell us if that aircraft is likely to be viable? According to my information, the prospects of future sales are not good, and Lockheed is in considerable trouble. Perhaps he will enlarge on that aspect.
I am wondering if, after answering these questions, the noble Lord would agree that this present Statement indicates that the Government are not taking the effective and energetic efforts they should take to help the British aircraft industry, not only in this country but, more important still, internationally.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will try to answer the questions put to me. I was asked first about the reasonable expectation of sales: whether, on a reasonable expectation of sales, the BAC 311 would have been viable? I take it that what this means is, should we be likely to get that amount of sales? It is always very difficult, as the noble Lord knows well, to estimate what sales would be likely to be obtained. All I can tell him is that it would need sales of 200 aircraft, plus spares, before B.A.C. would expect to get back their money; and it would need sales of 240 aircraft before the Government would begin to break even, even excluding interest payments over the years, representing another £50 million.
I was asked also, what would be the effect on employment and prospects over a foreseeable time. As the noble Lord will be aware, there has not been a great deal of work as yet; something like 500, I understand, have been employed by B.A.C. on this particular project. So far as Rolls Royce are concerned, this project has not as yet absorbed any significant effort. Regarding the basis on which the Government are to consider launching aid in the future, I can say that this

541
is unchanged. That is to say, launching aid will always be given consideration; but, of course, one must have regard to the other factors as well. As the Statement says, one must have regard to other calls on public funds and to money already devoted to the support of civil aircraft and engines. I may tell the noble Lord that civil aircraft support will cost £88 million this year, and will average some £70 million over the next four years.
The next question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was whether B.E.A. would be free to choose. My Lords, that is certainly the intention. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst asked whether this meant the end of the British Aircraft Corporation. Certainly not, my Lords. The British Aircraft Corporation at present has the Concorde on hand, and there is every prospect that this will be successful. Indeed, it has a great number of military aircraft on hand as well.
I was also asked: will B.E.A. be able to get the BAC 311? I am afraid the answer is, plainly not, if there is no basic support for the BAC 311, and if it is not to be manufactured. Then I was asked whether the Lockheed job is likely to be viable. On that I can only say that we have been keeping in close touch with Lockheed, and we believe they will secure their financial position and ensure the success of the Tri-Star. It certainly had a most impressive first flight, and that first flight was carried out right on schedule.
3.53 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions arising out of the rather complicated Statement he has made? The first is: do we understand now that British European Airways will have complete freedom of choice for the aircraft best fitted to their requirements which is obtainable in the market; that their choice will be absolutely unfettered in future? My second question, which I think will find some measure of support on both sides of the House, is this. Is the Minister aware that if he had gone to look at the tape an hour ago he would have seen a complete and accurate resumé of the statement he has made to the House to-day? Public relations are all very well, my Lords, but I think it is derogatory to this House and to Parliament that statements should be as it were, leaked to this degree before they
542
come before your Lordships' House. Will the noble Lord draw the attention of his right honourable friend to what has occurred?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that. My noble friend has great experience in these matters, and he knows what are the conventions in this regard. But I agree with him that Parliament has the right to expect a public announcement to be made first in Parliament.
I revert to the question of the freedom of choice. As I say, it is the intention that B.E.A. should have complete freedom of choice and this will go for the aircraft that are likely to be available. I might also have said to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, that one of the factors is that the BAC 311 introduces one more competitor into what is already going to be a highly competitive field, with one or two American competitors plus the Lockheed and the Douglas Tri-jet, winch makes it all the more difficult to say with any kind of certainty what the prospects of the aircraft will be.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Have the Government taken fully into account the effect this decision may have on aerospace exports, which are a very important part of the balance of payments? Can he also say (or, if he cannot say now, is a White Paper to be issued?) exactly what is meant by "launching aid", and whether the Government get this back almost intact? Thirdly, may I repeat a question which has already been asked: does this Statement mean that B.A.C. are really going to have a future in the aircraft industry?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with regard to aerospace exports, the Government took all the factors into consideration in making up their minds, including the export prospects and balance-of-payments factor. So far as launching costs are concerned, it is true that the Government get their launching costs back over a period of time, but this may go on for a very considerable time; it might be fifteen or twenty years before the full costs would have been recovered. With regard to the issue of further information, I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friend what has

543
been said by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I would not wish to dissociate myself in any way from what my colleague, Lord Amherst, has said. I feel, not perhaps unnaturally, a little unhappy that, even if the BAC 311 is abandoned, it has not at least been possible to plump for the European Air-bus, thereby increasing our stake in Europe and perhaps facilitating our entry into the European Economic Community. May I ask whether it is not a fact that new and more favourable terms for our entry into this scheme were recently proposed by the other Governments concerned? And may I also ask the Government whether they will at least make a real effort to get agreement with other European Governments on the rationalisation of the whole European aero-engine industry (because I believe that that is what is needed) an industry which seems all too likely to go bankrupt if purely nationalistic policies are pursued?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with regard to the second question, if the noble Lord will re-read what I announced in the last paragraph of the Statement, he will see that I said that the European aero-engine industries have recently proposed that we should meet, and that I hope these talks can be extended in due course to the rest of the aircraft industry. Therefore we certainly do intend to keep up the movement towards a single European aircraft industry.
So far as the first part of the question is concerned, this is a complicated matter, but while we had a further programme from the consortium it was not sufficiently precise and clear to enable us to base any firm estimates of what we were likely to get out of it. For example, it was not clear that the other countries were prepared to purchase even the first of the air-buses, and certainly not the second stretch version. As the noble Lord will be aware, there was no question of our being able to get the Rolls Royce engine into the first family of A300B. The question was whether it would be possible to get it into the next one, and here again there was no certainty. The
544
proposal was that it should be left free to the users to choose whether to instal a GE engine or the stretch version,—621.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will realise that his grave Statement naturally causes much concern in the House. Can he tell us what are to be the guiding principles in future in Government aid in connection with aircraft? It is well known that it is extremely difficult to get any aircraft put into production without some form of aid. The noble Lord's Statement rather suggests that the Government are going, to give aid to the aircraft industry only for the most extravagant projects, such as M.R.C.A. and Concorde. There is no suggestion, I think, that Concorde will ever prove economical.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that that inference could fairly be made. What I said was that launching aid would be given on a basis of exactly the same considerations as have been taken in the past. This must depend on the amount of money already being spent for the purpose of aiding the launching, and on other claims on the public purse at the time. I indicated at what sort of level the claims are at the present time. It is true that it happens just now that a high proportion of this amount is going to Concorde; but this will not last for ever, and the same principles will apply throughout.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that B.A.C. were prepared to provide some launching aid to the BAC 311? Can he say what proportion that was of the total launching costs, excluding the engine? Can he say, further, whether there is any possibility of B.A.C. producing additional funds to meet the whole or the vast majority of the launching costs, now that the Government are unable to help?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the last part of the noble Lord's question. Unless I am mistaken, the intention was that 60 per cent. of the launching costs of the airframe part will be paid by the Government and 40 per cent. by B.A.C.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that this Statement will come as a shock to

545
our European friends? He said that there was to be no weakening in joint projects, but does he not feel that there could be some unfavourable repercussions? Does he not also agree that our future from an industrial point of view lies in Europe, particularly with regard to co-operation in aerospace industries? As he mentioned the Concorde, would he not agree that there is an increasing feeling in both countries that the technological spin-off arising out of the development of the Concorde might be sufficient and that it might not be indispensable to proceed with this aircraft—which would be highly deplorable?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of the last comment of the noble Lord, which was really a statement in the form of a question. I do not think that I could add to what I have said on that matter. In regard to the first part of what my noble friend said, I have no doubt that in view of the new approach that had been made, our European partners will regret our decision. On the other hand, I feel certain that they will understand it. The reasons why the previous Government decided in 1969 not to go ahead with the A300B still apply in large measure, and because we have not been able to reach sufficient clarification of the prospects, this is perhaps one of the main factors that has made us consider that it is better not to come back into participation in the A300B at a late stage.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, but have not more countries indicated that they wished to buy A300B than BAC 311?
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I think that we have had a very long innings on this question and in the middle of a most interesting debate. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, wants to put one more question. May I suggest to your Lordships that this should be the last question on this particular subject before we resume the debate?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I request that I get an answer to my question?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I always have great sympathy with any noble Lord filling the post of Leader of
546
the House. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that he is always very painstaking, but I think that he has been almost too painstaking this afternoon. We should speed up proceedings after a Statement has been made if the first two questions are met and then noble Lords are allowed to put all their questions, rather than that every one is taken in turn. That would be very much better. On the other hand, I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, by his rather involved and willing replies, has not succeeded in making clear some of the answers we were seeking. I agree that we are in the middle of an important debate, but if the Government produce Statements of this sort it is quite usual—it has happened before—to take anything up to half an hour in order to try to get answers. We shall probably like to have a debate on this subject, but how we are going to find time to debate all the awful announcements the Government have in store for us I do not know. None the less, I agree with the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House, and if my noble friend could return to one or two questions, we could leave it at that.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether he does not think that we could get through Statements quicker if supplementary questions were much shorter? Instead of five, six or seven questions, it would be much better to confine them to two or three short questions.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have every sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Peers. May I also say how much I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, puts his question, could I couple my question with his, as it is very short? Can my noble friend say how many other British sub-contractors, besides B.A.C. would have been involved in the 311 project?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I cannot say that.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am glad to know that I am in step with the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Peers, because I confined

547
myself to three questions, but I am afraid that I must come back to them and trust that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he replies, will be able to indicate that it is intended to lay a White Paper or give some similar body of information. The first question which I asked was about the viability of the BAC 311. I understood the noble Lord to say that the expectation was that the Government would have got their money back on sales of 240 of the aircraft—with the associated spares, of course. Can he say whether that would be regarded as a reasonable market, a reasonable expectation of sales, bearing in mind that the sales of the BAC 111, which is still in production, are already slightly over 200?
My second question related to employment prospects, and I specifically said that I was concerned about employment prospects in effect not only immediately, but during the 'seventies. Thirdly, the noble Lord has confirmed that B.E.A. will have a completely free choice. Will he confirm that they will have a completely free choice, save that the one thing they will not be able to choose is the aircraft which they have all along indicated they would prefer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord's third question is certainly easy to answer. The answer is, Yes. May I just say this? Some of the questions have been fairly involved, and if you ask an involved question you are bound to get an involved answer. As to what would be a reasonable sale, perhaps my answer was a little too involved, but I did make it clear that there were a lot of aircraft in the field and it is difficult to assess what would be a reasonable estimate at the present time. So far as employment prospects during the 'seventies are concerned, this matter is really tied up with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, because it depends upon what aircraft are likely to come forward in the next few years, and it is not possible to say that. At the moment there is the Concorde and there are the military aircraft. I cannot say exactly what the prospects will be, but it does seem that there are reasonable prospects for the 'seventies. I should perhaps add that in the areas where these factories are placed there is, in any case, a pretty good demand for labour.

OVERCROWDING IN PRISONS
4.12 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, if I may resume the earlier discussion, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having initiated this debate. I say that not as a matter of formality, but because there is probably nobody in this House better equipped or better informed to initiate a debate on this subject than the noble Lord. Not only that, but, as I think everybody will know, there is nobody whose sympathies have been more deeply engaged over a lifetime on behalf of the people who lie in gaol and indeed on behalf of the people who have the unenviable task of looking after them. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord for having raised this matter.
I propose to be quite brief. I certainly do not intend to attempt any general review of this whole desperate situation. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the over crowded situation in our prisons is so desperate that we are reaching the point of explosion, a point where the situation may no longer be manageable. I do not think that anybody who reads the Report on the work of the Prison Department for 1969 could be left with any other understanding than that. If I may quote just one extract from the Report to illuminate the desperation of the situation in which we find ourselves, it is a quotation of a comment by a governor of one of our local prisons. He said:
"Overcrowding throws extreme pressure on the services provided in the wings and on the landings, designed to accommodate, in all, less than half the number of inmates. It is perhaps fortunate that mankind is so adaptable to enforced environment, and staff and inmates have learned to live with the squalid conditions resulting from these circumstances which are beyond our means to remedy. There has been no actual breakdown in the daily processes of administering this large population, but there have been occasions when the organisation to clothe, feed and bath everyone has been strained to the limit"—
and the words with which he concludes, and to which I direct particular attention, are these—
"and nothing but patience and goodwill on the part of the staff and inmates has usually averted more serious consequences."

549
So that the ironic position is this: that in the year 1970 we are able to make our prisons work only by the kind permission of the inmates, and, let it be said, by the patience and the devotion, beyond the call of duty, of the prison staff. That seems to me to illustrate the desperation of the situation in which we find ourselves
It is no use thinking that a solution to these difficulties is to be found by an increase in the accommodation. That is not on the cards. Indeed, far from being a possible solution, this Report—and preceding Reports that we have had in years past upon the prisons—illustrates that the gap between the accommodation and the number of people for whom the accommodation is required is progressively increasing and that the situation is progressively deteriorating. The tragic dilemma in which we find ourselves in trying to run the prison system seems to me to be best illustrated by reminding ourselves of what is supposed to be the purpose of prisons, the prison system and the administration of justice in prison. Your Lordships will remember that under the Criminal Justice Act 1948 we had the famous definition of what is the main purpose of the prison system:
"The purpose of training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to establish in them the will to lead a good and useful life on discharge and to fit them to do so."
There are some of us—and I am certainly one—who have always believed that that was an empty dream, for the reason which has been so often expressed, that it may be (and I think is) impossible to train people for freedom in conditions of captivity. But what cannot be disputed, whatever view one may take as to the possibility of turning that dream into a reality, is that with the overcrowding that exists in our prisons to-day that declaration of purpose is a pure mockery. It cannot possibly work; the conditions do not exist in which it could work.
Therefore, my Lords—and it may be a platitude to say this—there are three lines of approach, as I think, in trying to solve this problem. The first is whether we can devise ways to send fewer people to prison than we are sending to-day. The second line of approach is whether we can devise ways, when we have to send people to prison, to send them for shorter periods than we do now. The third line
550
of approach is whether there are ways in which, when people have gone into prison, we can get them out prudently and practicably as soon as possible, and before the expiration of the term for which they have been sentenced.
I will not say anything to-day, except possibly one sentence, about sending fewer people to prison, because there are many others in this House who will be speaking later on, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who are far more competent than I am to talk about devising ways of sending fewer people to prison. My reading of the figures about the experiment of the suspended sentence leads me to believe that it has been a considerable disappointment, and that some of the hopes some of us had for that experiment have not been realised.
With regard to the problem of getting people out of prison as soon as we can safely and prudently do so, I do not propose to say anything about that, because I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be speaking later in the debate, and he will speak on that matter with much greater authority than I can. I should like to add my tribute to that paid by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the administration of the parole system. This was a system upon which many of us who have for a long time been interested in penal reform have pinned our hopes, and it is because of the administration of the system by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that this experiment has worked apparently on the basis of the figures that we have. I am sure that that is very largely attributable to the good judgment with which Lord Hunt has presided over the Parole Board.
I want to limit my comments to the second line of approach; whether there are ways and means in which we can arrange to send people into prison for shorter periods than we are sending them now. I should like to make a suggestion which I hope will be a practicable contribution to this problem. The matter I want to speak about is what is known as the "deterrent sentence" or, sometimes, the "exemplary sentence". It is to my mind one of the unhappy facts of life that the Judiciary in this country—particularly the judges who sit in criminal

551
matters—appear to be wedded to a belief in the efficiency and value of the deterrent sentence; that is to say, the sentence which is pronounced upon somebody, not because the judge thinks it is what the man deserves, or because it would be appropriate for him—or indeed because it would do him any good—but simply as a general warning to the public not to commit that type of offence.
I say this from nearly forty years' experience of practising in the criminal courts. I am persuaded that the deterrent penalty does not achieve the purpose it is intended to achieve, but I do not propose to argue that. What I propose to say seems to me indisputable. The deterrent penalty has three obvious faults. The first is that it is manifestly, and almost by definition, unfair to the person upon whom it is imposed: because, by the nature of things, what is imposed upon him is not a sentence such as he deserves, or such as is good for him or appropriate to him, but a sentence which it is thought may deter other people from committing that same kind of offence. Therefore, by definition, the sentence is unjust.
The second matter which I believe is beyond dispute is that in the great majority of cases where a deterrent sentence is imposed it is necessarily a longer sentence than would otherwise be imposed, thereby exacerbating the problem of the overcrowding in prisons. The problem of overcrowding in prisons does not depend simply upon the number of people who are sent there; it depends also upon the time for which they are sent there.
The third indisputable objection to the deterrent sentence is that it confronts the prison staff—the people who have to look after these matters—with a contradiction and a dilemma. When you send a man to prison under deterrent or exemplary sentence, you are saying to the prison administration: "You look after this chap, train him and treat him so as to turn him into a good citizen and send him back into society so that he can play a fit and suitable part in it. Regrettably we have had to impose a sentence upon him which is wholly inappropriate for that purpose. Nevertheless, you have to get on with it, and the best of luck to you!" That is the implication of every deterrent sentence that is passed. It presents the
552
prison administration with an insoluble conundrum.
The deterrent penalty might be justified if it could be demonstrated that it achieves its purpose: that it deters the generality of mankind from engaging in that type of offence; that it persuades any individual who is minded to commit that type of offence to hold back and withdraw from it. I have said before, from my own experience, that I do not think the deterrent penalty ever works; but that is of little consequence. What is of more consequence is something that I should like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham to consider. I do not know—and I should like to know if he knows—of any independent research which has ever been undertaken by anybody into the question of whether the deterrent penalty achieves the purpose for which it is intended. If he can help me and enlighten me on that I should be greatly assisted.
If the efficacy of the deterrent sentence has never been proved, and if, on the other hand, there are these manifest disadvantages in the deterrent penalty (as I have hoped to persuade the House) then surely this is a persuasive argument for removing the deterrent penalty from our penal armoury? That could be easily achieved, because all that would be necessary would be to pass an Act of Parliament which would say that from now on and henceforth any court, in considering whether they are going to send somebody to prison, shall have regard only to what sentence is appropriate to the offender. If Parliament passed an Act to that effect it would not be in breach of precedent. We already have various Acts of Parliament—for example, the Act which says that magistrates cannot send to prison anybody under the age of 21, unless there is no other course open to them. If Parliament passed such an Act, saying that no court should bear in mind any other consideration than what penalty was appropriate to the offender, it would not preclude the court from considering either the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility of the offence, or what treatment might be most beneficial for the offender. The only matter the court would be precluded from considering would be whether the sentence was useful to impose as a warning to other people.

