Sitting of 10 December 1970

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

  INCOME TAX
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands Antilles) Order 1970 may be made in the form of a draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  ST. VINCENT (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a gift of a Parliamentary Library to the House of Assembly of St. Vincent, and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

  MAURITIUS (GIFT OF A MACE)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a gift of a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Mauritius, and assuring
  640
  me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Industrial Arbitrators
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's future use of individual industrial arbitrators.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): Before I answer this Question, may I, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, apologise for the fact that he is unable to attend Question time today, for reasons which I think the House will recognise? He will be here to make a statement later in the afternoon.
    The Answer to Question No. 1 is as follows: There has been no change in the Government's policy towards this form of arbitration.
    Mr. Ashley: Now that the Government have destroyed confidence in arbitration in the public sector, may I ask the Minister to recommend the appointment of a man acceptable to both sides to inquire into the electricity dispute?
    Mr. Bryan: I could not accept the implication of that supplementary question. The statement which my right hon. Friend made last night and his interview with the trade union leaders will, I hope, convince them that arbitration is still available and is still fair. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, about an individual arbitrator, I suggest that he addresses that question to my right hon. Friend when he attends later this afternoon.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would my hon. Friend agree that the lesson of experience suggests that any arbitrator, if he wishes to stay in business, is bound, in effect, to split the difference between the last offer

    641
    of the employers and what the employees are demanding because if he does not do that he will not be acceptable to the union side again? Is it not evident, therefore, that the sole purpose of arbitration is to provide an alibi to both sides for an inflationary increase?
    Mr. Bryan: That may or may not be so, but the Government's role in arbitration is to be fair and to be outside the actual negotiations; and that is the role which we shall follow.
    Mrs. Castle: While it is most unusual for the Secretary of State not to be present for Questions, even in the present situation, may I inform the hon. Gentleman that if his absence means that he is at last engaged in genuine conciliation, we shall be the first to excuse him?
    Mr. Bryan: I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is continuing his admirable conduct in this most difficult strike, as he has been doing in the last few days.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what specific steps he is taking to reduce the level of unemployment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): All the facilities of my Department's services are available to those needing fresh employment, including special arrangements whereby redundant workers can be given employment information in advance of their discharge. The additional training measures announced on 4th November will also help.—[Vol. 805, c. 383–4.]
    Mr. Ashley: What steps are being taken to inform employers and workers in development and intermediate areas about the new scheme to retrain men over 45?
    Mr. Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point because it is important. We are issuing a special Press notice in the areas concerned and our local officers are being instructed to send individual notifications to all employers who are likely to be of help. Leaflets will also be prepared. We intend to press this vigorously to ensure
    642
    that as many people as possible know about the scheme.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the services of his Department are sufficient to deal with the permanent pocket of unemployment in the South-East Region—namely, the Kent coast and, in particular, North-East Kent?
    Mr. Smith: I am well aware of the problem on the Kent coast. I visited the area this week and the representations which were made to me will lead to further consultations within my Department. I am satisfied that we can do a great deal, though the general question of curing unemployment is tied up with economic prosperity.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Will not the Minister agree that the recent regrettable decision on I.D.Cs. will exacerbate the already desperate position in the North-East of England?
    Mr. Smith: No, Sir. I would not accept that suggestion. In fact, the hon. Gentleman may find that it turns out better than he anticipates but, as he knows, this is not a question for me.
    Mr. Scott: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the information about available vacancies is sufficiently widely based? Should we not be looking at the way information is spread around the country so that the unemployed are conscious of opportunities on a national basis?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has a very good point there. The more sophisticated our means of transmitting information about vacancies, the more chance there is of getting a successful response, but this is tied up with the question of mobility and we are looking at this very carefully at the moment.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the present rates of male unemployment in the Yorkshire coalfield intermediate area and in the development areas of England.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 9th November, 1970, the percentage rates of unemployment in the Yorkshire coalfield intermediate area and in the English development areas were 5·5 and 5·9, respectively.
    Mr. Hardy: In the light of that answer, will not the hon. Gentleman consider

    643
    again raising the Yorkshire coalfield area to development area status? The situation revealed by the figures gives us considerable discouragement in South Yorkshire, and I must ask the Minister to accept that there is urgent need for such reconsideration.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the question of development areas is not for me. No one can be complacent about the figures, and we believe that our proposals for retraining for people over 45 may well help quite a number of miners. I have seen for myself the way in which many miners have responded successfully to retraining opportunities.

    Safety Training in Industry
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to expand and improve safety training in industry.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I am again drawing to the attention of all industrial training boards that safety should be an important element in all job training.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the initiative I took when I was holding his job, but is this good enough in view of the worsening accident rate and the fact that industrial accidents account for the loss of more days of production than do strikes?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I always think it erroneous to seek to compare the number of strikes with the number of days lost as a result of accidents, because the two are not comparable. I know from what I have seen that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in this matter and did a great deal about it while in the Department. I do not think that we can be complacent and more efforts must be made, but it is significant that the Robens Committee is looking into the adequacy of safety training at all levels and, again, I think that this will help.