553
What will be the resultant contribution if we abolish and abandon the deterrent penalty to this problem of overcrowding? I suggest that it will, first of all, tend to reduce the total number of people going to prison. Secondly, it will clearly tend to reduce the period of incarceration to which people are sentenced. In the third place it will bring some harmony into the policy of the sentencing by the courts and the administration of the prison system. It will be said—and in particular, I have no doubt, by members of the Judiciary—that there are risks. They will say: "This is not the time, when we are so much concerned with law and order, to take the risk with public stability and safety which such a course would involve". My answer is that no one knows, because we do not have the information and statistics to show whether in fact the deterrent penalty achieves any purpose in keeping down the amount of crime. We know for certain that it has the unfortunate consequences Ito which I have drawn attention.
May I add this comment, my Lords? Has there ever been an occasion when someone has proposed that there should be some mitigation in the level of penalties, or when somebody has proposed some penal reform that would reduce the amount of punishment imposed upon people, and there have not been those who have come forward with their dread prognostications that the proposed change would lead to the collapse of law and order? On how many occasions have those dread prognostications proved to be right? If we were to decide to abandon the deterrent sentence, not only would it make a marked contribution to solving this problem which we are discussing here to-day, but it would not be the first time that boldness paid off and that boldness proved the true course of wisdom.
4.31 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, over a fair period of years now we have had a series of debates on prisons which have established your Lordships' House as one of the most informed and thoughtful assemblies for the discussion of penal policy and practice in this country. To-day our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for giving us
554
another opportunity to turn our attention to what is certainly the most pressing problem faced by the penal system: the grave strains imposed by severe overcrowding in the prisons. It would not be possible for me to express in a few words the admiration and affection we feel for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, resulting from the personal contribution he has made over very many years on this subject. For five years he spoke from this Dispatch Box; but before that, as President of the Prison Reform Council, as a Member of Parliament and, most important of all, as a private citizen, the noble Lord has been known as an ardent and effective champion of prisoners in their attempts to re-enter society in a useful and constructive way. I will not embarrass him any further to-day, beyond saying that his speech showed all the qualities that have earned him that reputation in the past.
In contrast with the noble Lord, this is the first time that I have taken part in a major debate on prisons in your Lordships' House, and I do so with some humility and with an open mind. Many noble Lords (and I include several noble Ladies in that description) who have contributed so much wise advice in the past are intending to speak, and I can assure them that the Government will study very closely indeed what they have to say in the course of the debate. The range of experience is formidable, and while I have no doubt that differences will emerge, I am sure we can all share at any rate the same objective, which is a prison system which effectively detains those committed to custody and one which, in the words of the Prison Rules,
"encourages and assists them to lead a good and useful life".
I shall try to cover some of the points that have been raised so far, particularly those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who was good enough to give me notice of some of them; and my noble friend Lord Sandford will wind up for the Government. If I may say so, I am especially grateful to him for doing so. Noble Lords will know that he has plenty on his plate at the Department of the Environment, but his previous experience as a member of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, and other reasons, too, particularly qualify him for this task.

555
Let me begin by saying that the Government do not wish to attempt to minimise the gravity of the situation confronting the penal system to-day and in the years ahead. There are signs of an increasing public awareness, at any rate as regards informed opinion, that the standards of penal treatment are those that society is prepared to provide. This goes way beyond mere financial provision for accommodation and for services. It comes down to the readiness of a local community to have a prison, or a borstal, or a hostel in its midst; it comes down to the readiness of employers to give a man with convictions a chance to get back on the rails again; it comes down to the readiness of fellow workers to accept him and support him in his attempts to make good. Any wider discussion of the penal system in these terms would quickly exceed the wording of the noble Lord's Motion. I think that, very properly, he sought to guide the discussion to-day on practical lines. We have another Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham which may enable us before too long to debate some of the broader issues of penal policy, but to-day I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that our feet should be firmly on the ground.
The present position is that on November 15, 1970 (the date of the most recent count), there was a total prison population of 40,231. This was made up of 5,029 unsentenced male prisoners, including civil prisoners; 25,951 adult sentenced men and young prisoners 6,478 sentenced to borstal training; 1,720 serving sentences in detention centres; and 1,053 women and girls, sentenced and unsentenced, in prisons and borstals. This total of 40,231 compares with 36,199 a year ago. For the first four months of this year the rate of increase was about 1,000 a month, although fortunately this frighteningly high rate of increase did not continue for long. Overcrowding has risen correspondingly, so that earlier this year there were times when over 14,000 men were sleeping two or three in a cell; there are now over 13,500.
More recently, as the noble Lord pointed out, the prison population has levelled off at about 40,000. There is no simple explanation for what looks like a plateau on the graph, but if one looks
556
back at the prison population figures for the previous decade it is clear that the trend has been steadily upwards. There have been some fluctuations, and the most substantial was the sharp drop in 1968 following the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It has been suggested by some that the effects of suspended sentences are responsible for part of the increase; others argue that the reverse is the case. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to suspended sentences in his speech. While undoubtedly they have had some effect on the pattern, the conclusion of the statisticians who have studied this matter is that the initial drop following the introduction of suspended sentences in 1968 is roughly balanced by the increase following the reactivation of such sentences once another offence has been committed. Consequently, we believe that the size of the prison population now is much the same as it would have been had the suspended sentence not been introduced.
There are a number of factors affecting the size of the prison population. These include the growth in the outside population as well as the sentencing practice of the courts. But the largest single factor is the rise in crime. This can be measured in different ways, but one indicator is the number of persons found guilty of indictable offences per 100,000 of the population. For males aged 17 and over that figure doubled between 1959 and 1969—from 546 to 1,079 per 100,000. It would take the debate even wider if we sought to discuss now the causes of this increase in lawlessness, which incidentally is not one that is limited to this country alone. But I will content myself now with the obvious point that, if all other things are equal, an annual increase in crime produces an equivalent increase in the prison population.
Much of this debate will be devoted to showing ways in which other things might not be equal—by the greater use of non-custodial penalties, for example. I must say, however, that important as experiments on these lines may be, it would be wrong to pin all our hopes on the extent to which they might arrest the increase in the prison population. If we are to plan realistically for the future it must be on the assumption that the prison population will continue to increase, and probably increase markedly, and we cannot count on the present plateau being

557
more than a short but welcome pause. To plan for an increase in the prison population is not to abandon the search for alternative forms of treatment, but to complement that search.
A large building programme must therefore form an essential part of the Government's measures to meet this situation, and let me say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the programme has not been affected by recent Government decisions on public expenditure. I can give him that assurance, and I can give him also a second assurance. The programme is planned on a five-year rolling basis, enabling us to get ahead with all the preliminary work required, to seek suitable sites and to obtain planning clearance before work can be started on the particular site concerned. We have given a great deal of thought to the question of suitable sites. As some noble Lords will know, in seeking sites for penal institutions and for houses for prison staff, it has been the practice of the Home Office in recent years to look first to land in Government ownership, including land which other Departments are able to release. There are many advantages in this practice: it is economical and it reduces disturbance to a minimum. This method, together with some purchases of land by agreement, has met our needs in the past and will continue to be the main source of supply of land for new prisons.
But it is essential to maintain a steady supply of suitable sites to sustain the long-term building programme which is so necessary to meet the increase in the number of people in custody. It has been represented to us, in discussions we have been having with local planning authorities, that too much reliance on land already in Government ownership and unwillingness to use compulsory purchase powers may sometimes prevent the use of the site which is the best on planning grounds. And we are of course concerned to be sure that the sites which are chosen are acceptable from a planning point of view. There is clearly a difficult balance to be struck here between the public and the private interest; and, as I have said, we shall in future continue to look in the first place, and for most of our needs, to land in public ownership. In the last resort, however, we shall be prepared to use the powers of Section 36 of the Prison
558
Act 1952 to buy land compulsorily. In all cases there will continue to be full consultation with the local planning authority.
So far as new places are concerned, one way of measuring progress is the number of places to be provided in projects started each year. Unfortunately no major scheme was started in the financial year 1969-70, but in the current financial year work is starting on a large young offender complex at Glen Parva in Leicestershire; on a Category C prison at a former Army Camp at Ranby, near Retford; and other smaller schemes. In all, these will provide over 1,500 places. Work is also proceeding on the new Holloway project, which will at last provide suitable accommodation for the principal prison for women. A start will be made in the next financial year on two further large schemes: the new prisons at Lockwood, near Oxford, and Wrabness, near Harwich; and, subject to early agreement with the planning authorities, on work to adapt camps at Acklington, in Northumberland, and West Mailing, in Kent. There are currently 24 major schemes in the prison building programme and our aim is to start 2,000 places a year from 1971–72 onwards.
I should also emphasise how much of the current building effort and of the £10 million or so of capital expenditure incurred this year is being spent to improve the facilities and capacity of existing establishments, including new cell blocks and such things as workshops, boiler-houses and better kitchens. These alone total nearly £6 million out of the £10 million. We are pressing on with the refurbishing programme started by the previous Administration, and spending money to keep the essential services going. I might mention in particular that a new purpose-built prison is under construction at Long Lartin in Worcestershire which will shortly be brought into use. This has been designed as a high security closed prison for prisoners in the two highest security categories—categories A and B. But since it will not be ready for that purpose until 1972, we shall be using parts of it from early next year to house up to 320 prisoners in the lower security category, C.
The immediate problem is how to maintain a tolerable standard of living for staff and prisoners in the next five

559
years before the long-term building programme begins to produce results. We are doing what we can to supplement and accelerate the building programme by trying to find redundant service camps which can be quickly converted for immediate use. We are planning to add new accommodation and services also where possible within the existing establishments and we are making sure that there is no spare capacity without good reason in either open or closed training prisons. The Prison Department is applying a great deal of effort to this unspectacular work, which is essential if we are to get through the next few years tolerably. One result is that on the young offender side the training borstals are now accommodating over 500 more trainees than a year ago, and the average time spent by some trainees in local prisons and remand centres waiting for transfer to allocation centres has been reduced from as much as two or three months earlier this year to about four weeks. Prison staff are bearing a heavy burden as a result of overcrowding, and prison officers in particular are working very long hours. The response by all grades of staff to the pressures of the past year has been outstanding, and I think noble Lords would wish to acknowledge that.
One of the effects of overcrowding is the very understandable risk that staff and prisoners alike will concentrate on just getting through the sheer physical and material needs of the prison and its routine at the expense of the personal, informal human contacts between staff and prisoners which ought to exist. Our aim, therefore, even in conditions of extreme overcrowding must be to maintain a sense of purpose and a coherent programme of activities. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, hopes to refer to the experiments in Norwich and Bristol prisons in the course of her speech, and my noble friend Lord Sandford will have something to say about the progress of those experiments when he winds up the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to prison industries, and we would accept the importance of prison industries and share the spirit in which he spoke. It would not be right to suggest that the position is less satisfactory to-day than
560
it has been during the past five or six years, but of course the immediate problem is to prevent the quality and quantity of work that is being attained in the prisons from being seriously affected by overcrowding. It is a measure of achievement that, in dealing with a situation of overcrowding in a period when the average population of prison establishments rose from nearly 34,000 to some 40,000, prison industries continued to absorb almost the same proportion—about 43 per cent.—of the total prison population. The number employed rose from about 14,700 to about 17,000, and because 150,000 sq. ft. of additional workshop space became available, there was only a marginal reduction in the average amount of working space for each person. The number of prisoners employed on prison farms and gardens went up from 1,250 in March, 1969, to just over 1,800 in June, 1970. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I can confirm that there are still approximately 3,000 prisoners, despite the pressure caused by overcrowding, on the top rate of pay, and we hope nearly to treble this number, to something nearer 9,000, over the next two or three years.
My Lords, so far I have concentrated on measures designed to provide more accommodation and to make maximum use of the existing stock of places. But of course we must not overlook the possibility of reducing the number of people held in custody.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? In dealing with accommodation he mentioned the use of ex-Army camps and said it is hoped to have one in commission at Retford in the next year. Unless the position has got very much more favourable, I think it would be wrong to allow the impression to go out of the House that we get a significant contribution to the problem from this source. I do not think there are any more possibles in the Army camps. If I am wrong about that I should very much like to know.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we have to try to find all possible sources of supply. I have not an immediate answer to the noble Lord, but I will try to give one in the course of the debate, or my noble friend will do so in winding up.

561
I was going on to deal with the possibility of reducing the numbers of people who are held in custody. The Government are looking at various possibilities, and my noble friend Lord Sandford and I will refer to some of them in the course of what we have to say. But before doing so I must stress one point that I made earlier. That is that if existing trends continue we shall not only need a building programme of at least the size we have at present, but shall also need to exploit to the full any possibilities of reducing the number of people in custody.
One suggestion made by the noble Lord was that we might re-negotiate some of the local undertakings that have been given about the types of prisoner who can be sent to an open prison, with a view to extending the categories of prisoners for which they are available. I ought to say straight away that the open prisons are now 95 per cent. full. There has been a significant change here since the beginning of the year, when there were about a thousand vacancies; so that changes on these lines might not do a great deal to relieve overcrowding.
It is true that the current restrictions sometimes prevent men from going to an open prison where they might benefit from it and would not, in our judgment, present any risk to the local people. This is particularly true, perhaps, when a man is nearing the end of his sentence and there has been ample opportunity to assess him. We believe there are some prisoners who at that stage could benefit from a period in an open prison, but who may now he excluded because of the type of offence for which they have been convicted. In making plans for the future we have this point in mind, and I am sure that any approach we make to a particular local authority for some modification of the current restrictions will be considered in a way which shows under-standing of our problem. For the fears expressed of a proposed new prison, as the noble Lord knows very well, whether open or closed, are largely fears of the unknown. Once a prison has become established, local anxieties diminish and the staff of the prison, and even to some extent the prisoner, become an accepted part of the local community.
The noble Lord referred in the course of his speech to the need to reduce the
562
numbers remanded in custody. We share his concern that people should not be remanded in custody where this can be avoided, and consequently a special study is being made to assess the scone for possible reductions. In the light of the findings of this study, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consider whether he might usefully consult the Magistrates' Association and whether any changes might be necessary in the circulars issued to magistrates.
Extension of the parole scheme is another subject which has already been mentioned in the debate and I am sure will be referred to by other speakers. One possibility, favoured by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in a Question that he asked last week, is that the threshold might be reduced, enabling prisoners serving sentences of eighteen months or less to be considered for parole. The present scheme is limited to those serving a period of over eighteen months. Any change of this kind would require legislation and would necessitate getting adequate assessments of prisoners within a few months of their arrival in prison. This is something that will require careful study.
We also have to realise that the parole scheme is still new, and we must be careful, in particular, not to jeopardise in the early stages of the scheme the confidence which is being built up by the careful work of the Parole Board. The record so far is pretty good. From April, 1968, when the scheme started, until the end of October this year, over 4,700 prisoners had been recommended by the Parole Board for early release. Of these, only 230 had been recalled to prison, including those who were recalled for failing to observe their licence conditions. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, asked me how many prisoners convicted of crimes of violence who had been released on parole had committed other crimes of violence. The answer is that over a 2½-year period only 15 out of 4,718 prisoners released on parole have committed further offences of a violent or sexual nature while on licence. The statisticians have been at work, and they calculate that this represents 0·3 per cent. of the total. I suggest that it is still too early to pronounce definitively on the success of the scheme, but research is now being conducted which can be evaluated

563
later. In the meantime we can note that about 1,300 men and women who would otherwise be in prison are currently in the community on licence under the supervision of the Probation and After-Care Service, and that over 2,800 others have completed their licence periods successfully.
Parole has been one of the most encouraging developments in the penal field for many years, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said in his speech; and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, expressed a similar opinion. I should like to add my tribute to the dedication of the members of the Parole Board, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, who is to speak in our debate later this afternoon: they have carried a very heavy burden. Even without any increase in the scope of the scheme, the number of cases the Board has to consider will go on increasing in line with the increase in the prison population, and for that reason the Home Secretary has decided, after consulting the Board, to establish additional panels in Birmingham and Manchester.
Two other extremely important alternatives to custody which have been mentioned are the treatment of alcoholics outside a prison setting and the provision of approved hostels or homes, supervised by the Probation Service, to which mainly young offenders can be sent if they are likely to benefit from a stable supportive environment. The Rathcoole House project and the Bridgehead Housing Association have been mentioned, and, since I know that other noble Lords are going to refer to this subject in the course of the debate, my noble friend will reply at the end of the debate.
I now turn to the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and her colleagues on non-custodial and semi-custodial penalties. The report of the sub-committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System was published in September. The Government have not previously expressed a view on the recommendation it contains, but I shall now do so. Let me begin by thanking the members of the Advisory Council, particularly the noble Baroness and the Chairman of the Council, Mr. Kenneth Younger, for the report. It manages to be both painstaking and imaginative at the same time, and these
564
are two qualities that are seldom easily combined.
Devising alternatives to imprisonment, as I am sure the members of the subcommittee would agree, is not easy. Enlarging the powers of the courts may get us some of the way; but often this approach will not get very far without a commitment of resources—though conversely, an expansion of resources for existing powers may accomplish a great deal. In this field, the resources required are often those of the Probation and After-Care Service, and I shall be saying later something about the Government's plan for achieving an expansion. Directly or indirectly, a number of the sub-committee's proposals would involve the Probation and After-Care Service.
This is particularly true of what the sub-committee describe as their "most ambitious proposal"; that the courts should be given the power to require offenders to perform part-time service to the community. The Probation Service would be responsible for administering a scheme, in close co-operation with voluntary agencies. The various attractions of this approach need no stressing. However, the proposal gives rise to a number of practical issues which will need to be resolved before the Government can decide whether to accept this recommendation and to introduce the necessary legislation. To this end, a development group, including representatives of the Probation Service, the magistrates and voluntary bodies, is being set up in the Home Office to make a detailed study of this proposal.
Secondly, the Government accept in principle the Advisory Council's recommendation that the courts should be given a specific power to defer sentence on a convicted offender. Our impression is that a number of judges and magistrates would find this a useful power in certain circumstances—for example, where there is ground to believe that, given a little time, circumstances will change in an offender's favour. He may marry a good woman, or get and keep a job, or of his own volition make good the loss or damage which his offence has caused. It is understandable that a court, faced with that situation, feels frustrated at the lack of any specific power to put the case back to see whether the promised event