    Industrial Relations Bill
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he now intends to publish his Industrial Relations Bill.
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will publish his Industrial Relations Bill.
    Mr. Bryan: The Industrial Relations Bill was published on 3rd December.
    Mr. Moyle: As the Government are taking the opportunity to go ahead with this Bill, will the Minister of State tell the House and the country what impact he expects it to have after it becomes law on the incidence of strikes and the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Bryan: The Government expect the Bill to have a very considerable impact. We do not claim that it will have an immediate impact or that it is a shortcut solution to our problems, which clearly do not have any short-cut solutions. But we think that as time goes on its influence will certainly be very great and will bring order to a disordered scene.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very wide support there is in the country for these proposals, including not only the general public but many trade unionists? Will he confirm that he will be ready to give careful consideration to Amendments of detail during the Committee stage?
    Mr. Bryan: As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, there will be plenty of opportunity, since the Bill is to be debated on the Floor of the House, for every hon. Member to have a share of the debate and to influence the Bill. This was not an offer which the Opposition seemed to accept with any alacrity or enthusiasm. As to the weight of support in the country for the Bill, it is getting more and more clear that that support is widespread.
    Mr. Heffer: Is not the hon. Gentleman clearly wrong in saying that the Opposition did not want the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House? Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and I, in the debate on the Consultative Document, demanded that the Bill should be dealt with on the Floor of the House, and we are delighted that the Government have seen the sense of the view then expressed.
    As to the Bill itself, as similar legislation exists in the United States of

    645
    America—which is not as arbitrary as the Measure proposed by the Government—and as that legislation does not deal with the real problems of industrial relations, would not the Government think again, even at this late hour, and withdraw the Bill?
    Mr. Bryan: It was very hard to analyse the emotions of the Opposition when the announcement was made about the Committee stage being on the Floor of the House. From this side of the House, members of the Opposition merely looked dumbfounded for several minutes on end.
    We do not accept that our Bill is similar to American legislation, but we have made use of experience of countries all over the world and adapted it to the British scene.

    Screen Process Printing (Training Courses)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many courses of training are available for silk screening in South-East London; and how many applicants there are for such courses.
    Mr. Bryan: Training in screen process printing is normally provided by the industry with the help of the London College of Printing. There are also two courses with 24 training places at the Waddon Government Training Centre. On 16th November there was a waiting list of 88 applicants for these classes.
    Mr. Moyle: Does not the number of places available in the Government training centre and the waiting list there is for them indicate that many people are having to wait a long time for training courses in this subject? Will the Minister look into the position and see whether he can expedite the availability of places?
    Mr. Bryan: The provision of more places is being considered now. The position earlier in the year was that those trained were not being taken into industry very quickly and there appeared to be few opportunities for them. For that reason, more places were not needed, but in view of the bigger demand the position is being reconsidered.

    College for Blind Persons (Manchester)
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will
    646
    consult with the Royal National Institute for the Blind with regard to the establishment in Manchester of a rehabilitation and retraining college for blind people wishing to be placed in employment.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: No, Sir. Present demand would not justify such a college.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does not the Under-Secretary of State agree that it is a considerable ordeal for blind people in the north of England to go so far from their homes as London, which is the only place to which they can go for courses of training to rehabilitate them and make them fit for occupations which will normalise their lives? Would he not accept that a college such as this could be a centre for the entire north of England and make a great contribution to helping blind people there to be retrained for jobs which would help them to live normal family lives?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I am always very sympathetic to blind people in their extreme difficulties, but I am advised that there is no justification for such a college and, that there is plenty of provision in the country for the rehabilitation and retraining of blind people. There are two centres, one at Torquay and one at Ceres in Fifeshire, and a number of people from the hon. Member's own region are at both of them, and some on the waiting list. But if the situation gets worse I am always prepared to consider the matter further.
    Mr. Marten: On the rather wider question, can my hon. Friend say what progress is being made in the reduction of the level of unemployment amongst the registered disabled?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: As I said the last time I answered Oral Questions, my right hon. Friend has asked me to look at this matter especially. We are pursuing it very vigorously, and I hope in due course, probably some time in the new year, that I shall be able to announce something to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Whilst I appreciate the reply previously given to me by the hon. Gentleman, can he now say what action is being taken under Section 18 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, which has to do with the

    647
    training of those who are responsible for placing disabled people in work?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: That is rather wide of the original Question, and I should require notice of it, but I shall be very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. Kaufman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Wages and Salaries (Automatic Adjustment)
    Mr. Adam Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider legislation to provide an automatic national adjustment to wages and salaries, related to changes in the cost of living index.
    Mr. Bryan: No, Sir. I do not think that it would he appropriate to impose such a requirement on negotiators by legislation.
    Mr. Butler: But would not an adjustment of this kind remove one of the principal justifications for wage demands at present? It would not be inflationary. If my hon. Friend will reconsider the question, will he think in terms of a flat-rate payment and not a percentage based on earnings?
    Mr. Bryan: I follow my hon. Friend's argument, but the cost of living is only one factor influencing negotiations. Productivity, comparability, differentials, the position of the lower-paid worker—all these factors cannot simply be banished from negotiations.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister accept that the cost of living has increased by 7 per cent. over the past 12 months, and that for an average family of man, wife and one child, earning the average wage today, a further 4 per cent. is needed to cover the increased cost of tax and insurance contributions, so that the combined total of 11 per cent. means that the minimum wage increase today for such an average family on an average wage must be 11 per cent. to enable them to stand still and maintain their living standards from one year to the next.
    Mr. Bryan: I should have to confirm the figures, which I do not carry in my head, but what I can say is that the Government have shown a bigger concern for lower-paid workers than have any previous Government.

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Adam Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost due to strikes taking place in opposition to or in protest against the Government's proposed industrial relations legislation.
    Mr. Hayhoeasked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the numbers involved in the unofficial stoppage on 8th December in protest against the Government's proposals on industrial relations.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many different industrial establishments were affected by the 8th December demonstration against the Industrial Relations Bill.
    Mr. Bryan: It is impossible to make a close assessment, but my Department estimates that some 350,000 employees may have taken part in the one-day stoppage on Tuesday. Information on the number of establishments affected is not available.
    Mr. Butler: I am sure that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members will join in condemning the Communist-directed political strike on 8th December, but, in view of the questions and views expressed in the Lobby on Tuesday, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the need for even greater publicity to explain what the proposals in the new Bill are?
    Mr. Bryan: I do not know exactly what my hon. Friend means by the expressions in the Lobby, but all sections of opinion had better get used to the idea that we intend to press on with industrial relations legislation. The House cannot tolerate attempts to dictate by industrial action what it should do. I hope that those concerned will quickly realise the futility of further industrial action.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Does my hon. Friend agree that our parliamentary democratic system is just as much under attack by

    649
    those who seek to use industrial action to censor the contents of newspapers as it is by those who foment strikes in order to frustrate the will of the House?
    Mr. Bryan: I think that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree with what has been said.
    Mr. Orme: No, they do not.
    Mr. Bryan: I was about to add that, to be fair, I think that that expression of view had been put from both Front Benches.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was probably more criminal for some doctors to refuse to sign medical certificates last May than it was for some workers to take part in a peaceful demonstration against a reprehensible Bill?
    Mr. Bryan: Both actions were misguided.
    Mr. Hayhoeasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes have occurred since 1st July, 1969; and in how many the Trades Union Congress has intervened in accordance with its agreement with the previous Government of June last year.
    Mr. Bryan: It is provisionally estimated that 5,118 stoppages of work due to industrial disputes began in the period 1st July, 1969, to 31st October, 1970. The General Council's report to this year's T.U.C. records that over 180 disputes were reported to the T.U.C. in the 12 months ending June, 1970, and I understand that a further 27 disputes have been reported to the T.U.C. since June.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I welcome the efforts which the T.U.C. and Mr. Victor Feather, in particular, have made in seeking settlement of some of these disputes, but do not the figures show beyond a shadow of doubt how wrong the previous Government were in June last year to climb down and run to ground beneath the skirts of the T.U.C.—a somewhat indecorous position in which, so far as I can see, right hon. and hon. Members opposite still are?
    Mr. Bryan: I think that the answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes, Sir". At the same time, having said that, I acknowledge that
    650
    the T.U.C. has tried in good faith to do its best to carry out the Croydon undertaking of June, 1969. Obviously, we welcome its efforts, especially in inter-union disputes. However, the very figures on this question show that the task is beyond what the effort of an organisation of that sort can achieve.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the United States, where a system is operated similar to that under the Bill now before the House, there are three times more strikes than we have in this country? Second, does he agree that the T.U.C., on the basis of the White Paper introduced by the previous Government, has now accepted responsibility, which it did not previously take, and will he acknowledge that the T.U.C. is the appropriate body to deal with its own members, not the Government of the country?
    Mr. Bryan: As I have said already, I do not accept that we are introducing so-called American legislation. We are introducing legislation tailor-made for this country. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can only repeat that the size of the problem—we are now running up to 4,000 strikes per year—must call for stronger measures than can be supplied by the Trades Union Congress.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the Minister of State aware—of course he is—that two-thirds of the strikes are over in three days or less, and, therefore, intervention by anybody is impossible? Second, is his sudden and rather belated tribute to work of the T.U.C. not connected with the fact that the Government are at this moment deeply thankful for the intervention of the T.U.C. in the power dispute, and that they are pinning their hopes to the thought that Mr. Victor Feather will be successful in breaking the deadlock which they have created? Is it not a fact that, following the agreement with the Labour Government, Mr. Feather and the T.U.C. have done more conciliation in a matter of hours than the Government have done in six months?
    Mr. Bryan: The fact remains that there has been a greater escalation of strikes during this period than ever before. We cannot get away from that.

    651
    As to the first part of the right hon. Lady's question, I take it that she has been reading the Guardian, which, I must explain, is entirely in error. My right hon. Friend, in his task of trying to do his best to move towards a settlement, will welcome help from the Trades Union Congress or anyone else who is willing to help effectively.
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes have occurred between 1st July, 1969 and 31st October, 1970; and by how much this figure exceeds that for the previous 16 months.
    Mr. Bryan: The number of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes which began in the period 1st July, 1969 to 31st October, 1970 is provisionally estimated at 5,118. This exceeds the figure for the previous 16 months by 1,589.
    Mr. Mitchell: In view of those very serious figures, may I ask my hon. Friend whether his right hon. Friend has made any estimate yet of when the legislation he is introducing will reach the Statute Book and be able to start its vital work?
    Mr. Bryan: As my right hon. Friend has said before, we expect to get the legislation through Parliament by the end of this Session. We shall certainly do everything we can to do so.
    Mr. John Fraser: Would the hon. Gentleman carry out some research among the employers concerned in those 5,000-odd strikes asking them how many would have sued the unions or organisers of the strikes for damages, and would he secondly say in respect of how many strikes the Government would have applied for an injunction under their proposed legislation to restrain the strike from taking place for 60 days?
    Mr. Bryan: The answer to the question, I would estimate, is "Very few." We do not expect a flood of litigation to follow our Bill. We do expect that the standards it lays down will be effective in producing the sort of atmosphere which will lead to more order, better procedures and better industrial relations.