565
occurs in practice. We are doubtful, however, whether it is right to attach formal conditions to a deferment of sentence.
Thirdly, the sub-committee's report makes a number of recommendations for adding to the powers of the courts to make orders of disqualification and of forfeiture. We accept the recommendation that the criminal courts should be given power to disqualify from driving an offender who has used a vehicle for the commission of crime. Chief constables have told us that they would welcome this additional power. They are, of course, under no illusion that a person set on committing a burglary will be deterred from driving to the scene of the crime because he has no licence. However, it is only reasonable to suppose that those who use vehicles in the pursuit of criminal objectives should have life made as difficult as possible for them. The chief constables do not think that enforcement problems should be a serious objection in this instance.
The same is not true, however, of the next recommendation in the series, that the courts should have power to order driving disqualification confined to weekends. This is another proposal which has its attractions. However, we are advised, contrary to what is said in the Report, that the level of enforcement of disqualification orders confined to weekends would be so low, and so uncertain, as to make this a provision with very little power which could bring disqualification generally into disrepute. The police are particularly stretched at weekends anyway, and, moreover, the chances of a police officer spotting a disqualified driver will be less because weekend driving routes follow a less regular pattern than those of working days. We therefore do not accept this recommendation, for which we have found little support either in the courts or among the police.
The Report also recommended that the courts should be given a general power to order the forfeiture of property in the possession of an offender which is evidently intended for use in the commission of crime. The courts have various specific provisions authorising forfeiture, and there is some force in the argument that the power should be generalised. The Government have no strong view on this recommendation, but on balance are disposed to accept it.
566
Finally under this heading, we are not able to accept the Council's proposal that where a person has been convicted of a sexual offence, or an offence of violence involving a child, the courts should be enabled to make an order prohibiting him from taking employment in occupations involving contact with children. We have found very little enthusiasm for this proposal among those whom we have consulted who sit in the courts, or among the Departments concerned with the relevant services. The machinery that would be required to give effect to this kind of prohibition—the maintenance, distribution and keeping up to date of a list of persons—would be fairly costly. We recognise that in a few cases a court prohibition might deter undesirable persons from seeking employment that brought them into contact with children. But in our view there would be a very real risk that a scheme based on court orders might detract from the responsibility of employers for making sure, through a careful check of references, that those whom they take on for employment are suitable.
Fourthly, on the point concerning intermittent custody, the sub-committee were attracted to week-end imprisonment as an alternative to continuous custody for certain offenders, but recognised that the development of this penalty would have to wait until the pressure on prison resources was reduced. I am afraid that what I have said earlier this afternoon indicates how far off that time is likely to be. Your Lordships will therefore not expect me to make any predictions now about the possible introduction of a form of week-end imprisonment. Whatever may be the advantages of a form of custodial treatment that does not involve continuous custody, it is very difficult to see how it could avoid increasing demand on prison places and staff by spreading over a number of week-ends a demand which would otherwise be concentrated into a shorter continuous period.
But, my Lords, leaving aside these considerations of resources, there are considerations of merit which need to be kept in mind. The argument for week-end imprisonment is that it enables the penalty of deprivation of liberty to be imposed without the complete disruption of employment, social ties and family life

567
which a continuous period of imprisonment brings. That is a strong argument. But it is difficult to believe that, in our system of treatment of offenders, weekend imprisonment would be used by the courts as a substitute for continuous imprisonment and not as a substitute for non-custodial penalties. We have recent experience in the suspended sentence of how powers conferred on the courts can be used in a way not foreseen by Parliament.
Week-end imprisonment would not be an adequate substitute for any but very short continuous sentences. It would be suitable only for offenders from a stable environment and with a capacity for cooperation, and in these cases it might be thought that probation or a fine would usually be a more suitable penalty. For these reasons, and while recognising the attractions of the idea of week-end imprisonment, the Government think it best at this stage to avoid any commitment in principle, even if the time came—which it is at present difficult to foresee—when adequate resources might be made available.
My Lords, this has been a compressed and an incomplete discussion of the Report, and I should not like the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, to feel that I have done less than justice to what was three years' work. There is, of course, a great deal more in the Report which could justify much further discussion on another occasion; but what I have tried to do, as briefly as possible in the context of this debate, is to give an indication of those matters on which the Government have, after consultation, already formed a definite view. I thought that it would be helpful for noble Lords to be informed of these decisions at the earliest possible moment. There are, however, several other recommendations which I have not mentioned. These include the power to order offenders to report to police stations; a proposal that an experimental traffic attendance centre should be established; a proposal that we should set up periodic work detention centres on the New Zealand model; and that the courts should have a power to combine compulsory supervision with a fine or suspended sentence. All of these are extremely important matters. They are matters on which we have not yet
568
reached a conclusion, but of course they will all continue to receive the most careful study.
I had intended to speak about the expansion of the Probation Service, but I am extremely conscious that I have already spoken for a very long time. This is the longest speech that I have ever made in your Lordships' House. I did it deliberately, because I think it is very easy to come along here (the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who was himself at the Despatch Box for a number of years will appreciate this) and give a general answer to a critical Motion of this kind. But we do regard this as a matter of the first importance. There is no one simple solution. If there was it would have been adopted long ago.
My final word, my Lords, is this—it is an old refrain, but is none the less valid for that. The wider use of treatment in the community is not going to empty the prisons, although it should help to relieve some of the pressure on them. What we must hope it will do is to change the climate of opinion in this country. Just as we now see mental illness as something to be treated, so far as possible, in the community, rather than behind locked doors, so perhaps we can look forward to the day when, to a greater degree, certain forms of delinquency or social illness are regarded as neeeding treatment and support in the community rather than in prison. It is not going to be accomplished at all easily, but I hope that what I have said shows that the Government have a grasp on this problem; we have identified what needs to be done and we have already begun to act.
5.13 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, it would be otiose to repeat at length our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for introducing this debate. His concern with these matters, whether in Government or in Opposition, is well known. I recall that it was a Motion of his on a similar subject that gave me the opportunity to make my own maiden speech in this House many years ago. Since then we have seen him dealing with the same questions from the Government Front Bench, and now he is back in his old place, but filled with the same idealism and concern for those who have very few to care about

569
them. I was pleased to see that he had written a warm foreword to the pamphlet Cast the First Stone by Ben Harrison, which is one of the most pungent indictments of our commonly accepted methods of dealing with criminals that has appeared from Church sources for many years.
Of course, the noble Lord is by no means alone in his concern about overcrowding. Victor Hugo said, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose hour has come", and it seems to me that the idea really has now taken hold of many in our society that we must look at our whole system of imprisonment with new eyes. I see evidence of this in the speech of the Under-Secretary at the Home Office to the Howard League for Penal Reform, with its declaration of intent to raise the Probation Service, by stages, to at least 4,700 by 1975. I see evidence of it, too, in the setting up of the Committee on Prison Reform by the Society of Conservative Lawyers.
The problem that confronts society may at first sight appear to be just a straight forward problem of overcrowding. I will not go through all the figures again, because we have had them several times this afternoon, but I merely mention the concluding point in the paragraph I had prepared on this matter, that the numbers sleeping two or three in a cell now reach 13,000, which is about a third of the total inmates of our prisons. In other words, we are not dealing with an isolated problem; we are really dealing with the whole general condition under which a large number of our prisoners are living.
Last Friday I was visiting Leicester Gaol to check up on how these figures affect one local prison. It is in the local prisons that the worst overcrowding occurs. They are the bottlenecks, bound to receive all who are sent to them by the courts but unable to pass men on to the training prisons, of which we have only one in my diocese, which is at Gartree. Gartree is an old ecclesiastical name. We had to allow the Home Office to call that prison Gartree Prison because none of the surrounding towns and villages was willing for its name to be associated with it, which is an indication of the difficulty in getting the community to co-operate in this whole realm of prison work.
570
In our Leicester Prison, in 125 cells planned for one man each, we have 406 men. That was the number unlocked on Friday morning last; roughly three per cell over the whole prison. Each cell has approximately 1,000 cubic feet of air. For those not familiar with prison cells—and I imagine that there may be some in your Lordships' House who are not—I may mention that the impression is not one of inordinate gloom or terror; it is not exactly the dungeon that one has in mind when one thinks about a prison cell. The light is not bad and walls are gay with pin-ups of feminine beauty—of which the interest is not in the clothing. The impression is more like that of a rather slummy air raid shelter with three bunks; one double, one up and one down, and one single. Dressing and undressing can be miserable enough, as we all know, in a small two-berth cabin on a Channel ship; so one can imagine what it is like to be three in a similar space for 18 hours out of every 24—sometimes for even more than that.
The only toilet arrangements are the covered chamber pots, which have to be used for all purposes during the long night hours. This overcrowding spills over into all aspects of the prison life; into workshops, bathing facilities and the kitchen. It increases the difficulty of arranging supervised visits, of providing for recreation and training and of separating old and young, new and hardened offenders. The total effect on many prisoners cannot be other than degrading. If this is so, a responsible society must ask what can be done about it. One answer is, "Hurry up with the new prisons". I do not want to underrate the importance of what was said by the Minister about the efforts that are being made (and obviously with some success) to increase the provision of prison space, but it just cannot be done sufficiently quickly, or so I believe, to be effective. It is rather like trying to get help to the Pakistani disaster area in 24 hours; it just cannot be done. I understand that in 1969 two new establishments were opened and that one is under construction. Many are in the pipeline—but it is a very long pipeline.
In my view, the only answer is a radical change in sentencing policy. As I am going to recommend such a change,

571
let me emphasise that I am not in the least concerned about suggesting soft options for offenders. Being a Bishop, I find it is necessary to stress that point. There is a great deal of feeling that, if anything is suggested to reduce sentences, one is really supporting soft options. The Times leader, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred, stated:
"There is an obvious danger that a large section of the general public would regard it as a sign of weakness and misplaced idealism to treat within the community men who would otherwise have been sent to prison. In that case the courts might be reluctant to use the alternative sentences available to them."
We are one organ through which public opinion can be expressed, and when the Under-Secretary stated in the speech to which I referred that the Government would increase the probation officer strength in a large way only if public opinion was in agreement with a new method for treating offenders, I hope that he was not meaning that he was going to take the most ignorant and uninformed public opinion as his guide, but that he would take informed public opinion.
I ask myself therefore: why is anybody sent to prison? Society is still very confused about the answer to that question. Clearly, some are sent because they are too dangerous to have about. These include what, in the old days, we used to call criminal lunatics—perhaps even then we should have called them lunatic criminals. Then there are those whose crimes so shock the community that anything less than banishment, short or long, would not adequately express society's condemnation of the crime committed. May I mention the well-known case of the McKay abduction and murder. Whether or not a repetition of a crime like that by those responsible would be likely, society could not tolerate the continued presence in its midst of men with such a crime recently on their hands.
If I have a difference with Mr. Ben Harrison's thesis in Cast the First Stone, it is his suggestion that all steps by society to protect itself from crime are selfish and pharisaical. That is not true. It is for the protection of the weak and helpless that society has to take drastic steps to make clear its rejection of certain types of crime. Here I want to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
572
I could not quite follow him in the line he took about deterrent sentences, because in my view there is a deterrent element in all sentences of every kind, not only custodial sentences. It is society's way of saying, "This is something which cannot be tolerated."
But I come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that these very long sentences should be avoided, and I think we might be able to avoid them if custodial sentences of any kind became very much rarer. We have already seen this to a certain extent with the life sentence coming in as an alternative to capital punishment, because now when the Press wishes to draw attention to the severity of a sentence it prints the word "life" in headlines. If all sentences were less, then it might be that some of these very long sentences could be modified, but by comparison would continue to have the same effect on the community.
But how many offenders come into the class that should be treated in this way? I think only a small proportion. Some 20 per cent. of our prisoners are "inadequate", those who cannot survive as wage-earners and who drift back to prison, either because they want to get back or because they cannot sustain themselves outside. Then there are those who have failed to pay their fines; those who have offended while a suspended sentence hung over them; sexual offenders of the most varied kinds, until at last the whole 40,000 of our prison population has been counted.
Here are all these misfits. What do we do with them? We say, first of all, We will keep you from now on at £22 a week. If necessary, we will keep your wife and children. We will disrupt your marital life, giving you an excuse for any improprieties by which you may be tempted. We will deprive the community of any advantage from your services. We will make it much more difficult for you to earn your living in the future than it was in the past." Could anything be more stupid? Can we believe that it is necessary to treat more than a fraction of these people in that way for the protection of the rest of us? Is it not merely a habit that we have got into, like standing a child in the corner because it is the shortest and simplest way of expressing some irritation, anger or rejection of the behaviour concerned?

573
I believe that Her Majesty's Government now have an opportunity which may not recur, to make a drastic change in the whole policy of sentencing in this country. It is amazing how practical the British people are and, whereas you might never persuade them—I was going to say "in a month of Sundays"—that the present policy of sentencing was wrong in itself, they can understand the overcrowding of the prisons. So I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make the very most of their opportunity to bring about a real change.
We have to develop or invent a whole range of non-custodial penalties, perhaps on the lines of those adumbrated in the Wootton Report. I should very much like to think that the proposal in that Report of community service could be an answer, or a partial answer, to this problem. But I am very much afraid that it might turn out to be rather like Lloyd George's scheme for public works during the unemployment of the 'thirties, in that you would never find the right work available at the right time and in the right place. That is the danger. I do not know whether it is possible to find an answer to that.
I am much more attracted by other proposals, such as weekend custody and the hostel system. I thought that the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, in speaking for the Government, turned aside a little too hurriedly from the weekend system. He seemed to be assuming that, if the weekend system was used, you would have to give as many weekends as made up the total sentence which would otherwise have been given. I do not think that is so at all. Instead of telling a man that he would be in prison for a month, you would tell him that he would work in the ordinary way for a month but that his weekends would be spent in prison. I know that there would be difficulties about the staffing of the prisons if that suggestion were adopted, but if we made a really radical change we might be able to find room for those people.
An element of restitution to those wronged should be incorporated where possible. The hostel system should be developed, especially for the inadequate and the weak-willed. The note of discipline and punishment need not be altogether omitted, especially in the case
574
of the younger offender. A big demand will be made of the whole community, not only to provide the money for a vastly larger and more satisfied Probation Service, but to welcome the setting up of hostels in their own areas. There is a sad tale of objection by prosperous communities to the setting up of any probation or after-care hostels in their midst. It is partly an hysterical fear, brought on by the image of an actual house that they can visualise being filled with ex-offenders more or less at large. If they knew it, the country is already full of such people, and not even under probationary care. The Churches ought to be in the forefront of a campaign to counteract objections of this sort, in the interest of a real step forward in the treatment of offenders. We could hardly do worse than we are doing at present. In this country we have 80 prisoners per 100,000 of the population, while Holland has only 20—and our two countries are not so dissimilar as to take the sting out of those figures. Short sentences are one way in which the proportion of people in custody in Holland has been reduced to that small number. We know that this is against recent theory in this country, but I think we must consider it among other solutions.
We know from the speech from the Government Front Bench that Her Majesty's Government are very much in sympathy with many of the aims which I have mentioned, but as those responsible for action in the matter they will of course be aware, perhaps more than the rest of us, of the practical difficulties which lie in the way. I hope, however, that they will not be deterred by the difficulties but will take advantage of the opportunity and make some progress along these lines. I have to end by repeating the sincere apology I have already expressed in writing to the Minister for my quite unavoidable absence during the later part of the evening.
5.32 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, up to the present moment this debate has been of a very high order, and I feel sure that, from the time I sit down, it will continue to be. I fancy it may also prove to be an epoch-making one in the history of penal development. For the first time in my experience Parliament, in speech after speech, has been

575
declaring that simple imprisonment as a penalty for an offence is just not good enough. A somewhat similar situation arose about 130 years ago, when transportation was the standard penalty for crime if that crime did not actually carry the death penalty. Then, with the growing reluctance of our friends in Australia and New Zealand to accept more convicts, the Government of the day had to think again, and the outcome of their thought was the building of a new model prison, which was of course magnificently beyond the standard of the hulks in which so many convicts had spent their confinement till then. That new model prison was Pentonville—still standing, and nowadays condemned, and rightly condemned, as antagonistic to all that we now wish to do by way of penal treatment.
None of us can foresee what will come out of the present prison crisis, but let us all adjust our minds to the likelihood that drastic changes which a few years ago would not have been willingly visualised by many may have to be adopted. May I say in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it is a pleasure to see him once again standing at a Dispatch Box, and that we all feel grateful to him for having initiated this debate, and for having initiated it with a speech of such wide range based on his great knowledge. I hope he will not be angry with me for saying that I was a little surprised that after five years at the Home Office he pronounced the prison system to be "a costly waste" and "a scandalous misuse of public money". I am not wholly in disagreement with him, but he certainly had some opportunities to try to lessen that outright condemnation of the system—and I know, indeed, that he used many of those opportunities. I hope he will grant me that I, too, used my opportunities in earlier years. For it was not only after 1964 that improvements started to come about: the real improvement in the second half of the 20th century dated from the White Paper of my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden in 1959, and the prison building programme which that initiated.
My Lords, if we are to find our way through this present crisis which has been so dramatically described, then, as I think my noble friend Lord Windlesham said,
576
in a splendid speech which fully justified its length, we have got to work on public opinion. We have got to ensure that public opinion is prepared to support the taking of risks which have hitherto seemed to many to be unacceptable. It is significant that there appears to be nobody wishing to take part in this debate to voice the old view that one should make prisons as uncomfortable and as horrible as possible because that would deter people from ever risking coming back to them. That is a view, current in the 19th century, which has now been rejected. It was found that the effect of that kind of régime was to brutalise rather than to deter.
The theory was that this kind of prison treatment would make men more responsible in their actions when they came out of prison. The truth was found to be that it simply rendered them more irresponsible. We have to recognise that the prison population is a relatively young one, and most of them are there because of irresponsibility, though some of them are there because of real criminal intent. But if a man is sent to prison for ten years at the age of thirty, he will be discharged to freedom at the age of forty, if not before, and he will still have an expectation of thirty years' life or more as a free man in the community. If his experience in prison has actually harmed the man's personality, that is going to worsen the prospects for the nation of the subsequent thirty years of his life. That being so, it is essential to go on moulding and remoulding the prison system so that it has whatever chance can be given to it of helping the man to lead an honest and useful life when he comes out of prison.
Now I think that in our hearts we all accept that there is a great deal in the verdict of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that our present prison system does sadly little towards that end. Nevertheless, with some men and women it does something; there is something to build upon. I would not accept the sweeping condemnation of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in that context any more than I would accept the outright condemnation by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, of prison as a deterrent. I believe that long prison sentences, and sometimes shorter prison sentences, do act as an effective deterrent with some people and

577
in some circumstances, and I am quite sure that there has to be a deterrent element in all penalties. But if we are trying to devise and improve a prison sentence that will lead a man, or will have some hope of leading a man, to live an honest life when he comes out, we cannot possibly acquiesce in a situation in which 14,000 out of a prison population of 40,000 live two or three to a cell. We cannot possibly acquiesce in a situation where shortage of space, shortage of facilities, and shortage of staff render it impossible to put a very large part of the prison population to work for more than, say, half a normal working week. What use is work for eighteen, twenty or twenty-five hours a week as a means of preparing a man for freedom?
When I visited Wandsworth Prison in 1962, nothing shocked me more than the discovery that those men there capable of work were working only an 18-hour or 19-hour week. I feel sure that if the public realised that this was what was happening inside prisons they would be deeply shocked, and would demand action. I issued a directive at that time that steps were to be taken to increase the number of working hours a week throughout the Prison Service as quickly as possible to 30 hours as a step on the road to getting it up to a full working week. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, knows the difficulties which have frustrated that effort; and still there are many prisons—though not by any means all—where men are not getting the hours of work they should get.
My Lords, in these rather gloomy circumstances, where had we better start? I am quite sure that we need to start, first of all, by thinking about the young. Just as the policy of Home Secretaries in the 1950s was correct in concentrating on providing proper borstal accommodation as a first priority, going on from that to the building of new prisons, so I believe that at the present time we have got to think first (and I should like to be sure that every Home Office Minister was thinking of this) how our prison arrangements are affecting for good or bad the young. I should like Home Office Ministers particularly to consider conditions in the allocation wings to which young men go. Indeed, all kinds of
578
prisoners go to them, but I am thinking now of the young.
A young man may be going to prison for the first time. He may have had an unblemished record until committing the offence which brought him a prison sentence. He will find himself in the allocation wing at Wormwood Scrubs or elsewhere, sleeping three in a cell, along with other young men who, quite unlike him, have had a long record leading them to approved schools and then to borstal, and now to prison. These young people will be cooped up together for some weeks under a régime which provides them with no work at all; and until they are sent to another prison they will spend 23 hours out of 24 in their cell. They will go out, supposedly for an hour's exercise, but often, I am afraid, for less. Otherwise, they will go out only for the purpose of slopping-out or fetching their meals and then taking them back to their cells to eat them. This régime is bound to ensure that any man who has not been in prison before will get the very worst impression of prison from the outset, so that he probably will be determined not to co-operate. He may go on from this to an excellent modern prison, but by that time the damage may have been done. I believe that this pressure of numbers in the allocation wings is one of the most damaging features of the present situation.
Obviously, as previous speakers have said, we need more prisons and fewer prisoners. As to more prisons, the Government have inherited an extensive prison building programme—most of the new prisons, unfortunately, being only in the design stage. I do not know whether it is that the building programme has got out of phase, but it seems to me odd that at the present time, when the need for new prisons is so glaring, there is, according to the Prison Department's Report, only one new prison, at Long Lartin, actually under construction. Something must have gone wrong. I know of the difficulties and hold-ups through lack of planning permission. Nevertheless, we must not allow the situation to arise again when only one new prison is under construction. I can only hope that the Home Office will press ahead by all possible means with the big programme which is at present on paper.

579
We have got in these immediate years, even in these immediate weeks, to see that the possibilities override the difficulties. Anybody can cite difficulties in the way of new prison building, or in the way of new ideas as set out in the valuable Report of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. But difficulties must be overcome. I, for one, would not be prepared to be turned aside from following up some of these new ideas simply through the pointing out of difficulties. My noble friend Lord Windlesham referred to my Question in your Lordships' House last week about extending the scope of the Parole Board. At present a man can be released on parole only after he has served at least one year of his sentence. I suggested that the minimum period should be reduced to eight months. It was pointed out to me that it may be difficult to get an assessment on his progress in prison in time for the Parole Board to consider it. Of course it will be difficult; but that is exactly the sort of difficulty which needs to be overcome.
I should like to see a decision taken here and now that the Parole Board, which at present is considering, I believe, some 8,000 cases a year, should be in a position as rapidly as possible to be able to consider 10,000 cases a year. Whether or not it would recommend the same percentage to be released on licence, I have no idea. But the Parole Board has justified its creation. We must all express great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues; but I suggest that we should now go further. We have these new panels of the Board in Manchester and Birmingham, but we should also urge the Government to take a decision without delay that by one means or another—not necessarily according to my suggestion—the through-put of the Parole Board should be increased.
As to the Report of the noble Baroness, which I found a fascinating document, I was glad to hear that at any rate some of her proposals already have received the approval of the Government. I had already gathered something of what my noble friend said from the admirable speech which his colleague Mr. Mark Carlisle made to the Howard League a week or two ago; a speech which, in itself, would be an answer to the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this
580
Government were marking time. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend say—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I spoke of marking time only in respect of prison industries. I do not think that Mr. Carlisle discussed prison industries.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, perhaps I have misinterpreted the noble Lord, and in that case I am sorry. If it is prison industries with which he is concerned, he may count on me as an ally in pressing that the intelligent development of work in prison shall go forward as rapidly as possible. Indeed, that is one of my reasons for having become convinced that we must develop quickly alternatives to prison, because I do not think we can tolerate the economic waste involved in keeping 40,000 people in custody. The value of their total production at work in prison is no more than about £6 million a year. That is gross production; actually we make a loss on our prison industries. For that reason, and others, I trust that the Government will be ready to press ahead with those recommendations in the Wootton Report which they are prepared to accept, and in due time to reconsider those recommendations which have been negatived.
My Lords, I am quite sure that something can be made of the idea of community service. May I offer a practical suggestion to Her Majesty's Government? When they set up a development group, or a working party, or a study group, on any of these matters, will they give that body a time limit by which it must report? I am sure that such a group would get ahead, but I am so conscious of the time which has already been wasted, not through malice but through failure to recognise the urgency.
I shall always regret that the Royal Commission, which I recommended Mr. Macmillan to set up in 1964, was later disbanded by our successors. I believe that had that Royal Commission completed its work, we should by now have in our hands a comprehensive and deep study of the whole of the penal system. The information is now becoming available to us bit by bit with Reports such as this one from the Advisory Council. Time has been lost, and we cannot afford

581
to lose any more, for the figures given to us today about overcrowding in the prisons make that too serious.
My Lords, I will not go into detail over the Wootton Report recommendations, because I feel sure that the noble Baroness will be able to do that with much closer knowledge than mine. But I feel certain that one of our tasks must be to extend the possible range of sentences which magistrates are able to impose. I have never been a magistrate, but there are few magistrates who have not told me that they have felt restricted by the law—that is by Parliament; by us—in not being permitted as wide or as imaginative a range of penalties to impose as they would have wished to have. There lies a duty on Parliament to review all this, and to ensure that the courts are given as extensive powers as will help them to find the right penalty in each case.
In this, my Lords, we must be prepared to take risks. A particular question which I should like to put to my noble friend Lord Sandford, who is to reply for the Government, is how the Government contemplate their legislative programme in relation to those pioneering proposals included in the Wootton Report which the Government may be willing to accept. I have a fear that we may reach a situation in which the Government decide that some new steps should be taken, but the law does not allow it; and pressure on the Parliamentary time-table may delay any further step for 12 or 18 months. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will agree, there is little more that the Parole Board can do to extend its range unless there is further legislation, because it is limited by legislation. I should like to see the Government considering the passing of enabling legislation in advance on some of these matters; legislation which would come into force by Ministerial Order only when the facilities to make it practicable had become available.
My Lords, I hope that this debate will lead to the spreading throughout the country of the general opinion that prison is an excessively costly remedy. It means, as the Wootton Report points out, an expenditure from public funds of £22 per week per prisoner, not counting the supplementary benefit which will very likely have to be claimed by the prisoner's family. Therefore every man who is sent
582
to prison for a year means an additional expenditure of £1,000 by the taxpayer. All this needs to be taken into account in the courts. I say that, in the future, prison sentences should be imposed only on those men or women who are a danger to society. That should be our aim, and we must work towards achieving it as rapidly as we can.
5.58 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, naturally I share the delight of your Lordships at seeing my noble friend Lord Stonham back in his proper place and fulfilling his proper role as defender of penal reform. I should also like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the care with which he has announced the Government's provisional reaction to the various recommendations of the subcommittee over which I had the honour to preside.
The noble Lord will not expect me to comment in detail on the Government's conclusions at this stage. I may not have got the record right; but, so far as I can make out, the score is two positive, three negative and the rest of the recommendations under consideration; the two positives being deferred sentence and the disqualification following the use of a motor vehicle in the course of crime; and the three negatives being intermittent custody, week-end disqualification from driving and disqualification of people with a record of serious offences against children from employment in children's institutions. May I tell the noble Lord that on the three negatives I think that he may be hearing further from us, but that must necessarily be at a later stage. We are extremely grateful that some of our main proposals are still under consideration. I shall, therefore, devote the few remarks I make to-night chiefly to the main proposals on which the Government's mind, we understand, is still open.
I would say at the outset that in making these proposals, we have been criticised for omission as well as for commission. We have been criticised for not having paid sufficient attention to the importance of developing the work of the Probation Service, as it is now understood. That was because we were led to believe

583
that this was not our business. Our business was not to propose developments of existing potentialities but to find new possible treatments of offenders. I should like to say, and I am sure that my colleagues would wish to be associated with me, that we have the greatest admiration of the work that the Probation and After-Care Service does now, that we have the greatest anxiety to see it extended and that we welcome, so far as it goes, the recent announcement of the Government that they propose to increase the strength of the Probation and After-Care Service. The only criticism that I would make, and I think that my colleagues would agree, is that in my view this extension is by no means commensurate with the demands that we think will be made and ought to be made upon the Probation Service. We should particularly like to hear whether the Government are looking into the practice, which is spreading in the United States, of using as auxiliaries in the Probation Service people who themselves have been offenders.
Our principal recommendation was the one on community service. May I put a little detail on the bare bones of that proposal? We propose that an offender should be liable to be sentenced by the court to spend not more than 120 hours of his leisure time in a period of six months in certain forms of community service. This might be in evenings and non-residential weekends, but it might be combined with residential weekend service of the kind that has been successful in New Zealand. Let me say at once that we would not have gone on with this proposal if we had not had remarkable co-operation from two vital sources. The first was the Probation and After-Care Service. Their representatives, through their organisations, told us that they would welcome an opportunity to take part in this kind of work, always with the understanding that they had the resources to do so. We had an equally cordial reception from the voluntary organisations, such as Task Force and the Community Service Volunteers, who are already engaged in this kind of work.
This emboldened us to go on with what in many senses is a pretty radical proposal. We attach to it two conditions:
584
that nobody should be required to perform community service work without his own consent, in the same way as no adult can be put upon probation without his own consent; and, secondly, that nobody should be required to perform this service unless there had previously been full inquiries, which would give the court a full picture of his background and enable the court to judge whether he was a suitable person to be so engaged.
We were concerned, as the right reverend Prelate has said, with the difficulty of finding suitable work, and on that topic we were remarkably encouraged by the reaction of the community service organisations which are already engaged on this type of work. They said that they had no shortage of work. They instanced the kind of things they do: making adventure playgrounds, helping in hospital gardens and kitchens, delivering meals on wheels at weekends, and other outdoor work, such as clearing canals and clearing away snow, sometimes on premises of people to whom the local authority does not provide this service, perhaps people not able to do it themselves, and so on. They gave us a long list of their activities and said that they had more work than they could cope with, rather than that they were being reduced to searching for work.
We are anxious that the work should not be degrading. We have no wish to humiliate people publicly. Our basic idea was that people might get good reactions from having something sensible to do. We know that many people in prison have never had anything sensible to do and might be dissatisfied. I do not know whether this is sentimental optimism, but the idea was present in our minds. We did not want to set an age limit. Obviously young people might be the first candidates, but we could see opportunities also for some older people in this field. We did not want to confine it to any particular type of offender. We thought that that was a matter for the judgment of the court. We thought that some of the young men who were ardent takers and drivers away might be suitable; a number of people guilty of offences against property might be suitable and some people guilty of assault of a not too serious character—the kind of thing that happens in exasperating situations in contemporary life in which

585
somebody loses his temper, but is not a vicious character.
We were relieved to hear from the voluntary organisations that they never had any trade union trouble. They always took pains to participate in local councils on which the local trade unions were represented, so that they were in contact with the unions and were assured that they were not treading on union toes. The work they do, they told us repeatedly, is work which if they did not do it, would not he done—certainly it would not be paid for.
In the simplest terms, the practical administrative procedure we envisage was like this. An offender is ordered to do so many hours of community service at a time to be arranged. He is ordered to report to a probation officer, in the case of some particular job. The probation officer is in touch with the local community service organisation and learns from them where there is a suitable opportunity and instructs the offender to turn up, let us say, at a certain hospital at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock on a Saturday morning, where he is to be employed working in the gardens. This would be done either as a condition in the probation order or by a separate order of the court.
On the job, the offender would be supervised by whoever was in charge of the job. Somebody is in charge of the volunteers doing that kind of work and he would work side by side with the volunteers under the general supervision If he slackened or failed to turn up, the supervisor on the spot would report him back to the probation officer, who then, if he thought fit, would bring the offender back to court. The court would either treat this as a breach of probation, if it was a condition of the order, or if directly under a court order the court would deal with it as a breach of that order, and would have the right to impose a fine or any penalty that would have been available in the case of the original offence.
I do not think that this would make very serious new demands on the Probation Service. Obviously, in the larger urban centres, if the community service developed on a big scale it might be necessary to appoint one or two specialist officers who would cencentrate part of their time—not all of it—on this area,
586
which of course would involve largely administrative duties. But in so far as some of these people would not be on probation under supervision in the ordinary way, it would not add to the number of cases in that sense. In any case, it is clear that this kind of activity would have to be introduced experimentally in certain localities in the first instance, because voluntary organisations are not acting throughout the whole country and because it is a radical experiment, and we should not want to lay out a vast amount of money on it before we had experience of its working.
If it is necessary for this reason alone to strengthen the resources of the Probation and After-care Service—and I think from every point of view it is desirable—I can only quote again the fact that one man out of prison under the care of the Service costs less than one-twentieth of one man inside. Therefore, if we are at all successful, there should be considerable resources available. That is the kind of approach—experimental and local in the first instance, and I think it ties in with the intermediate treatment proposed under the Children and Young Persons Act. I believe that all this reflects a changing attitude in the community to possible ways in which offenders may be treated within the community.
I should like to say one or two words about other proposals in the Report. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, did not refer to our proposals about the people who are in prison for non-payment of fines—and there are still people in prison for non-payment of civil debts, although I believe that after the Payne Committee Report it is the intention (certainly it was the intention of the Labour Government, and I hope it is the intention of the present Government) that imprisonment for civil debt should come to an end. We regretted very much that the Payne Committee's proposals for a central enforcement office, with full powers to collect civil debts, was not included by the late Government in the Administration of Justice Act 1970. We should have liked it to be so included, and we should also have liked it to apply to the collection of unpaid fines.
Some of us—a minority of the Committee—felt that the present procedure under which a person who does not pay

587
his fine is badgered and badgered, and rather ineffectual inquiries are made as to his means, until he is finally thrown into prison, is very unsatisfactory. We should like the non-payment of a fine to be an offence in itself, for which a person would be prosecuted and a conviction recorded, instead of the semiautomatic committal on default. But I understand that in one area, at least, the Probation Service—I think perhaps with dubious legality—has been involved in assisting in the collection of civil debts, and may be even in the collection of unpaid fines. I also understand, with great pleasure, that, whatever the legality, the Home Office are not frowning upon the extension of this procedure into one or two other districts. In the district that I mentioned first I believe it has been so successful that nobody has been sent to prison for non-payment of debts for a considerable time.
One other proposal on which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, did not comment was that relating to hostels. We are somewhat concerned that for adults hostels are normally probation hostels and therefore an offender can only be required to reside in a hostel under a probation order. We should like hostel accommodation to be available in certain cases without a probation order. We do not want there to be an age limit. And we should like them to be hostels where people, particularly elderly recidivists with no homes, might be allowed to stay on even after, if there is an order, the order has expired.
I now turn to one or two points outside the purview of the Committee on Non-Custodial Penalties. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to length of sentence. This seems to me to be an important matter. Sentences are getting longer. Whether this is due to activated suspended sentences being tagged on to new sentences I do not know but I doubt it. However, sentences are getting longer. In 1960, 17·6 per cent. of the committals were for periods of over twelve months. In 1965 the figure had dropped to 14·3 per cent. In 1970 it had reached 24·7 per cent.—nearly a quarter. Twelve months is a long time to be in prison, even if it is
588
only really eight months. The prospect of it, I should have thought, was a deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, will admit that perhaps some of us are deterred by the prospect of imprisonment, and I should have thought that it was a fairly considerable deterrent, if deterrance has any effect at all.
But nobody, I think, can argue, in the present state of our prisons, that the effect of staying in prison for five, six, seven, eight or ten years is likely to produce a better result than the effect of staying in prison for perhaps one year. Continued imprisonment in far more cases than otherwise effects deterioration and not improvement, and it can be justified for long periods only in those cases of very dangerous people whom we simply cannot have at large in the community. The right reverend Prelate quoted the fact and nobody as yet has explained it—that the Dutch can get away with 21 per 100,000 population, and we have to have 80 in prison.
There is one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, referred to the people who are in prison on remand, and I understand, with satisfaction, that the Government are going to look into this question. I hope that they will look into the Manhattan Scheme, in which it is claimed, I think with justification, that a great reduction has been successfully made in New York State and in some other American States by remanding people on bail and not getting in a higher proportion of people who default.
One of the saddest features of overcrowding is not only the physical miseries that it creates but the effect upon the whole prison régime. In any kind of institution that is totally isolated from the community, it is extraordinarily difficult to evolve a régime which will fit the inmate to adjust himself better to the community when he is released. The old-fashioned authoritarian prison was hopeless in this respect, because it deprived the prisoner of any opportunity of making decisions for himself: and life consists of making decisions for oneself. Even the more modern progressive prison has its difficulties in this respect, because the prisoner is shielded from all the domestic and financial worries of everyday life, and he is also