    British Leyland (Longbridge Works)
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an
    652
    official visit to the Longbridge works of British Leyland.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present but I certainly hope that such a visit may be possible some time in the future.
    Mr. Carter: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that that was a most disappointing reply, as 5,000 British Leyland car workers have been made redundant in the past few days? As that is the result of the Government's economic policy, will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to lift restrictions on the car industry in order to avoid further redundancies?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not accept for a moment that it is the result of the Government's economic policy. A result of the Government's economic policy will be that many further jobs will be saved which would probably have been lost under the last Administration. These redundancies, regrettable as they are, have to be made, in the light of commercial considerations, by the companies concerned.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that since this great British motorcar combine was formed, it has had only three weeks without an industrial dispute in its organisation?
    Hon. Members: So what?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, and we can all draw various conclusions from that fact.

    Scotland
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total net decline in employment in Scotland between April, 1966 and June, 1970.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Provisional estimates show a decrease between March, 1966, and March, 1970, of 82,000 employees in employment in Scotland. There are no estimates for April, 1966, and estimates for June, 1970, are not yet available.
    Mr. MacArthur: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Labour Government promised in their period an increase of 60,000 jobs in Scotland? Is he aware that, because of the shameful loss of 82,000 jobs in the same period, the gulf

    653
    between promise and performance in Scotland amounted to 142,000 jobs?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of this in the development areas—and others besides Scotland are concerned—there has been a general decrease in the numbers in employment. The previous Government's efforts failed, and we have to tackle and cure the situation. It will probably take some time, but we are confident of the outcome.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this net loss of jobs was the result of the very quick decline of the basic industries? Would he give the figures to show the number of jobs in the pipeline in June, 1970? What response have industrialists made to the Government's proposals to accept the Hunt Committee recommendation to reduce I.D.Cs. from 5,000 to 10,000? Is not this causing great concern among the industrialists in Scotland?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentle man is right to say that a large proportion is due to the decline in traditional industries. I entirely grant him that. However, it is an undoubted fact that the policies of the last Government to try to stimulate extra activity in Scotland failed. The hon. Gentleman's question about I.D.Cs. is not for me and should be addressed to my right hon. Friend. We are not complacent about the figure and we intend to try to improve the situation.

    Occupational Qualifications
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment if it is his intention in his proposed legislation to make it illegal for employers and trade unions to agree that all persons engaged in an occupation shall be required to have an agreed qualification of experience or skill.
    Mr. Bryan: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such a policy would be ridiculous and disastrous? Is he aware that in all areas of employment it would result in a decline of skill? Is he aware that in some areas it would be positively dangerous? Is he aware that the whole
    654
    standard of British performance, with its considerable contribution to the balance of payments, rests upon these agreements between employers and employees?
    Mr. Bryan: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Bill. There will be nothing in the Bill to prevent unions from making agreements with employers about conditions of entry into certain trades or employment, provided that the agreement does not make union membership or union approval a prerequisite of employment.
    Mr. Rose: As union membership must be a prerequisite to keeping up standards, would the hon. Gentleman at least match his unfairness and irresponsibility by some consistency and apply the same rules to the Bar Council, the Law Society, and the British Medical Association?
    Mr. Bryan: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it must be a prerequisite to preserving standards. However, this will no doubt be discussed when we reach the Bill. I do not think that the analogy is fair.
    Mr. McBride: We are talking of the closed shop. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the closed shop has been of inestimable value to the country in maintaining high standards of skill and qualifications? Is he not abrogating to the employer the sole right to be the labour recruiting agent?
    Mr. Bryan: I acknowledge that the closed shop has had its advantages for industry, but what we are doing in the Bill is to include the fundamental right of the individual employee to freedom of choice. The Government's proposals on agency shop agreements strike a fair and reasonable balance between an individual's right not to join a union and his social responsibility to contribute towards union negotiations from which he will benefit.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Bill will spell out in absolute detail that strikes with purely and solely political objectives will be unlawful?
    Mr. Bryan: That is something we can debate during the course of discussing the Bill.
    Sir G. de Freitas: On a point of order In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply to the supplementary question about professional trade union qualifications, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Private Employment Agencies
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent he estimates that the growth of private employment agencies has reduced the number of vacancies notified by employers to public employment exchanges.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Such evidence as we have suggests that the number of vacancies notified to employment exchanges is not significantly affected by the operation of agencies except in regard to commercial and clerical vacancies, particularly in London.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware of the ever-increasing extent, particularly in London and particularly with secretarial and clerical vacancies, to which private employment agencies are creaming off the vacancies from local employment exchanges, to the very great profit of the former, thus leaving Government employment exchanges with an ever-increasing proportion of unemployables and dropouts?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: There is nothing to stop both employers and employees from coming to us to get staff or jobs and to get the assistance free. We are trying to develop this side of our commercial service and doing so successfully to some extent. When the resources are available, we hope to develop it further. I am aware that there is a problem, but I am not persuaded that legislation is the best way in which to deal with it.