589
shielded from temptations and opportunities of committing new offences. It is, as I say, extremely difficult to devise a satisfactory régime.
In our prisons there is still a kind of Victorian hangover, which comes from the Victorians who would, I think, have thought of prisons as suitable places for what they would have called the more degraded members of the labouring classes. This is totally inappropriate today. We were making some progress. Group counselling and individual counselling is at least a great advance upon sewing mail bags. I should like to know whether these are total casualties of overcrowding: whether the Bristol Scheme and the Norwich Scheme (I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is going to tell us about this) have been sunk without trace. One is acutely conscious of the gap in existing penal institutions between the aims of so many of those in the Prison Service who genuinely want to fulfil the objectives that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, sound ironic when they are read to-day and the realities of what they can do. I hope that even now, in present conditions, every effort will be made to prevent that gap from being widened and to ensure that the primary objective of the prison régime shall be, not to provide a modicum of rather dreary occupations, scrubbing ancient stone floors and dismantling old radio sets, but focusing the attention of the prisoner upon his own problems and upon the problems that he creates for society.
6.20 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, nobody can deny that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to whom we are so grateful for having opened this debate, is the great protagonist of the day of the whole matter that we are discussing. I am grateful that an earlier speaker paid such a nice tribute to him, not only with regard to the respect that we all hold for him, but for the affection which he has developed from his own assiduous attention to every detail in this sphere of life. The experiments to which the noble Lord referred—and I am talking merely in the field of after-care—have taught all those who took part in them a great deal. I should like to reiterate
590
once more, as I have done before, that none of this work could have been done had it not been for the foresight and understanding of the Carnegie Trustees, under their able Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who for two years financed each one of the experimental units as to their deficits, and through whose vision and understanding the whole undertaking was made possible. If noble Lords are anxious to see the Report which resulted, it is available in the Printed Paper Office.
The whole field of after-care is so vast and of such infinite importance to the individuals concerned that, although I am tempted to elaborate on the work that is taking place, and the variety of different activities that are being carried out in order to try to help, I feel it would be a mistake to do so. I realise the danger of confusion if one diversifies too much, and I will therefore restrict myself to one of the facets of after-care: the care for alcoholics. In this field it is very possible we may have a chance of beginning to do something useful and achieve a break-through. We all know that the problem is urgent because of the facts of overcrowding in prisons and especially because of the dehumanising process inherent in our present treatment of the chronic drunk. Do we want to treat alcoholism inhumanly? Yet putting men into prison over and over again for short sentences, or imposing small fines over and over again, is surely in no way a constructive treatment of them.
It has been shown in the Report, Homeless From Prison, that a hostel, if certain fundamental rules are observed, may be a real alternative to prison. But the lessons learned by those who have been the protagonists in such experiments had to be acquired in a very hard school indeed, and the many frustrations and obstacles which had to be faced have certainly taught every one of us many signs that have to be watched, things that have to be recognised and methods to be observed. We have come to realise that hostels cannot function adequately unless they are part of a whole, integrated into the community, where other organisations can play their part and share rehabilitative services, whether statutory or voluntary, all working together and being helpful to one another.

591
We all know that integration is not easy at any time, and in this particular connotation it is more difficult than in any other. Statements of this kind are easy to make, but it is laboriously painful to live through the different stages of an experiment of this type and to profit from them, and the knowledge acquired in the working of these experimental hostels which have achieved their aims should be capitalised and used to save other people, embarking on the same endeavour, and used so as to help them avoid encountering similar troubles.
Many of us believe that unless definite priority is given to this subject the enthusiasm generated by groups of people working on the problem will wane. The hard work and strength that might have been generated in consequence will be lost for all time to the whole country.
Hostels are totally essential, although they are not the whole answer. They cannot function adequately unless sited with foresight and deep understanding. In the case of Rathcoole, which has been mentioned, the hostel itself has set the prime lesson that such a hostel must be in the setting of an integrated community, and that the problems and possibilities which result are varied and it is important to learn from them. Taking eight of the great cities in England, the metropolitan district of London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Durham, Newcastle and Sheffield, in 1967 the figures for drunkenness arrests were 49,000—a figure which gives just over two-thirds of the total national arrests for that year of 75,544. Outside London there is little knowledge of how to treat the chronic drunk. I believe we ought to envisage immediately how we can expedite the advance that must be made in the means of avoiding the repetition of mistakes and the establishing of treatment for these people. I am sure that experience must be put to good advantage.
I will not burden your Lordships with figures or data—you have had plenty of them already to-day. But those who know something of this particular aspect of alcoholics have laboured long and hard to try to achieve some success. Their regret is that the man who was primarily responsible for the success of the Rathcoole experiment is at present still restricted to the one local effort. This
592
man has done a stupendous piece of work. He is a genius in his own field. Again and again, when we meet men of this type, if we do not use them to advantage we are restricting our own national output. I have watched this man work right through the night in order to retrieve a man who has gone back to his bomb site, I have seen him do things which no man in the world could possibly be paid to do. His dedication is supreme, but he is human and I think he has proved himself. He is at present not only doing the work of the hostel itself, but is travelling around the country at the request of those who are anxious to imitate him, to do the same job that he has done, to reproduce the same type of hostel that he has produced. He is doing all this on his own and with no backing. I am a great believer in this country and I think it is sad that we never take up advantages that are offered to us by these good experiments and make them even better, and that an extension of the work that has been done already is not visualised now, as it should be.
I have acted as midwife at the birth of three experiments: the hospital car service, the home-helps service and the meals-on-wheels service. Although it may sound conceited I feel this gives me a right to speak with some degree of experience. I beg Her Majesty's Government to have the courage and the enterprise to embark on this scheme in relation to alcoholism on a large scale which would supply a break-through in the whole field. As citizens we should feel ashamed at the paucity of our own participation in the work of reintegrating men into the community. As responsible human beings, we have shown little courage in allowing the delay, the indecision and the constant frustration that has occurred to deflect us from a course we have often meant and sometimes even started to pursue. I know that good men, great men, have had their spirit broken by the magnitude of the problems confronting them and their inability to extract themselves from the morass of confusion that the whole subject presents.
I entreat Her Majesty's Government to institute a courageous attack on this whole subject of alcoholics. I do not ask for great grants of expenditure or for a mighty hierarchy. I would suggest that three "good men and true" be appointed

593
to undertake and fashion a spearhead of endeavour. They would of necessity have to be very specially dedicated to the task, which would have to be entirely entrusted to them; and they should be able to set up the machinery that would be needed and get the financial backing of great national trusts. They must quite obviously be conversant with the workings of related Government Departments, and must know as much as is humanly possible—and perhaps even a little more—of the hazards of running specialised hostels. They must essentially have central backing as strong as possible, and in no way at any time niggardly. The question of cash would come into it, but not on a formidable scale.
In a long life I have found that optimism is a valuable asset, and I am confident the men do exist and would be available, and could most probably be seconded from their present work for a term of, say, three years. They could, with central backing, make a great impact on the problem. But courage is necessary; courage in undertaking could give mighty results, and the country itself should benefit.
6.32 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I hope to follow the suggestions of the noble Baroness, which show such good sense. The object of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Stonham which is before the House, which he deployed in such fascinating detail at the beginning of this debate, was to make sure that the axe which the Government are boasting of in so many Departments is not going to be wielded in this Department. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his colleague Mr. Mark Carlisle the other day, before the Howard League, have given us some comfort that at any rate there is not the kind of immediate withdrawal from interference with this kind of thing that we are seeing in some other quarters. This has been going on for a long time. I have been saying the same thing, and so have most of the other speakers to-day, because we have all been in this movement for a long time—I suppose between us for 12 or 15 years. The situation got steadily worse under our Government, and now perhaps under the present Government. But we
594
have all known what had to be done and we had none of us done it. I want to address myself to this part of the problem.
We all know that we must have more prisons, but this is something already in the pipe-line. The noble Lord has disclosed no reduction, and I do not think that anything we say to-night will have very much effect on him. The only other way of dealing with this situation is this. It is a situation where 45 per cent. overcrowding exists for over half the male population in prison, and it is worth noting that those hard-liners who want to see prison made more disagreeable need go no further than to leave it as it is: the frustration and the misery and the discomfort are really not very different from those for the old political prisoner who was chained to the wall under the Hapsburgs. The only difference is that the governor and his staff feel equally frustrated. Nobody defends this situation. Nobody in this House defends it to-day; nor did they defend it ten years ago. So really we are all together. There is very little difference between us, except that the Government have the power to do rather more than we can, so I am bound more or less to be getting at them. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, did this very effectively. We have got at him in our time, and I was very glad to see him getting at somebody else, and this is as it should always be.
The last Administration had the good sense to set up a Committee, which we have been discussing to-day, under my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, and she has examined the only way that this problem can be dealt with. She has advisedly not discussed in great detail the ways that already were in existence, but she has thought up a lot of new ones. The noble Baroness has described these better than I can, so I want to make only two references to this. First, I was delighted to see her recommendation for enforcement officers in courts. This was a recommendation which was left out of the Administration of Justice Act by the late Administration. It was in the Payne Report. I battled bitterly in this House to get that recommendation put in that Act, and failed—and more's the pity. I hope that this is a recommendation

595
which the noble Lord can take a Party pleasure in enforcing, as we on this side failed completely to do so.
The second point I must refer to very briefly is the main new idea of getting offenders to spend some of their time doing things for other people. There is an element of therapy in this which everybody who has dealt with difficult children or difficult adults knows about. If you can get somebody to think of something else than himself you are doing some good. There are plenty of examples of this happening already in borstals and elsewhere. It is an absolutely splendid idea, and I beg the Government to jump such obstacles as there are.
There is one other point I should like to raise of a similar kind. It was put forward recently at a Howard League conference by one of our NACRO regional organisers, Philip Priestley. He proposed that community training centres should be set up using cheap housing in dense urban areas, which offenders who would normally be given short prison sentences might be required to attend as a condition of a probation order—some for full time if they were out of work; others, who are in work, for evenings or at weekends. There would be a full-time staff and specialists from outside could work together with the clients, who would be people normally with long histories of failure and troubled behaviour, to try, as it were, to re-create their personalities, finding new career openings and correcting existing handicaps such as alcoholism, gambling, illiteracy, or indeed reading and writing, which is more often absent than one would expect, and teaching some simple skills such as using a telephone or even talking calmly to an official. This is a development of the normal technique of a hostel warden, but of course a fairly considerable development. The hostel warden normally looks at each man's personal problems and tries to help to get round them.
The new kind of centre would be run as a non-residential centre, as an out-clinic as it were. It would be not frightfully expensive. It could deal with quite a large number of people. It would, like all the solutions, cost a certain amount of money and time, both of the Probation Service, under whom clearly it should be located, and of the voluntary movement.
596
This is the point to which I particularly wish to draw your Lordships' attention.
In the Minister's speech to the Howard League recently, he told us that all these remedies must add to the need for probation officers, and he offered some improvement. Other speakers have said that this is not enough. I think this is clearly true, but any is better than none. But the Probation Service will not be able to do its job, even if it is doubled, unless there is a similar increase in the voluntary movement which has to work with it. This, again, is more or less common ground. Five years ago one would have had to argue this point. One does not any more; it is generally accepted.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in the voluntary movement. Most penal innovations have been started by individual volunteers. But nobody seems ever to ask the movement to do anything; it always has to thrust itself forward, sometimes with modest encouragement and sometimes without, and until recently the modest encouragement has seldom been of a financial kind. In the last years of the Labour Government, due certainly in some part to my noble friend Lord Stonham, there was a change. A number of voluntary organisations have been directly helped by the Home Office, and I want to be sure that this will continue. I believe it will, but I should like a reassurance to that effect.
The result of the parsimony in the past is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, said, there has been no proliferation of those voluntary schemes which have given good results. There is no money, so there is no expansion. A single experiment is thought worth preserving and ranks for Home Office grant; but if it is worth preserving it should be worth multiplying, and this never seems to happen. It happened on a limited scale with half way houses, but that is all. I am conscious of this as chairman of NAcRo—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—which has 124 voluntary organisations among its members. My business is to look after them and to help them to proliferate. I think the time has come, as the noble Baroness said in relation to one particular kind of hostel, for us to spread our work much more widely and as quickly as we can afford it. We

597
are appointing regional organisers in different parts of the country, and very successful they are, although once again instead of having eight we have three, which is all we can afford.
Behind the new ideas in the Report of my noble friend Lady Wootton there is a number of schemes which have been pioneered by the voluntary movement. For example, there are 110 hostels specifically for offenders, with 1,500 beds. If we are to lower the prison population from the present level of 22,000 adult males to the kind of figure that Society really needs protection from, which might be 10,000 or 12,000, we must find somewhere to put those people. That gives one some idea of the size of the problem.
There is no danger of having too many of these schemes. We could go on for quite a long time without any danger of overdoing any of the solutions that have been put forward. Sometimes they do not work too well, but that is the fault of the organisers; and when we get a scheme that does work well, like Rathcoole, it works without much difficulty. There are all sorts of schemes, and I really feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, has put her finger on the point. Let us concentrate on one thing which we can do. The noble Baroness quoted some figures, but I knew fifteen years ago that 30 per cent. of the discharges each week from Pentonville were regular drunks who would be in again within a fortnight. The figures are not very different to-day. They are very large and the removal of this group of people would do more to relieve the congestion than anything else. Could we not take Rathcoole as a model, as the noble Baroness has suggested? It has one very modern and interesting feature, in that it is now 100 per cent. participating. In other words, it did not go very well at the beginning and now, because the men choose the people who are allowed to come in, and run the place themselves, it is giving no difficulty at all. So we have a working model there.
I have not yet seen the report of the Working Party on drunken offenders, but I have no doubt that it asks that things of this kind should be done. The noble Baroness suggested a number of places where it should be done. I would say this: if you come to us in the voluntary
598
movement and give us the money to do it, we will do it, if the noble Baroness wants three wise men—good luck, but they will not do anything unless they are given the money. It will take time and it will need help, but I do not see any great difficulty. We have the help of the Bridgehead Association to get the houses. Although we shall face opposition from every single council, we look to your Lordships to help us. If when this Report comes out in a month, or whatever it is, you say to us, "We want first of all two, then another two in London; and we want one in Liverpool", our organisation of 124 bodies is perfectly capable of finding the people. We will do it. We will do it first under the Probation Service, which is where it should be. We shall have the trio of the noble Baroness; but, above all, give us the money.
I have spoken long enough, and I want to end by asking the Government once again whether they are aware that there is no room for Mr. Barber's axe in this field. Are they aware that they must spend money? If they do, are they aware that there is a large voluntary movement: ready and waiting to be put to use? I believe that if they are aware of these things, and if they will concentrate their resources and ours in a fairly narrow field, as the noble Baroness suggested, we can make real progress.
6.46 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for this important debate, and I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice some of the problems relating to the overcrowding of borstals and to probation and aftercare of these young men. In the Notices and Orders of the Day the word "borstal" is not printed, but as the definition of that word in the Oxford Dictionary is "system of imprisonment for young criminals" I hope I am in order in speaking on this section of the Prison Service. I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, stressed the importance of the young offender.
For the past nine years I have served on the board of visitors of an open borstal and I have also been on a committee running summer camps with borstal boys and boys from open and closed institutions, and also undergraduates from Oxford. Moreover I have had groups of

599
borstal boys in our home. They have had lunch and spent the day. On one occasion three boys visited—all very difficult cases. One young man, the father of two children, fed our baby for me. Another of the boys had not opened his mouth all day. For him, the most difficult thing was to communicate with people. When it came to the time for the baby's next feed suddenly he said, "It's my turn", and he took the baby and the bottle. From that moment he was able to talk, but it had been very difficult for him to break the barrier. It needed a small baby, something he could show his affection to, which showed us how he longed to love and be loved. That, my Lords, is so often the problem. At borstal the other day 1 was interviewing a very glum young man and I said to him, "Who have you got at home?" He said, "Mum and my sister"—there was a long pause, and he continued, "and the bloke mum's living with".
In these cases of borstal trainees there are numerous causes behind the reasons why they have been committed to borstal. Anti-social acts which they have committed reflect equally anti-social deeds which have been done to them. Sometimes their lives have been rent apart through death in the family, or made unbearable by such disharmony that they felt they must break away. Many of them are living away from home and drifting about the country when they are picked up by the police. I have never considered these lads I have met from borstal to be thugs, doomed to a life of crime, but young men who have a lot of life in front of them. Many of these boys are capable of becoming useful members of society. Inmates from many borstals help in the surrounding district to their institutions, doing such things as pensioners' gardens at weekends and helping in Cheshire Homes. The boys from one borstal were once named the "Blue Angels" for work they did for the community.
We used volunteer borstal boys for taking badly disabled men from a hospital for a holiday. The patients were too disabled to be accepted by any holiday home and no other help was forthcoming. Borstal lads were the only people who would do this job. The patients
600
and boys camped under canvas in the Lake District, and I cannot praise the lads enough for the way they did everything for these helpless people—feeding, dressing and taking them out. Members of the public praised the lads, not knowing that they were borstal boys. One boy said he used previously to "take the mickey" out of badly disabled and disfigured people, but after this camp he said he would never do it again because he had learnt to respect them as people. Respect for self and other people is perhaps the most important lesson for a so-called delinquent to learn. Maybe for the first time in their lives, these boys knew they were wanted and needed. All too often they come from the areas in large towns and cities where housing problems are common. Many also have educational difficulties. Recently we had three boys who could not tell the time, and several who could not read and write. Opportunities for their development seem scarce in these areas.
My Lords, at the moment a very worrying fact presents itself: that the success rate at an open borstal is only about 30 per cent.; the remaining 70 per cent. of the boys discharged are going to be back in some sort of trouble. Due to this situation, I feel, as do many others, that the system needs full investigation. On paper the overcrowding in borstals does not look as bad as it really is. An incredible situation in the last few years has arisen. Boys who are more disturbed, and who have committed worse crimes and have been sent to closed institutions, are being discharged at seven to eight months, while the less inadequate boys from open institutions are doing longer—an average of from 10 to 11 months. To these trainees this seems quite absurd. It is not surprising that boys from open borstals abscond in the hope that they will be reallocated to a closed borstal and thus get home sooner.
In recent years there seems to be a very marked increase of lads fit only for closed borstals and less capable of responding to open conditions. Perhaps this is the trend of the more insecure society we live in. I feel it is important to try to find the cause of the increase in the numbers of offenders who are being committed. It would be interesting to know how numbers in borstals have