    Shop Stewards (Training)
    Mr. Kinseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to ensure training of shop stewards.
    Mr. Bryan: No, Sir, but I agree that increased training for shop stewards is of great importance and I am awaiting the
    656
    report of the Commission on Industrial Relations on this subject.
    Mr. Kinsey: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has it in mind. Will he help when training is being undertaken locally? I draw to his attention the Brookly Technical College in Birmingham where the T.U.C. regional advisory committee has already run one of these courses and where another course is in being. It would be extremely useful if the Minister would give every assistance to such courses.
    Mr. Bryan: In studying this matter I have been impressed by the wide range of training available. While this is the responsibility of the trade unions and is regarded as such, the training boards have certain responsibility in this connection and many do their best to help.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he introduces his Industrial Relations Bill, nobody will volunteer to be a shop steward? Is he aware that anybody who volunteers to be a shop steward will be virtually putting his head in a noose and that what will ensue will be chaos on the factory floor, because nobody will accept leadership?
    Mr. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman will no longer be able to say that the Bill will have no effect.

    Ex-Coal Miners (Training and Rehabilitation)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has to assist coalminers aged over 50 years who have been made redundant or had to leave the industry through ill-health.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Ex-miners are among those who will benefit from the new scheme of training grants starting next month which is designed to encourage employers in the development and intermediate areas to take on and train older men. Industrial rehabilitation units can do much to help those who have to change their jobs because of ill-health.
    Mr. Eadie: While thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask him whether he is tackling this human problem in the correct way? Would he not

    657
    agree that we are adopting a rather pessimistic approach in suggesting that we are doing a favour to these men who have contributed so much—and that that is wrong? Would he not agree that the right approach is to have these men producing real wealth for the nation, which will give them confidence in any retraining or future policies?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not think we are pessimistic about it, but we should be deceiving ourselves if we did not recognise this as a very special problem. It will probably take a long time to solve, particularly in view of the rundown in the coal industry. I genuinely believe that the new provisions for older men will make some impact and I am also pleased that we are able to bring forward some "limited skill" courses in G.T.Cs. All miners can benefit from this if they can be encouraged to take the courses.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is there not some good news in the North of England today about a considerable number of jobs reopening for the miners there? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this has just been issued by the public relations officer of the National Coal Board? If the facts are as stated, does he appreciate that it would be very helpful to us on the North-East coast, since we have suffered tremendously from the closing of so many of our pits? Is my hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for this news?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The National Coal Board is now recruiting men, including older miners. This will certainly help the situation but we have still to bear the long-term consequences in mind.

    Construction Workers (Scotland)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction workers are currently unemployed in Scotland, in total and by the employment exchange areas concerned.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 9th November, 1970, there were 20,009 persons registered as unemployed in Scotland who last worked in the construction industry.
    As the remainder of the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Eadie: While I will look for the answer with a great deal of interest, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a very serious comment on all of us that we should have such a high rate of unemployment among construction workers? Is it not a scandal that we should have to announce such a position when there are thousands of homeless in Scotland who want to know what their housing opportunities are to be?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: It may be a scandal, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this has developed during the time that his Party was in Government. If we look at the arrangements which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on 27th October, we can see that this will be a contribution towards easing the problems of the Scottish construction industry.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a disturbing fact that there should be spare resources in Scotland, in view of the state of housing? Do I understand that the Government expect the announcements made in October to increase the demand for building workers and the output of houses? Is not the unemployment in this industry due to the squeeze and should not this be looked at?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, Sir. But some of the fiscal changes which were made will contribute towards solving the problem. Again this is not something which will be easily solved, as there has been a general contraction over the years in the Scottish construction industry. At least we are taking positive steps to do something about it.
    Mr. Ross: Is it then the Government's policy to increase the number of houses to be built in Scotland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year, for the third year in succession, there will be a record number of houses built and all indications are that the Government's policy will drive that down?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: That is an entirely different question and not one for me. The right hon. Gentleman knows from long experience that when the Conservatives are in power housing figures consistently go up.
    Following is the information:
    TOTAL NUMBERS OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED IN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AREAS IN SCOTLAND AT 9TH NOVEMBER, 1970 WHO LAST WORKED IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

    Employment Exchange area

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Aberdeen

    414

    2

    416

    Airdrie

    354

    3

    357

    Alexandria

    152

    —

    152

    Alloa

    167

    —

    167

    Annan

    96

    —

    96

    Anstruther

    13

    —

    13

    Arbroath

    61

    1

    62

    Ayr

    206

    1

    207

    Banchory

    7

    —

    7

    Banff

    68

    —

    68

    Barrhead

    169

    —

    169

    Bathgate

    236

    —

    236

    Bellshill

    101

    1

    102

    Blairgowrie

    36

    —

    36

    Blantyre

    92

    —

    92

    Bo'ness

    75

    —

    75

    Bridgeton

    574

    —

    574

    Bonny bridge

    55

    —

    55

    Brechin

    18

    —

    18

    Broxburn

    64

    —

    64

    Buckie

    37

    —

    37

    Burntisland

    23

    —

    23

    Cambuslang

    44

    1

    45

    Campbeltown

    109

    1

    110

    Carluke

    21

    —

    21

    Carnoustie

    7

    1

    8

    Castle Douglas

    26

    —

    26

    Clydebank

    458

    2

    460

    Coatbridge

    362

    9

    371

    Cowdenbeath

    273

    1

    274

    Crieff

    30

    2

    32

    Cumbernauld

    64

    —

    64

    Cumnock

    76

    —

    76

    Cupar

    16

    —

    16

    Dalkeith

    131

    2

    133

    Dalry

    19

    —

    19

    Dingwall

    116

    1

    117

    Dumbarton

    135

    —

    135

    Dumfries

    175

    —

    175

    Dundee

    662

    4

    666

    Dunfermline

    198

    2

    200

    Dunoon

    28

    1

    29

    East Kilbride

    93

    —

    93

    Edinburgh

    1,278

    3

    1,281

    Elgin

    84

    2

    86

    Eyemouth

    43

    1

    44

    Falkirk

    249

    6

    255

    Forfar

    21

    —

    21

    Forres

    35

    1

    36

    Fort William

    66

    —

    66

    Fraserburgh

    37

    —

    37

    Galashiels

    49

    1

    50

    Girvan

    40

    2

    42

    Glasgow P & C E.O.

    30

    1

    31

    Glasgow South Side

    973

    3

    976

    Glenrothes

    113

    1

    114

    Govan

    326

    3

    329

    Grangemouth

    57

    —

    57

    Grantown-on-Spey

    9

    —

    9

    Greenock

    344

    9

    353

    Haddington

    59

    —

    59

    Hamilton

    298

    3

    301

    Hawick

    32

    —

    32

    Employment Exchange area

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Helensburgh

    65

    —

    65

    Hillington

    12

    —

    12

    Huntly

    22

    —

    22

    Invergordon

    46

    2

    48

    Inverkeithing

    36

    —

    36

    Inverness

    312

    10

    322

    Inverurie

    18

    —

    18

    Irvine

    86

    —

    86

    Jedburgh

    16

    —

    16

    Johnstone

    105

    3

    108

    Keith

    26

    —

    26

    Kelso

    17

    —

    17

    Kilbirnie

    26

    1

    27

    Kilmarnock

    214

    —

    214

    Kilsyth

    71

    —

    71

    Kilwinning

    24

    1

    25

    Kinning Park

    161

    1

    162

    Kirkcaldy

    200

    —

    200

    Kirkintilloch

    97

    —

    97

    Kirkwall

    46

    —

    46

    Lanark

    53

    1

    54

    Largs

    31

    —

    31

    Larkhall

    65

    —

    65

    Leith

    498

    1

    499

    Lerwick

    38

    1

    39

    Lesmahagow

    81

    —

    81

    Leven and Methil

    164

    1

    165

    Linlithgow

    11

    —

    11

    Livingston

    76

    1

    77

    Loanhead

    101

    2

    103

    Lochgilphead

    27

    —

    27

    Lockerbie

    13

    —

    13

    Lossiemouth

    10

    —

    10

    Maryhill

    646

    —

    646

    Montrose

    14

    —

    14

    Motherwell

    182

    1

    183

    Musselburgh

    182

    2

    184

    Nairn

    16

    —

    16

    Newmilns

    11

    —

    11

    Newton Stewart

    32

    —

    32

    Oban

    155

    1

    156

    Paisley

    359

    7

    366

    Parkhead

    1,432

    13

    1,445

    Partick

    333

    2

    335

    Peebles

    21

    —

    21

    Perth

    136

    1

    137

    Peterhead

    37

    1

    38

    Pitlochry

    17

    —

    17

    Port Glasgow

    108

    —

    108

    Portobello

    211

    —

    211

    Portree

    25

    —

    25

    Renfrew

    43

    —

    43

    Rothesay

    29

    —

    29

    Rutherglen

    208

    —

    208

    St. Andrews

    12

    —

    12

    Saltcoats

    386

    —

    386

    Sanquhar

    23

    —

    23

    Shotts

    57

    —

    57

    Springburn

    1,211

    7

    1,218

    Stirling

    220

    1

    221

    Stonehaven

    9

    —

    9

    Stornoway

    257

    1

    258

    Stranraer

    75

    —

    75

    Thurso

    78

    3

    81

    Tranent

    71

    3

    74

    Troon

    4

    —

    4

    Turriff

    12

    —

    12

    Uddingston

    84

    1

    85

    West Calder

    31

    —

    31

    Wick

    167

    1

    168

    Wishaw

    185

    7

    192

  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  Ql. Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Watford.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Tuck: That is a pity. Is the Prime Minister aware that I was hoping that after seeing the terrible traffic congestion in the centre of the town he would approach his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries and ask him to expedite the construction of the North Orbital Extension, which would release this build-up? Does he realise that if something is not done pretty soon Watford will suffer traffic thrombosis and nothing will be able to move? Then he can eat his lunch in front of the Town Hall in the middle of the highway.
  The Prime Minister: Planning proposals are being considered by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  Mr. Longden: If my right hon. Friend should decide to visit Watford, will he not neglect to visit the salubrious environs such as Rickmansworth, Radlett, Bushey, Chorley Wood, and Abbots Langley? In each of these places he will receive a warm welcome from my constituents.
  The Prime Minister: I appreciate my hon. Friend's invitation.
  Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Fawley Oil Refinery.
  The Prime Minister: There is no Ministerial responsibility for this establishment.
  Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware that Fawley has made a great contribution towards productivity and that by comparison his Government have made a very poor contribution? Would he not agree that the Government should make an even greater contribution by introducing the same wage formula for working people as has been introduced for generals, in other words, that we have a six-months wage pause followed by a guaranteed 30 per cent. increase in everyone's earnings?
  The Prime Minister: Fawley has long been known as having set an example in genuine productivity agreements. I have always urged other firms to follow suit.
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Northfield, Birmingham.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that that reply will be received with great disappointment in Northfield—
  Mr. Faulds: You must be joking!
  Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what Northfield would have liked to hear from the Prime Minister was a repeat of his statement made in his speech to the people of Birmingham on 4th June, that he does not believe in compulsion in wage negotiations? Had he gone, would he have confirmed that the Government are not preparing to bring in a wage freeze in the New Year?
  The Prime Minister: The position remains as I have constantly stated it. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to present negotiations, there is no element of compulsion.
  Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that it is not only the people of Northfield who will be very disappointed by his reply and that, should he decide to visit Birmingham, if he could find time to come just over the border to my constituency he would be assured of an ecstatic welcome?
  The Prime Minister: I will try to remove my hon. Friend's disappointment as soon as possible.
  Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the London Borough of Islington.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Grant: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), I am deeply grateful to the Prime Minister for his reply, and I expect the