601
increased since conscription ceased. I am not suggesting that the modern young man of to-day would want conscription brought back; nor do I think the Army would want them. But perhaps there could be some form of compulsory youth service, as has been suggested, for people not otherwise employed, which might lessen the increasing flow to borstal. It might also help in alleviating pollution. There does not seem a very wide choice of places for dealing with these increasing numbers.
It could make life easier for judges and magistrates if they had more scope. Week-end detention centres could be beneficial to young people who had steady jobs. When people are taken out of society, it is often more difficult to get them settled back again; and the finding of a job, which was difficult before, is generally more difficult when the added handicap of a criminal record has to be taken into consideration.
There is a great need to reduce the number of recalls and recidivists. If each borstal had a hostel attached to which trainees could be seconded, working outside as part of their training, this might be a helpful way of weaning them more slowly. Also perhaps there could be a parole system by permitting the institution to release boys whenever they felt it appropriate, but empowering the Probation and After-Care Service to instigate a return to institutional life at any moment they considered it desirable, whether or not an offence had been committed.
My Lords, it is very encouraging to hear that the Government intend to extend the Probation Service. So often I have heard of hard-worked probation officers who get bogged down writing reports for the courts when they feel they should be dealing with urgent cases, with problems that cannot wait. Perhaps day centres, with training such as is carried out in borstals, could be set up for boys guilty of minor offences. Very often, placing a lad in an institution does not help him to face up to the problems that will still have to be overcome when he comes out. The crimes are many and varied, but a great many borstal, boys are involved in taking and driving away cars. I should think that if a boy could be taught to overcome this tempting
602
desire when surrounded by cars in his own environment it would have a more lasting effect than shutting him away.
There is no doubt in my mind, from what I have seen over the years, that the homeless borstal boy is one of the most deprived, insecure and inadequate members of our society. If one looks too closely and delves too deeply, some of these cases could break one's heart. Many of these boys are products of children's homes and approved schools; and they are used to institutional life. When these homeless adolescents are released from institutions they have shown that they need a great deal of support. On average, a homeless boy stays out of trouble for about six weeks. There is a pressing need for provision of accommodation with support. The disturbing fact is that the lad can literally belong to no-one.
A boy I knew well from borstal, who had graduated from a children's home in Glasgow to borstal, and after discharge had fallen into difficulties, was luckily saved by meeting a girl whom he married. At the wedding the church was full with the bride's relatives. Her brother was best man. But the only guests the boy had were the governor from the borstal, the matron and myself. That young man is now a proud father, but without his wife he could so easily now have been back in prison. The ethic, my Lords, is that human beings are vital. A Bishop who visited the borstal said to me, after he had met some of the boys, that he had no idea they were so likeable and presentable. I often think the Church should remember the parable about the one sheep who strayed away. Boys with delinquent tendencies are usually gullible and easily led. There seems to be a lack of people to lead them in the right direction.
If in the future more residential hostels or homes are made available for the disestablished adolescent, I hope that great care will be taken in the selection and training of the staff for such places. For people are needed whose level of commitment is very great and whose understanding is very great, too. As the care and resettlement of offenders is such a vast and demanding task, there seems to be a need for statutory and voluntary organisations to work together with a flexible outlook. NACRO—the National

603
Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—seems to be accomplishing this. Encouragement and support can be given to local groups whose aim is to provide services for the homeless. Useful help could also be given by approved volunteers within closed institutions to assist in alleviating boredom and to promote new interests and hobbies, especially at week-ends.
My Lords, one strong, good looking young man of 21 in a prison said to me, when I was taking a pre-release course, that life to him was "the same if he was inside or out". Apathy and institutionalism must be one of the greatest enemies of rehabilitation. If prisons could teach stickability, and that working a 40 hour week was worth while, then they would be doing a good job. There is clearly a need for action to be taken now in providing more specialising places of treatment for these young people to try to break this cycle of crime which infects a large part of the community and is shown by our overcrowded penal institutions.
7.0 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that your Lordships have been over this ground many times before in recent years the subject of this debate is still a most important one for our society. I was sorry to have seen only one of the learned Law Lords present to-day, and that for a short period, because this is surely a matter on which they could have made an important contribution. I should have preferred to direct my remarks along the lines taken by my noble friends Lady Wootton of Abinger, Lady Swanborough and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, but as these particular fields have been so well and adequately covered I wish, with your Lordships' permission, to deal with one aspect that so far has not been touched upon.
I am hoping that in the not-too-distant future we shall have an opportunity of discussing some of the implications of some things that we have heard mentioned this afternoon. I think we are in danger of turning necessities into virtues. We have heard of the apparent failure of the suspended sentence. We know of the success of the parole system. We are now considering all kinds of non-custodial
604
treatment. But whether we have really thought out the implications involved I doubt very much. These things have been forced upon us. Because of the overcrowding in our prisons we have had to do something, and we have done these things very quickly, without, as I say, thinking of all the implications involved.
As I said a moment or two ago, there has been a tendency to turn certain necessities into virtues. But behind the whole of the discussion that we have had to-day there has been the Probation Service and what is still expected in the future from the Probation Service. It is about the Probation Service, and in particular the probation officer, that I want to talk for a short while. These various things which we are considering for the welfare of the delinquent, and in turn the welfare of society, must revolve around the kinds of treatment we intend to give, or try to give, the delinquent. So far as I can see, whatever expansion we, as a society, embark upon, whatever new methods of noncustodial treatment we try, the person who will do this will be the probation officer. It is about him that I want to say a word or two.
First I want to refer to the speech made by Mr. Mark Carlisle, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, when addressing the Annual Meeting of the Howard League for Penal Reform on November 24. May I say straight away that it was a speech that I welcomed very much indeed, for it gave the Probation Service a position of major importance in the matter of dealing with delinquents. He was reported as saying:
"It might be necessary to improve the service from its present strength of 3,400 probation officers, a figure which is below the needs of society at the present moment, to something like 4,400 probation officers by 1975, in order to cope with the expansion of its present tasks."
If, in the future, society decides to deal with more offenders on a non-custodial basis, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary recognises that an extra 300 probation officers, making a total of 4,700, will be required by 1975.
I gather that these figures have been accepted by the Government. I do not want my noble friends (and I will use the word "friends") on the Government Front Bench to misunderstand what I am going to say now. I must say that I think the figures given will be quite inadequate to deal with the normal commitments of

605
the Probation Service, and the additional work envisaged and the future situation which the Minister had had in mind. I do not honestly think that the figure of 4,700 is going to meet the situation in any way. We have failed to reach the promised figure of 3,500 probation officers by 1970. It is true that we have not fallen far short of that figure—it is something like 3,300 or 3,400. But we now know that that number would not been sufficient to meet the current needs of the Service; and 4,400 will not be enough in 1975. If the Minister's intentions (with which I agree) are carried into effect, the additional 300 will prove to be a ridiculously small increase.
I feel that the Minister has yet to realise the extent to which it will be necessary to expand the Service, not only to deal with present-day duties and responsibilities, but to make possible the extension of non-custodial treatment and of the parole system, which I think every one of us wants to see because it is so successful. If the present methods and future schemes are to be successful, then probation officers must be given all the skills and tools possible to enable them to do a really good job of work. This means a considerable reduction in the case-load.
My only point of disagreement with my noble friend Lord Stonham is that I think the case-load ought to be less than 35; and if we contemplate at any stage introducing into this country the California scheme, which has been highly successful in keeping delinquents out of prison at much lower cost to society, the number will have to be reduced to something like 10 or 12 probationers per officer. This means a considerable reduction in the case-load, to make possible better supervision and more time for concentrated individual case work. I would say that my noble friend Lord Stonham was perfectly right when he said that, to do the job properly and to the real advantage of the community, we should contemplate twice the number of probation officers than the Minister has in mind at present. At the moment it costs about £22 per week to keep a man in prison: it costs only £1 per week to keep him under the supervision of a probation officer.
Again I ask my noble friend Lord Windlesham not to take this amiss, but it frightens me to hear the Government say
606
that they are planning for more and more prisons. I should have liked a much more positive approach: that we plan for fewer prisons and spend the money on (shall I say?) extending non-custodial treatment. But this is just how I feel. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was making. What I found of particular interest in Mr. Mark Carlisle's forthright speech was his firm statement—I quote:
"The Government is firmly resolved that the necessary money will be made available to meet the cost of training more probation officers and to pay for the expanded service which will result."
I feel rather strongly on the whole question of probation officer training. I believe that we have to provide a far better basic training than we are providing at the present moment. I believe that the Minister, from what he said about training, recognises this and accepts it; but I think also that there must be provision for a better and continuous in-service training, and further training for many more officers than at the present moment. We must have a system of continuous in-service training, and perhaps selective further training. The demands on the Probation Service, and the difficulty in getting recruits, have resulted in letting loose in the delinquent field a number of ill-equipped, limited, and untrained people; and this must stop.
The Minister, as I understood his statement, made no reference, so far as I know, to probation officers' salaries, and that is what I want to talk about. Adequate salaries and a career structure are essential if the right kind of person is to be attracted to the Service in the future. On April 7 this year in your Lordships' House I drew attention to the fact that in the immediate past five years from 1965 to 1969 734 probation officers resigned from the Probation Service. Over 40 per cent. of them were graduates or holders of university social work qualifications. This figure of 734 did not include deaths or normal retirements. In the same period, 1,812 persons entered the Probation Service.
I hope the Government will read the valuable contribution to the debate on that day made by the noble Lord. Lord Sandford. I hope that they will do so, because it was a most magnificent contribution to the understanding of the

607
problems that we are facing in the Probation Service. What he said on April 7 holds good to-day on December 2. To some extent it is pointless to talk about the expansion of the Service, of recruiting the right people. of improving training, and make no mention of realistic salary scales and the career structure. I do not know how many of your Lordships read New Society, but if you go into the Library and look at this week's New Society you will find that on page 940 it draws attention to a married man of 32 years of age, with two children. who resigned from the Probation Service on Monday of this week because he could not afford to remain a probation officer. Probation officers cannot get a large enough mortgage on their salary to buy a house; nor could they make the repayments if they could. For them there is no rent allowance or accommodation, as one finds sometimes in other fields.
In the last eight years the salaries of probation officers have failed to keep pace with those in comparable fields of social work. To-day it is commonplace to see local authority advertisements for qualified social workers starting around £1,650, and many probation officers have to wait 11 years before they reach that figure. There is a good deal of anger and frustration in the Probation Service to-day, and a good deal of family financial anxiety. Answers to a questionnaire sent recently—and I mean recently; it was within the last few weeks—to all serving officers in the Inner London probation area, to which 45 per cent. Replied. show that 80 per cent. of the wives of probation officers went to work through sheer financial necessity. I ask the Government to take notice of the next bit: 17 per cent. of the married men probation officers—one in six—have second jobs, ranging from barman to office cleaner, from security guard to gardener. It is not necessary for me to add further comment on a situation of that kind; I hope it speaks for itself. It certainly is not good for creating the right kind of relationship, which professional social workers have to create in dealing with their charges.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, may well be tempted to tell me that salaries are a matter for the joint negotiating committee. If he is so tempted, I would
608
remind him that, in the last analysis, salaries are determined by the Secretary of State. At the last round of negotiations on salaries of principal probation officers, the Secretary of State completely disregarded the recommendations of the joint negotiating committee. All I want to say is that I hope he will do so in the case of basic grade officers, if the next award for them is as inadequate as the last one. I want to press this matter of salaries, because if the Government are proposing to make a sincere and sustained effort to increase the number of probation officers—and I believe they are, and I very much enjoyed and welcomed Mr. Mark Carlisle's speech—I want to impress on them the importance of providing a salary scale really commensurate with the duties, the responsibilities and the long hours which they are bound to work. I want to make it clear to the Government that the right type of person will not be attracted to the work of probation unless these realistic scales are forthcoming.
One noble Lord—I think it was my noble friend Lord Stonham—made reference to a leading article which appeared last Wednesday in The Times, and he quoted one sentence. Perhaps he, and your Lordships, will forgive me if I quote a little more. I call to my aid part of that leading article which was headed "Alternatives to prison", and this should give the Government an admirable let out, if I may say so. It talks about probation officers, and continues:
"But to improve their salaries and prospects would not in this instance be to surrender to sectional interests. It would be to pay the necessary price for a policy that is in fact cheaper than any other that stands a chance of success."
7.20 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I wish to say very little at this late stage in the debate, partly because so much that badly needed to be said about the situation in our prisons has already been said so clearly and forcibly by other speakers, partly because there are so few of your Lordships left to weary, and partly because I doubt whether it would be appropriate for myself, as Chairman of the National Board of Parole, to give my views on matters of penal policy. Therefore there is no need for me to rub into

609
the Government, from the position of particular advantage enjoyed by myself and members of the Parole Board, by our frequent visits to prisons all over the country, by our meetings with prison staffs and by our meetings with inmates, what that situation is.
If I may say so, it certainly struck myself, as it must have struck your Lordships, how quickly the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has grasped the gravity of the situation; how genuinely concerned he is about it and, if it does not sound too presumptuous, how competent I feel he is to deal with the situation which the Government have inherited. It would be surprising if members of the Parole Board did not at least share from our vantage point the concern which has been expressed this afternoon; and, indeed, if we did not feel the admiration which has also been expressed for members of the prison staff and the Prison Department, who are coping with this quite desperate situation.
I was very glad to hear another credit given by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to the prisoners in this situation. I wonder how generally it is appreciated by those who have not spent a little time looking at prisons in general, or in particular, to what an extent the day-to-day, week-to-week and month-to-month administration of any prisons depends on co-operation between staffs and inmates. This is as it is, as it should be, and as it will have to go on being, and the remarkable thing is that there is such co-operation in nearly all our prisons, nearly all the time, in the appalling circumstances of which we are now quite aware.
I feel it is right to emphasise one point: the Parole Board has referred to it in both its annual reports, and therefore I think I can state it again. I refer to the influence which prison treatment is bound to exert, for better or for worse, on the parole system as it is and on its prospects of further development. I should like to stress the effect of gross overcrowding, superimposed on the well-known existing limitations in most of our prisons, which reduces the prospects of more offenders being favourably recommended for parole.
One of the criteria which the Board considers most carefully is the response to prison treatment, with a view to forming some impression of the man, of his
610
attitudes to crime, to his particular offences, to society in general, to authority and to his family; as well as his social behaviour inside and his efforts to prepare for eventual release. I do not wish to overstress this aspect of our considerations; it is weighed along with a number of other criteria before we make a decision. Nor do I wish to imply that evidence of good conduct inside is in itself necessarily any indication of future behaviour outside prison.
What I am saying is that if parole is to function as beneficially as possible for everyone (and here I have in mind preeminently the public and also, of course, the offenders); if, as everyone would like to happen and as some of us believe could be the case, it is to hold out a real prospect of reducing recidivist crime, then positive preparation should begin with committal and continue from that time onwards. There should be on-going preparation through the programme of work, through the classes, through the leisure activities and through the training schemes, so that prisoners can be assessed in the light of this kind of active and constructive régime.
Even before the prison population began to rise to its present level, this kind of progressive régime had been realised in only a few of our prisons, and it is now in danger of being stultified everywhere and for a considerable time to come. I feel, to some extent, reassured as to the long-term by the information which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave us about the future prospects of more opportunities, more prisons, more places to carry on this kind of training, and preparation for the eventuality of parole or for release into the community and rehabilitation. But, of course, that is all in the future. The situation we face now, and shall face for some time to come, is a serious one.
I am not saying with certainty that even under better conditions inside a great many more offenders would be deemed worthy of parole, or whether we should think it in the best interests of society that they should serve the remainder of their sentence outside prison under the terms of the 1967 Act, although I personally believe that this might be the case if there were a significant advance in the training and treatment available

611
in every prison—which at the moment is asking for the moon. What I am saying is that the chances would be enhanced of prisoners going straight after release from prison, and that that is the more likely to be the case when the Probation and After-Care Service has been strengthened.
May I add a word in comment on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that the threshold for parole might be lowered? It is clearly not appropriate that I should express any view as to the policy involved in this, and I hope that your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, if he reads what I have to say, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will not take it as an indication of my views for or against this suggestion if I reiterate three practical points bearing on the work of the Parole Board, which have been made already by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and which we have set out in our annual reports.
First, I should like to make it even clearer than perhaps has been done that even with the increase in the size of the Board forecast by Mr. Carlisle, in his speech to the Howard League—a speech which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and which was misinterpreted in at least one daily newspaper to mean that significantly greater numbers of prisoners, including "lifers", would be paroled—we simply could not cope with increased numbers of cases to consider. The Board has been enlarged specifically and quite simply to carry on the work load as it is under the present Statute, and that load is barely tolerable as it is. I say this in no sense of self-pity or complaint. We do the job because we thoroughly enjoy it and, more important, because we deeply believe in it. That is a simple fact of the situation as it is.
Secondly, I should like to allude again to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, about the minimum period which must be served inside, during which an inmate can be under the observation of prison staff from a variety of angles, in order to provide the
612
local review committees and the Board with information upon which we may or may not recommend early release. Under current conditions, and under the present Statute, this assessment period is sometimes insufficient, even with the threshold at twelve months. This is particularly the case where a prisoner is moved, as happens not too infrequently, from one prison to another, and each prison has only a very short look at him; this despite the very great efforts being made by the Home Office and everyone concerned to reduce to a minimum the delays in administration.
Thirdly, I should like to explain (and I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who must have had it in mind did not explain this) that there is another minimum period which is highly desirable if parole supervision and support are to be effective, although I admit that there are exceptions to this. I refer to the period of the licence itself. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he reads what I have to say, that while expressing no view as to policy, and speaking strictly for myself, without committing members of my Board, I recognise that his proposal might, provided that other conditions were satisfied, contribute to the desired effect of increasing the period of licence available, particularly for those prisoners who are serving short sentences.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of other speakers in congratulating and thanking my noble friend Lord Stonham for bringing this vitally important and dangerous situation to the attention of your Lordships and, I hope, of a wider public outside. The noble Lord was good enough, as were one or two other speakers, to make some very felicitous and generous remarks about the Parole Board. These I shall pass on to my colleagues and to our Secretariat. I am sure he intended them to apply also to officials in the Probation and Aftercare Department, who do the donkey work. I should like to say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that his experience and his example have been a shining light for us all.
7.31 p.m.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and with all noble Lords who

613
have taken part in this debate, in deploring the really appalling state of affairs which is developing in our prisons. What I think is particularly alarming is that if the forecasts which one reads are correct, the situation is likely to become much worse before any remedy can have effect, whether by providing more prisons or by new methods of treatment of offenders.
Before I start on the particular aspect of this subject with which I propose to deal, I must say how strongly I support my noble friend Lady Reading in what she said, not merely because I had the honour to serve on her Working Party at the Home Office and then on her Special After-care Trust, but also because of the frustration I feel, as a magistrate, in trying to deal with alcoholics. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 said that hostels for treating alcoholics would be set up, after which imprisonment for drunkenness would be abolished. Nothing has happened yet, and it really is time that something did. Rathcoole has shown what can be done, and for heaven's sake let us get on and do something!
However, my Lords, this evening I want to concentrate on the contribution which the Probation Service can make to the solution of the general problem of crime. The Service itself is convinced that it could make a real impact on recidivism if it were given the necessary numbers and resources. At present, probation officers are far too thinly spread, and the amount of attention they can give to any one client is quite inadequate in all but the most responsive cases. It has been shown that more intensive treatment is effective, and one feature of it which some noble Lords have mentioned and which must appeal to everyone, whatever their views of penology, is that it saves money. The cost of keeping a man in prison is so high that an enormous increase in the intensity of supervision in the community would still be cheaper.
I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will have read about that most interesting project in California which has given a practical demonstration of this. It was reported by Mr. Hugh Klare, of the Howard League, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred
614
to it. It seems that in California the State pays for the prisons and the counties for the Probation Service. The scheme introduced is that the counties are given subsidies in proportion to the reduction in the number of people they commit to the State institutions, and these subsidies must be spent on improving the Probation Service. In the first two years of the scheme the subsidies paid out to the counties came to over 5 million dollars, but the saving to the State through the reduction in the numbers sent to institutions was over 15 million dollars—a net saving of 10 million dollars. I do not know whether a similar scheme could be worked here, but surely it must be worth looking at.
To provide a Service in this country on the same scale as that in California would mean an increase here to 12,000 officers, and it is interesting to note that this is broadly in line with the present call of the Probation Service for a fourfold expansion in the Service. The Government's proposals which were announced last week are of course most welcome, and give encouragement to everyone concerned in these matters; but, obviously, when they speak of 4,400 probation officers by 1975, or 4,700 if additional types of treatment are adopted, they are still not thinking in the same terms as the Service at all. It may be that they take the view that the figures they have announced are as many as can be achieved in practical terms. But may I remind the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Sandford, that there is always a tendency to fall short of targets and that a more ambitious target might evoke a greater response. After all, there can be no doubt that considerable expansion is needed to enable the Service to cope even with present demands. In the last year or two many new tasks have been laid on the Service. There has been the considerable and very exacting burden caused by the introduction of parole; there has been the addition of welfare in prisons and other institutions; divorce court work has greatly increased, and there is an ever-growing demand for social inquiry reports. On the other side of the balance, it seems that the expected reduction in the Service's work with juveniles may at any rate be delayed.