  663
  people of Islington to express their gratitude to him in the borough council elections next May. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Greve Report—if his Ministerial friends have allowed him to see it? If so, is it not time for him to take a more personal interest in the problems of homelessness in the inner London boroughs like Islington? Will he pay attention to this matter?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I will. But it is the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been dealing with it.

  INTERMEDIATE AREAS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment for policies with regard to intermediate areas; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while I am not asking him to pay a visit, if he were disposed to visit the intermediate areas of North-East Lancashire it would take him longer to get there than it ought because of bad road communications? Will he give an undertaking today that he will treat as a matter of priority the building of the new M6 motorway link with the Calder Valley?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to give an order of priority on the road programme in answer to this Question. If he cares to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend he will receive a detailed reply.

  COSMELEDOS ISLANDS
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Cosmeledos Islands in the Indian Ocean.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is there any foundation in the suggestion of the normally well-
  664
  informed Washington correspondent of The Times that we are thinking less in terms of island bases and more in terms of base at Mombasa?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite unrelated to the Question.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since my right hon. Friend shows an understandable reluctance to go to the Cosmeledos Islands, would he care to come to Chelmsford instead?

  DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS)
  Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received for the recommendation of the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the employment problems of disabled people; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Only from the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) to whom I replied on 2nd November.
  Mr. Morris: While thanking the Prime Minister for the statement he has made to me by letter, may I ask him whether he is aware—I am sure he is—that the incidence of unemployment among the employable disabled, which is now in excess of 11 per cent., is a deeply serious human problem? Is he aware, as I am sure the whole House is aware, that many disabled people want nothing more than the dignity of ceasing to be supplementary pensioners and becoming taxpayers?
  The Prime Minister: I agree absolutely with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have given very careful consideration to the question of establishing a Royal Commission to inquire into this matter, but I find that a great deal of work is being done by the Department itself. We are also expecting the results of the Social Survey of the Handicapped and Disabled in Great Britain organised by the Government. I do not think that anything further would be gained at this stage by setting up a Royal Commission to examine the subject. When we have the results of the Department's work to hand, I hope that we shall be able to do more for the unemployed disabled.
  Mr. Ashley: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the disgraceful aspect of this problem is that, even with relatively full employment during the previous Administration's term of office, the disabled have suffered from a higher rate of unemployment than other sections of the community? Unemployment among the disabled is five times greater. When unemployment rises this winter, as the Prime Minister knows it will, the disabled will suffer from an even greater rate of unemployment. This is a matter of acute anxiety and urgent action should be taken to deal with it.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that the percentage of unemployment among the disabled is much higher than it is among other sections of the population. At the last count it was 11·7 per cent. This is why the Department is doing a great deal of work in studying the particular problems of the unemployed disabled. But if we were to set up a Royal Commission, I do not think that we would gain any more information or advice than we already get from the Adviory Council and from the bodies doing this special work. Therefore, I do not propose at this moment to set up a Royal Commission.
  Captain W. Elliot: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that selective employment tax bears on disabled people and that its removal would greatly help their employment prospects?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is perfectly correct.

  PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH (GUILDHALL)
  Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on 16th November on Government policies.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8th December to Questions from the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).
  Mr. Archer: I recognise that the Prime Minister acted with great promptitude and decisiveness in this matter, but will he
  666
  be even more helpful and say whether he agrees that his assertion that British policy will be determined only by British interests may appear to the rest of the world to be not only self-centred but self-defeating because it will encourage other nations to reciprocate? Since today is Human Rights Day, will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake that Britain will conform to Security Council resolutions about arms for South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had gone on reading what I said, he would have realised that I pointed out that this was not to be regarded in any narrow or selfish way. When I was at the United Nations in October, I found that the representatives of other countries were very glad that we should state what we considered to be British interests because they could then formulate their own foreign policies in relation to them.
  Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend know of any other nation which does not pursue its own interests in foreign affairs?
  The Prime Minister: Some nations may pursue interests which seem to us to be rather strange, but no doubt they believe that they are their interests.
  Mr. Prentice: Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members would not need to keep questioning him about his Guildhall speech if from time to time he followed the example of all his predecessors and made a major policy speech in the House, which he seems very reluctant to do?
  The Prime Minister: I shall make speeches in the House when I think it appropriate. It has for many years been the privilege of the Prime Minister of the day to speak at the Lord Mayor's Banquet at the Guildhall. I carried on that tradition.
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on 16th November on Government policies.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8th December to Questions from the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), and