615
Now, my Lords, we have the possibility of still further demands on the Service if any of the proposals of the Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, are adopted. I personally welcomed that Report, as I am sure did all those concerned with sentencing, as offering some hope of alternatives to prison sentences. But many probation officers saw it simply as the last straw, as a threat to impose further burdens on them when they were already carrying more than they could cope with. Indeed, the first reaction of their National Association was to decline to take any part in any discussion of the proposals until the Government showed that they accepted the need to provide the Service with extra resources. The Association now recognises that the Government have accepted expansion in principle, and are taking the first steps in that direction, and it is therefore co-operating in the Working Groups which are being set up. But it still seems to me that if all, or even any one, of the three groups come up with a positive recommendation—and one naturally hopes that they will—there is a danger that either probation officers will again be called on to do more than can reasonably be asked of them, or the introduction of reforms which have been accepted in principle will have to be deferred.
Of course I realise that probation officers cannot be produced out of a hat. First, people have to want to join the Service, then they have to be trained, and then they must get enough satisfaction out of the job they are doing to want to stay in it. The vital thing is that any increase in numbers should be achieved without any lowering of standards. We ask a great deal of probation officers, but we must do so, for they are dealing with very difficult people and great harm can be done by a probation officer who is not up to the job. So the first necessity is to encourage the idea that the career of a probation officer is important and rewarding, and that it is a good career for high-grade people. We who work with them know this already, but many of the public still look on them as rather woolly "do-gooders" who spend their time having cosy chats with people who ought to be in prison. I have no doubt that as the scope of the Service develops, and
616
as expansion is shown to bring with it better results, so it will become more attractive to those who are looking for a worthwhile career. But I feel that something in the nature of a public relations operation will be needed to get expansion off the ground.
Assuming, then, that the recruits can be found, a rapid expansion will involve a corresponding increase in training facilities, and the Government have recognised this. The Service itself is, and has been for some time, strongly in favour of ending direct entry, and it stresses the need for at least two years' training. Whatever the urgency to build up manpower, I am sure it must be right to resist the temptation to lower standards of training, or to increase direct entry. But it seems to me that every possible source of suitable entrants must be exploited. One of the strengths of the Service is that it attracts mature people, people who are not normally accepted for the local authority services, and it can make good use of them. The Government are apparently, very sensibly, laying emphasis on the recruitment of this group. But there are potential mature entrants with family or other commitments which prevent them from moving their home for training courses or on subsequent appointment. The Association suggests that, in addition to the expansion of existing training facilities, a new regional scheme should be set up aimed particularly at these people. They would be appointed locally and would receive their theoretical training at local universities or polytechnics; they would do their practical training within the Service and at the end of their course they would qualify for a post still in the same area. If a scheme like this were adopted, it would follow that direct entry as it now exists should cease.
I have given only the bare outline of a proposal which the Association has worked out in some detail since I understand that the Government may, in fact, be thinking on the same lines; but I believe that a scheme of this sort would open up a source, now untapped, of valuable potential entrants, without any lowering of standards, and that it would make a useful contribution to the expansion of the Service.
Finally, my Lords, I must come to the question of salaries—although the noble

617
Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has already covered this quite fully, and I realise that this is not a very popular subject at the moment and that, in any case, whatever I say will be suspect as coming from a partisan source. I should like to start by reminding your Lordships of the final words of the excellent leading article in The Times last Wednesday which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has already quoted. Encouraged by those words, I would ask the Government to give careful consideration to this matter. Probation officers, dedicated though they are, are still interested in their salaries, and it seems to me obvious if the right sort of people are to be attracted to the Service that in the first place the basic salary must be good and there must then be prospects of a rewarding career to follow.
The last revision of salaries took place in April, and it was then agreed that a further revision would be considered next January if—and I am quoting the words then used— "any significant changes have occurred relative to the Service and its salary scale". I very much hope that it will be recognised that such changes have occurred. Apart from anything else, the local authority officers have had a further increase since then, putting them ahead of the Probation Service; but this is only one part of the case. In the first place, probation officers are not the same sort of people or doing the same sort of jobs. I was told the other day that children's officers often say to probation officers, "How lucky you are; you can make your own decisions. We have to refer, everything to our superiors." But making one's own decisions implies greater responsibility. Probation officers attach great importance to their independence, and rightly so. No one would want to change that. But the exercise of this responsibility requires quite a different sort of person from his opposite number at the bottom of the other social welfare services—and a more highly trained one.
And then the Probation Service salary scales are rigid, and virtually no discretion is allowed to probation committees. The local authorities enjoy much greater flexibility and are exercising it on an increasing scale in their efforts to recruit people for their new services. Entrants are fitted in at points on the scales to which they are not really
618
entitled; low grade posts are given fancy names and salaries to match; and so on. I heard recently of a newly-joined probation officer who was found to be unsatisfactory, and whose appointment was therefore not confirmed at the end of his probationary first year. He walked straight into a local authority post at £300 a year more. Probation officers not considered fit for senior posts in the Service are being snapped up for equivalent posts in other services. One hears stories like this all the time.
I know that the standard answer to this is that things cannot be as bad as all that because the wastage is no worse than in the other services. To that I would say that in fact the wastage has been getting worse during the past few months as the bidding from other sources hots up. The most serious aspect is the quality of those who are leaving. I have seen a list of 129 probation officers who left the Service during the year ended last September. Of those, almost three-quarters left in the second half of the year; and I understand that this acceleration has continued since. Over 70 of the 129 went to local authority posts. Many of those who left were the very people that we shall need for promotion in the expanded Service. Of them, 49 had degrees or diplomas; all but 18 had more than two years' service and over half had four years' service or more. They included one principal probation officer and eight senior probation officers. Seven of those, including the principal probation officer, went to local authority posts.
Last, I would mention one case not included in these figures, and in this connection I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, of a point about relative salaries which he made to the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, in our debate on April 7. The present case is that one of the most experienced young principal probation officers in the Service is leaving to become Director of Social Services in Southampton at more than double his present salary. I should be interested to see whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are going to pursue that topic to-day. It is true that many probation officers really are dedicated and are prepared to soldier on even if they could do better elsewhere. But that is no reason why we should take advantage of them; and, furthermore, it is no

619
basis from which to plan an expanding and increasingly professional Service.
For these reasons, I urge the Government to consider whether they should not re-assess the relative value of a probation officer to the community and accept a solution which reflects it more truly. I am sorry if I seem to be carping and ungrateful; I recognise that what the Government have announced represents quite a long step forward—longer than many people expected. But now that at last it seems to have been accepted that an expanded Probation Service is essential, and can help to bring under control the rising tide of delinquency, I am anxious that we give the Service all the support and encouragement that we can. I am sure that it is in the national interest that we should do so.
7.49 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this constructive and compassionate debate, initiated in such comprehensive terms by my noble friend Lord Stonham, has ranged over the whole penal system, over the concept and purpose of punishment, the causes of crime, the methods of punishment available to the courts, sentencing policy, the administration of the Prison Service, and the tasks that now face the Probation and After-car Service as the major statutory agency concerned with assisting offenders in the community, acting as a bridge between prison and the outside world and, in co-operation with voluntary organisations and individual volunteers, providing after-care for ex-offenders. I believe it has fairly reflected current developments and thought in penal policy, and, above all, has served to highlight the ever-widening gap between such policies and the stark deficiencies of our grossly overcrowded prison system. Indeed, the contrast between objective and reality is physically greater than ever before. All noble Lords have agreed that the potentially explosive "three-in-a-cell" situation, which is a general feature particularly of our local prisons to-day, is a complete disgrace to any modern penal system and vitiates the genuine attempts by over-extended staff to develop progressive treatment and training programmes.
My Lords, we are agreed that imprisonment is expensive in both economic
620
and social terms and that we may have our priorities wrong when we spend the sum of £35 million a year on the Prison Service and only £8 million on the Probation and After-Care Service. We are also, all agreed that some imprisonment is necessary, but at last, after many years of pioneering work by many people, it is being recognised that a good deal of imprisonment, especially in the present state of overcrowding, is no more effective in preventing a return to crime than other forms of treatment.
There are occasions when we seem to be in danger of forgetting that people go to prison because they are sent there, and I was delighted that at the outset of our debate the noble Lord, Lord Foot, gave us his valuable views on sentencing policy, particularly on the deterrent sentence.
The one feature of our prison system which distinguishes it from all the other services that provide institutional care and treatment—with the possible exception of certain areas of the child care service—is that, unlike the mental health services for example, those who administer our penal system have no control whatsoever over the numbers committed to their custody. Nor, with the exception of remission or parole, which operate within very rigid legislative boundaries, do they have any control over the time for which offenders are sent. There is, for example, no kind of sentence in the adult penal system that compares in any way with the Fit Person order, shortly to become the Care Order, which is available to the juvenile courts, whereby a child or a young person is committed to the care of a local authority who can then decide, flexibly and in the light of their progress and development and general social situation, whether the girl or boy needs treatment in a residential setting, either secure or open, in a hostel or at home, or in a foster home with supervision at different periods of time.
Apart from the need to develop much closer working relationships between the courts and penal administrators and prison staff, I wonder whether, it is too much to hope that our present differential sentencing arrangements, tied to different kinds of custodial institutions, will one day be replaced by a single determinate sentence to a penal authority who will then have the responsibility of devising

621
flexible programmes of treatment and training, based on a proper diagnosis and assessment and ranging over a great variety of placements, from the secure residential institution through to trial in the community with supervision and support.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, have stressed the need to consider the problem of young offenders, and I join with them in welcoming the fact that the Advisory Council on the Penal System is now undertaking what I regard to be a long overdue inquiry to consider replacing the different and overlapping systems of borstal detention centres and senior approved schools with an up-to-date and more comprehensive range of custodial treatment facilities for the very important 17 to 23 age group. My only regret, my Lords, is that this inquiry is going to take some two or three years; and in these days of rapid and urgently needed changes in the penal system one must question whether an Advisory Council (composed, as I know only too well from my own experience of it, of most able and eminent persons heavily engaged in other occupations and unable to devote much of their time to such work) is necessarily the right way to-day for us to consider major changes in policy.
One would always need an independent group of persons who would carry public weight in submitting the report on the result of their deliberations. But if we are to speed up this kind of inquiry, they need far more help than our present system offers, possibly in the form of a number of ad hoc expert, full-time working groups, assisted by an adequate secretariat and not hampered by lack of funds.
One might consider the kind of arrangements that were introduced by the Presidential Commission on Crime in the United States; the speed of the report, the quality of the report, the resources on which they drew, not only from their own country but from experts brought in from this country and other countries outside their own boundaries. I am glad, however, that in the case of this particular inquiry where, as we all know from experience, much of the so-called "evidence" they receive will really be opinion, rather than hard evidence, there will be
622
valuable research studies available to assist them in making sound recommendations for the future treatment and training of this very important group of offenders.
I turn now, my Lords, to the more immediate measures which noble Lords have mentioned to relieve the pressures on our prison system, which has constantly passing through it a continuous flow of social inadequates with a record of pettty offences. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, at the outset of our debate stressed the need to urge courts to be more sparing in their use of remand in custody. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that there is to be a special study now to assess the scope for the reduction of remands in custody, and that its findings will be discussed with magistrates.
I know only too well from personal experience the difficulties that face magistrates in this regard, but I hope that they will make full use of the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which extended the period of bail from three to four weeks, and allow remand on bail in the case of some of those 11,000 who annually are remanded in custody for medical reports. Surely, in co-operation with the National Health Service, we could have more people on remand outside prison, with defendants attending at remand centres or local hospitals for medical and psychiatric reports; thus reducing the pressures on our present penal system where remand centres and some of our local prisons are more reminiscent of Euston Station than anything we would care to see in a modern prison.
I share the doubts that several noble Lords have raised about the long-term investment value of the prison building programme. We naturally accept that there must be some increase in the current building situation for emergency purposes and to enable us eventually to close the older prisons; but all experience, both in this and in all other social services, can only lead one to the conclusion that the more places one provided, the greater the population which will be found to fill them. Moreover, if current sentencing policy continues it is, in my view, unlikely that any Government—let alone this Government, which is committed to a policy of reducing public expenditure

623
—could ever find sufficient money to provide up-to-date modern prisons at the rate required for the projected prison population in the next five years.
For these reasons I agree with those who have concentrated the attention of your Lordships' House to-day on the inadequacy of our present services for the treatment of offenders in the community either to prevent this continued increase in prison population or to rehabilitate ex-prisoners successfully back into society, and on the need to develop new forms of alternatives to imprisonment. Everyone has welcomed the statement of the Under-Secretary of State that the number of probation officers will be increased by 1,000 by 1975, although several noble Lords have indicated that in the light of the additional tasks the officers are now being asked to undertake, this total will not be sufficient. I will not at this late hour weary the House by going over that ground again, but I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell on the impact this is going to have on the training programme—and I will say a word about this, in a moment.
I should also like to add my voice to those who have thanked the noble Lord for making the statement to-day on the Government's attitude to the recommendations of the Wootton Report, and particularly to welcome the acceptance of the recommendation on the deferred sentence. Like my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger herself, I would urge that the discusisons and studies now proceeding should be acted on speedily. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I have identical views on this subject.
I also welcome the Home Secretary's decision to establish additional panels in Birmingham and Manchester to assist the work of the Parole Board, on which we all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Having heard this afternoon that he himself could not cope with the proposed increase on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I wish to ask the Government what consideration they are giving to increasing the scope of parole. No one could call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a backslider or a lazy man, and I know that he and his Parole Board, the staff of the Home Office and our Prison
624
Service are working all-out to operate the parole system successfully. But when he himself tells the House that at present he cannot visualise an increase on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I must ask the Government whether they will put their minds to considering ways and means of achieving this.
Perhaps I might say a few words about the training of the Probation and After-Care Service, because the decision of the Government to expand the Service comes at a moment when under the Local Authorities Social Services Act, the Probation and After-Care Council, the Council for Training in Social Work and the Central Council for Training in Child Care are being brought together in one united Council for Education and Training in Social Work, thus recognising, I think rightly, the common generic basis for training for the social work services as a whole. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is to reply for the Government at the end of this debate, how far the Government have progressed in setting up this Council. I know that discussions with professional organisations on this matter were started on the day the Local Authorities Bill was published last February; and I know, too, that these have been proceeding well. But at the moment they appear to be in limbo, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us when the Government intend to announce the setting up of the Council and the names of its Chairman and members, in order to remove the present uncertainties. For in addition to its heavy responsibilities for providing pre-service and in-service training over the range of local authority social services, this Council will also be responsible for the major increase now needed in the probation and after-care training programme.
In this context, and particularly in relation to the training of mature students, I believe that a great deal can be learnt from the successful courses running at the North-West Polytechnic, in conjunction with the Central Council for Training in Child Care, for students with a minimum age of 35: which is a two-year course combining theory and practice. When I visited the first graduates of this course, comprising some 90 qualified students in September, I was

625
delighted to see the range and scope and quality of the individuals who had taken this difficult decision to undertake a professional training at that stage in their life. If the Probation and After-Care Service could draw on similar resources for their further development, they could undoubtedly be of great benefit to all of our services for the treatment of offenders.
We all accept and understand that, with the additional burdens they have undertaken in recent years, the Probation and After-Care Service have been passing through a period of great strain and stress, particularly as ideas in this field are changing so rapidly, and when we are moving away from what I always found to be a too psycho-analytically dominated approach to a situation in which more and more people are recognising that the statutory social services need to develop new forms of group and community work in active partnership with those voluntary service organisations and groups which are fulfilling their traditional role of experimentation and innovation.
The scheme that my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge mentioned, of a pilot community training centre, and the great work of the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, in developing these five different hostels have brightened this debate and encouraged us. Having listened to the noble Baroness, I feel that I must again ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, what the difficulty is. If these five projects—and we have all read the excellent Carnegie Trust account of the work that has been undertaken—have been so successful, particularly that for the treatment of alcoholics, what is holding up the expansion and extension of this scheme to other parts of the country? Frankly I was somewhat puzzled when the noble Baroness, in talking of the great success that had been achieved, seemed to imply that there was some block in the pipeline that was preventing further development in this admittedly very difficult field.
I cannot conclude without mentioning one more matter. Although our debate to-day has properly focused on the adult penal system, many young offenders who enter prison have a long and weary record of approved schools, detention centre and borstal already behind them. I must take this opportunity to deplore the failure
626
of the Government to implement Section 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act. An announcement was made on this matter by the Under-Secretary of State at the Annual Conference of Children's Officers in September, though I do not believe that it has been repeated in either House. I may have missed it in Hansard of another place, but it has not so far been mentioned in this House. Although on January 1 the new provision for care proceedings will come into force, the age for criminal prosecution of children will not be changed, which means that children from 10 upwards will still be liable to criminal prosecution. So we are really back to the 1963 position, when my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger managed, by a majority of one in this House, to raise the age from 8 (as it was then) to 12, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in another place compromised and made it 10. That was some seven years ago.
I also deeply regret the decision of the Government that courts are to retain their powers to order borstal training, to commit to junior detention centres and to order attendance at junior detention centres. One of the effects of this decision, which will have a direct effect on the Probation Service—some may welcome it, and others will not—is that, even though probation orders will be replaced by supervision orders for those under 17, courts will be free to select probation officers as supervisors of children from 10 upwards in both care and criminal proceedings.
I know that there was great division about this at the time when legislation was under discussion, but I believe that, with the increasingly heavy pressures that we all recognise are falling on the Probation Service, this would have been the occasion to allow the continuity of care and treatment that the Seebohm Committee so stressed in their Report to be carried forward into this younger age group by the local authority social services department with the Probation and After Care Service concentrating on the adult field.
It appears that the decision of the Government on whether or not to retain the present age for borstal training is now to wait on the Report of the Advisory Council. That is a disappointing and depressing outlook, because it will not

627
assist the developments for which many have worked for so long. I must therefore ask for an assurance that this decision not to implement at any time legislation which is already on the Statute Book—which amounts to virtual repeal—does not mean that the schemes now being designed to provide intermediate treatment will be slowed down, or that the brake will be put on those developments that involve additional expenditure. In saying this, I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State in another place was opposed to certain sections of the then Young Persons and Children's Bill; but I was under the impression that in this House, apart from the difficult question of double test, there was general agreement on all sides on the general principles on which this particular piece of legislation was based.
I very much regret the decision of the Government not to raise the age of criminal responsibility and not to change the borstal procedure, because as long as society continues to be frightened of its young offenders and continues to stigmatise its children in trouble by dealing with them on legalistic lines and in segregated services, there is really no hope of arresting the gravitation of institutionalised young offenders through the tariff system into our adult prisons.
Finally, my Lords, this debate has made clear that none of us in this House suffers from any dangerous illusion that there is a simple and comprehensive solution to the problem of crime simply waiting round the corner for a Home Secretary, a Commission or a council to find and to enunciate. In this sense, the debate has been extremely realistic. Most of us would also agree that the range of solutions needed will be discovered only as the result of long, painstaking and even painful experiment and research, and perhaps most of all by changes in public attitudes, and particularly towards those offenders who are merely failures, who are suffering from social or physical handicap and who should be sustained in the community, leaving an effective penal system to be devised for those relatively few who are genuinely deviant and who must be removed from the community in the interests of society as a whole.
My Lords, I am sure we all join in hoping that my noble friend Lord Stonham
628
will feel that the initiative he took in putting down this Motion has justified itself. We have had a typical House of Lords debate on this subject, and I hope that in replying to it the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to answer some of our questions and reassure us on the many points we have raised.
8.15 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House has been delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, back at the Dispatch Box, and we are all grateful to him for initiating this interesting and, for the Government, valuable debate. I personally have been glad to hear him advocating so many things that I myself have been advocating from the Dispatch Box: urging him to provide more hostels; to get more probation officers, to raise his target above 3,500, and to try to reach it sooner. I am glad to think that my noble friend Lord Windlesham and I are in a position to give really positive answers to the noble Lord and to his colleagues.
I should like to thank all noble Lords and Ladies who have taken part in the debate, whose views will be so valuable to Her Majesty's Government in the application and development of their policies. I shall not attempt to deal with every aspect that has been raised, or to answer every question that has been asked, because it would be extremely tedious for me to try to do that. But I can assure noble Lords that every point that has been raised will be considered, and that all the questions that have been asked which I am unable to answer will be answered in due course.
As a background to this debate we have to face the fact that our population is growing steadily in numbers. But what is more sombre and sad is that it is growing rapidly in criminality. Despite its affluence, despite its fine education service, despite the Welfare State, despite our mature culture and our Christian civilisation, we now have to face the fact, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham reminded us, that we are now producing twice as many convicted criminals as we were ten years ago. To dwell on the cause of this terrible increase in crime would now be untimely; it is not apt to the noble Lord's Motion. But we do

629
need to ponder this while we are considering the practical steps for dealing with these criminals.
The second point is that discussion of what it is that deters men from embarking on and continuing with a life of crime is also extremely important, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was right to remind us. I would feel that this, too, opens fields too wide for further consideration in a debate on this Motion. But it is also something that we must ponder and probe if we are to arrive at the right solution. However, I leave those two important issues on one side now, though I personally very much share the view of those who feel that the most powerful deterrent factor is the fear of getting caught, and not anything that is part of our penal system.
I propose, my Lords, to treat the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has introduced, in two parts. First of all, I should like to consider what is to be done about providing more space for the effective treatment of those who really must be incarcerated. It is essential to do this, for, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us from his unique position as head of the Parole Board, the present overcrowding really stultifies completely any constructive and effective régime designed to rehabilitate people who are in our prisons. Because of this we are now embarking on a greatly increased programme of new prison buildings: projects started this year will provide 1,500 places and starts will be made from 1971–72 onwards on projects providing 2,000 extra places a year. This is in contrast to the rather curious position which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, drew to our attention, where nothing new has been opened in the current year, and only one prison has been under construction. I would not want to lose this opportunity of paying tribute and giving our thanks to noble Lords opposite from whom we have inherited a programme amounting to no fewer than 24 major schemes.
So far as capital expenditure under this programme goes, this year the programme amounts to £10 million; and this figure will be substantially increased over the course of the next four or five years. There are considerable problems
630
in addition to finding the capital for this programme, but I would confirm that there are eight sites, including Ranby which was one which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, particularly mentioned, on which planning clearance has already been obtained. There are fifteen further sites under which planning clearance has to be negotiated. As a Minister in the Department of the Environment, having to find the right places for such things as reservoirs and breweries, I am a little daunted by the fact that there may be other things for which the process is even more difficult. The kind of speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, showing how some communities can come to appreciate a positive value of having a borstal in their midst, are extremely helpful, and I hope we shall hear more of that kind of remark.
In addition to finding the capital for new building and new sites for them, there is the further necessity to make the best use of what we have already. There is a possibility of expansion of various kinds of no fewer than twenty existing prison sites. The spare space, which shows rather clearly in the Report of the Prison Department for the year 1969, amounting to nearly 1,500 places in the training prisons, has now been taken up because in the present circumstances of overcrowding it really is not sensible to have spare billets in our training prisons. There is also the question of making the best use of the manpower we have already. If men have to be kept in crowded custody, let them at least be engaged themselves in tackling the problem by building and becoming engaged themselves in the building of new prison accommodation. This is something which has been appreciated, and I am glad to say that there are no fewer than thirty projects, amounting in total to a contract value of about £28 million, in which inmate labour is being used.
I should like at this point to deal with the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, asked about the experiments going on at Norwich and Bristol prisons designed to develop more positive staff/inmate relationships—particularly at local prisons, which are the ones in which the crowding is greatest. The White Paper Penal Practice in a Changing Society, published in 1959, showed that the objects of the experiments at Norwich had

631
been achieved with no loss of fundamental discipline and control, and looked forward to this approach being extended throughout the system. There is no doubt that there has been a marked change for the better in relationships between staff and prisoners since the Norwich and Bristol experiments were begun in 1956 and 1958 respectively.
The essence of the experiments was the readiness and availability of a prison officer to discuss a prisoner's personal problems with him, and to help him adjust to his situation as a prisoner and think about his future. This is maintained at Norwich and Bristol. Despite the pressures of overcrowding, this is reflected in the approach of prison staff to their work throughout the system. In 1963, the annual conference of the Prison Officers' Association endorsed a resolution which rejected the "turnkey" image of the prison officer and called for him to play a positive role in the rehabilitative aspects of a prisoner's treatment and training. This objective is now reflected in the training given to prison officers, and regular consultations are held between the Department and representatives of staff associations.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that subject, can be say whether the Bristol and Norwich experiments have been carried out in other prisons?
LORD SANDFORD: No, I think not, My Lords. What I am saying indicates that the lessons have been learned and are being applied throughout the system. As I was saying, consultations are held between the Department and staff associations to watch progress and consider what further development of the prison officer's role in this respect might be possible, and that is also included in the training programme.
I should like to turn from custody in prisons to what Her Majesty's Government have in mind (my noble friend Lord Windlesham did not mention this) about more effective treatment outside prisons for those who need not be incarcerated. In this field, as has already been made clear several times, the latest and most comprehensive review on new possibilities (of course, there are a number of other
632
non-custodial forms of treatment already) has been provided by the Advisory Council on the penal system and the sub-committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. As one who served on that Council, I should like to say how grateful we are for the work of the subcommittee, and how full of admiration I was for the noble Baroness for her wisdom and all the work that she put into that sub-committee. I should like to confirm that consideration is continuing on all the recommendations made, and the noble Baroness has already confirmed that she will ensure that consideration continues on those matters on which my noble friend indicated that Her Majesty's Government were taking a somewhat negative attitude. I also confirm that the American practice of support for offenders by volunteers who were themselves offenders has been noted in the Home Office.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, has anything further been done than just noting?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not in a position to say so. When we are considering the treatment of offenders in the community—and that is what the Report was considering—it is important to bear in mind that every month there are discharged from our prisons 3,000 adults, and there is no particular guarantee that they have abandoned for good their criminal tendencies. Prisoners under 21 who are discharged are subject to compulsory after-care, and prisoners who are discharged early on parole are subject to a certain amount of supervision. When we are considering the hazards of treatment in the community, it is as well to remember that we have 3,000 adults coming out of our prisons every month, and they are being pitched into society without any supervision or guarantee at all that they will continue to behave. It is important to say this in order to keep this matter in perspective.
In addition to the particular points that were raised and suggested by the noble Baroness in her Report, and in her own speech upon the Report to-day, I should like to say a little more about two things which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, left for me to answer. The first is to deal with the question of the treatment of

633
habitual drunken offenders who, as we all agree, are not best treated in the overcrowded conditions of a local or training prison. A question about them was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
The Report of the Working Party on Habitual Drunken Offenders has now been presented to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Services and is being considered by them, and it should be published in January. The Government accept that it is desirable to treat alcoholics outside the prison setting, but, as the noble Lord is aware, Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 cannot be implemented until sufficient suitable accommodation is available. Here I ought perhaps to say that the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made about introducing it by one locality at a time has been considered, but our advice is that it cannot be done under the existing legislation. The noble Lord will also know that there has been no lack of effort in this field, but that available resources tend to have been devoted more towards increasing the provision of general-purpose after-care hostels than to meeting the demand for more specialised facilities which present more difficulties to the voluntary organisations.
To encourage voluntary organisations to provide for more specialised needs, such as alcoholics, a higher annual rate of grant is provided, as the noble Lord will know. The position now—and several noble Lords asked me about this—is that grant has been approved and promised for 15 hostels, providing 168 places for alcoholics. The current rate of expansion is geared to providing an additional 200 after-care hostel places a year, of which about 80 to 100 will be for alcoholics or drug offenders. We are considering in the light of the Report of the Working Party whether the voluntary organisations should be encouraged to provide a higher proportion of places for alcoholics. The Home Office is in close consultation with the Department of Health and Social Security about the Report, and about the way in which medical and penal treatment and community care can all be integrated, and how the additional funds made available
634
for the treatment of alcoholism, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced on November 11, can be used. Before I leave the question of the treatment of alcoholics, I should perhaps mention that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office will be visiting Rathcoole this evening.
I was asked a question about the volunteers who work in close co-operation with probation officers, and perhaps I may say a word about this now. Some volunteers, called "associates", take a personal interest in individual prisoners and provide long-term personal support. Other volunteers help by taking prisoners' wives to visit the prison, looking after children while the mothers visit, and so on. These volunteers came into being at the end of 1965. They are recruited by the eighty or so probation committees, which make periodic reviews of the use of volunteers. The latest review is currently in progress. At the end of December, 1966, there were 794 volunteers; at the end of December, 1968, there were 1,200 or so volunteers. It is hoped and expected that the current review will show that there are over 2,000. As the above figures show, the number of volunteers is increasing rapidly and the evidence from the field is that they are having a considerable impact and that their work is greatly appreciated. Perhaps here I may also add that it is not only their impact on the rehabilitation of prisoners that is valuable, but also their impact in influencing the opinion of the public among whom these associates work and live and have their ordinary being every day of the week.
My Lords, may I turn now from the special question, the question of hostels for alcoholics, to the general provision of hostels, about which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was so rightly concerned? This is something with which I have myself been concerned in the past. We have already had some experience of hostels in the community in the shape of approved probation hostels and aftercare hostels. In the case of the former, a court may include in a probation order a requirement that the offender shall reside in an approved probation hostel or a home for a maximum period of 12 months. These hostels are intended for immature, inadequate and irresponsible

635
people who are socially disorganised and have lacked appropriate community and family support. The object of sending them to hostels is to help them respond to probation by being given a stable and supportive environment. There are now 44 such hostels providing 691 places. They cater mainly for offenders under the age of 21, but the system has been extended this year on an experimental basis to cater for male offenders up to 30 years of age; and it will be further extended next year to take in men up to 35.
Four hostels, providing 58 places, are already taking part in this experiment. It is already clear that courts are using these hostels as an alternative to custodial sentences. Of the first 50 men admitted, more than half had five or more previous convictions, and 22 had already served borstal or prison sentences, several on more than one occasion. It seems that the hostels are at least capable of containing men who would otherwise have gone to prison, and the proportion of breakdowns will be within acceptable limits. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a case for extension of this probation.
After-care hostels, too, have an important rôle to play by offering a measure of social support in addition to board and lodging to men with no home or family to return to when they are released from prison. There are now over 1,000 places in these voluntary hostels catering for discharged offenders, and the most recent survey suggests that some 3,000 men will spent some time in one of them this year. Approximately half of the men will be under some form of statutory supervision and about a third of them will be on probation. Very few will be under a specific requirement such as a probation order to reside in a hostel. The length of stay in after-care hostels varies from a few days to several months, and in so far as the facilities they provide enable men to adjust to normal life in the community they make a positive contribution to the reduction of recidivism.
Perhaps before I leave this subject I may deal with the question of financial support for the Bridgehead Association, which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked me about. The position is that an annual grant of £24,000 has been made
636
available to the Association towards the capital cost of providing after-care hostels. The whole of the grant for the current financial year has already been spent, and the Association has applied for additional grant in order to bring forward, as he said, some five or six additional projects. It is not a question of holding up a grant earmarked for the Association, but whether additional funds can be provided to produce places over and above the budgeted Bridgehead programme.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He said it is not a case of holding up funds; but in effect it is, because this organisation has got on well and has got the houses. It wants to anticipate next year's capital grant. Well, why not? You say you want the hostels; they have them. Let us get on with it!
LORD SANDFORD: But, my Lords, as the noble Lord knows, there is always the Treasury to deal with, and I regret that there are no uncommitted funds which can be diverted to Bridgehead projects this financial year.
May I now turn to the question of the expansion of the Probation Service, which has been mentioned a good deal. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary at the Home Office has announced the Government's intentions, but in the context of this debate perhaps I ought to confirm them. We are contemplating a strength of 4,700 by the end of 1975 and increasing training output from 350 to 550 per annum. This is in order that the Probation Service can continue to do all they are doing but more intensively, with lower case-loads, to shoulder the extra roles that have been recently assigned to them, and to take on the new roles that are now being proposed. In that connection I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, said: that the training and the quality of the training provided for the Probation Service—and indeed all the social services—will be of the greatest importance. I should like to confirm that the announcement about the Central Council for Training will be made very shortly, and the intention is that the new Council shall come into being in the spring.
Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I would sum up by saying that we fully intend to put a great deal

637
more money to better use in a strategy which falls into two complementary parts. First, a greatly increased prison building programme, for the main reason that under the present overcrowded conditions offenders are more than likely to emerge from prison in a worse state than when they went in—and what does society gain from that? So that here there is a substantially enlarged capital expenditure.
Secondly, and complementary to that, there will be a considerable development of the Probation Service to take a still greater share in the treatment of offenders, nearly doubling the training output—and for three reasons. First, because treatment under the Probation Service in the various forms that it takes is more humane. I know that that is something which perhaps does not commend itself to everyone, but it certainly commends itself to me. Secondly, because it is far less expensive—something between a tenth and a twentieth of what it costs to treat an offender in prison; and, thirdly, because for the very large number of offenders it is the most effective system in turning men from a life and course of crime: and this must commend itself to everyone, for surely that is the main aim of any penal system.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him a question? He has avoided any reference to a salary structure. I do not want to put him in any difficulty, but could I ask whether the Government recognise the need for consideration in that respect?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I said that everything that had been mentioned would be considered, and I think the noble Lord will agree that there is no danger whatever of that particular point having been overlooked. But I do not wish to comment upon it, and I deliberately did not do so.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged, my Lords.
8.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said this might well prove to be an epoch-making debate. Having listened to the end, I am not sure that I entirely agree with that; but it has been a very good debate and I do not intend to spoil it now by making a speech. However, I am
638
allowed to thank all those who have taken part, and as I look down the list of speakers I find it quite impossible to single out individuals, because everyone has made a splendid speech, based on actual knowledge. Every noble Lord and noble Baroness who has taken part has been an expert in a particular section of this subject, and I can only say that I am extremely grateful for all that has been said.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in one respect. I have had the feeling, while I have been sitting here through this debate, that this was at least a new beginning. But when noble Lords go through the debate they will find many points to write about, and I feel we shall come back again in a little while to see how things have gone. But, my Lords, that does not alter the fact that it has been a very good debate. It has entirely achieved its objective, and because of that I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (LONDON) (INDEMNITY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.