  667
  South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).—[Vol. 808. c. 238–9.]
  Mr. Barnett: Should not the Prime Minister issue an explanatory memorandum indicating what his real policy is on wage inflation? Is it not a fact that he proposes simply to allow the policy to develop on the basis of the substantial balance-of-payments surplus inherited from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)?
  The Prime Minister: The economic policy of the Government as a whole was set out in my Guildhall speech, and it certainly did not consist of the suggestion put forward by the hon. Gentleman, as he knows full well.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not clear from figures issued recently that the balance-of-payments surplus for the year will be at least £500 million Indeed, The Times talked about £600 million yesterday. Would it not be a simple act of common honesty for the Prime Minister to agree that his June judgment about a deteriorating trend in the balance of payments was, to say the least, mistaken?
  The Prime Minister: When the full year's figures are available, I will deal with them.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that there will be a surplus of at least £500 million? Is it not increasingly clear that he will twist and wriggle as much as he can rather than allow any doubt to be cast on his own infallibility?
  The Prime Minister: I told the right hon. Gentleman that when the figures are available I will deal with them.
  Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in his speech at the Guildhall he said that the community must be protected from the encroachment of sectional interests? Will he say what the people can do to protect themselves against the sectional interests of the workers in the electricity supply industry?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the great mass of the people in this country have made very clear their views about the impact on the life of the community of the present disturbances caused by the electrical workers' union and those associated with it. I do not think that any-
  668
  body can be in any doubt about the views of the nation on this matter.
  Mr. Orme: Having spelt out what he felt about the wage situation, and the Government having expressed that feeling in their attitude to the electricity workers by not going beyond 10 per cent., how does the Prime Minister explain the increases of over 30 per cent. which he announced on Tuesday for higher civil servants, generals and chairmen of nationalised industries? How does he expect ordinary people to accept that?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter for a moment, he will recognise that this was the last and concluding stage of what had been happening over the past four years. It was put in hand by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister, and we accepted the recommendations for the chairmen of nationalised industries and higher civil servants and fixed a date for the implementation of the last stage. There followed from that, as is bound to be the case, the judges and the higher serving officers. I thought that the House welcomed, as did the Leader of the Opposition, their offer to postpone the date when the increase would become effective until 1st July next.
  Several Hon. Members—

  DEPARTMENT FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (MINISTERS)
  Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to reduce the number of Ministers in the Department for Trade and Industry.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 17th November the Minister for Industry stated that the Government had sent a circular to all private employers telling them that they must make only one wage offer and that if that offer is rejected by the workers concerned a second offer must not be made? Does that represent Government policy?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to see the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In any case, it has nothing whatever to do with the number

  669
  of Ministers in the Department for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Maclennan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what consultations Ministers in the Department for Trade and Industry had with Scottish interests before they decided to alter the rules on industrial development certificates? Their action has been greeted with disapprobation in Scotland and is regarded as very damaging to employment prospects in Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: The matter was very carefully considered before the decision was reached. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view. The change will allow the great majority of these buildings to be built without going through the administrative process, and it will not affect to any appreciable degree the movement of industry to other parts of the country.

MR. SPEAKER (RETIREMENT)
Mr. Speaker: I have a personal statement to make to the House.
Some 18 months ago I indicated to the then Leader of the House and the then Chief Opposition Whip that if I were re-elected to a new Parliament I would hope to remain in the Chair for only a short time in order to see the new Parliament in. When the House did me the honour of re-electing me as Speaker, I again indicated through the usual channels that I would seek to retire some time during the first year of this Parliament. In October I reaffirmed that it was my intention to retire during the Christmas Recess.
It is with deep emotion that I now inform the House that I shall not be returning to the House in the new year. What will probably be my last official duty will be to attend a Conference of Commonwealth Speakers in Delhi in late December and early January.
I have in the past expressed the thanks of the House to those who serve us so well; the Clerks, the Serjeant at Arms and his staff, the Vote Office, the Library, HANSARD, the Press Gallery, the printers, the Refreshment Department, the custodians, the annunciators, the engineers, the cleaners, the police. Today I express my personal thanks to all of them for their utter loyalty to Mr. Speaker, as to the rest of the House.
670
I would especially thank Mr. Barlas, Second Clerk Assistant, who was my mentor at Question Time when I first embarked on that difficult task; Mr. Gordon, Principal Clerk, who served me at Question Time in the same difficult duty; Mr. Lidderdale, Clerk Assistant, who was my chief adviser when I was Chairman of Ways and Means; and, above all, Sir Barnett Cocks. Rarely have two Officers of the House been more closely associated than have this Speaker and the Clerk. I am fortunate to have had, as the House and my successor will continue to have, the benefit of Sir Barnett's long years of experience, his wisdom and his utter dedication to Parliament. It is roughly true that what wise Rulings I have made have come from his advice and what errors I have made in the Chair have been my own.
I would also acknowledge the faithful personal service of Mr. Green and Mr. Canter, my Trainbearer and his Deputy.
As for my parliamentary colleagues, I cannot express adequately my gratitude to them for awarding me the most precious honour they could give, and for their unswerving loyalty, not so much to me as to the Chair.
Someone writing romantically about Mr. Speaker 50 years ago paraphrased Burke and wrote:
"The House has come almost to believe that the Speaker can do no wrong. Certainly, every parliamentary sword would leap from its scabbard to avenge even a look that threatened him with insult."
My experience has not been exactly that—rather that swords have leapt from their scabbards whenever Mr. Speaker has done wrong. I seem to remember that the scabbard of the late Sydney Silverman, a great Parliamentarian, was often empty, and that many a sword has rattled in its sheath when I have failed to please an hon. Member in my most difficult task of choosing who is to speak.
Seriously, I have experienced nothing but kindness and understanding from both sides of the House: from the Leader of the Opposition, to whom I am deeply indebted for appointing me as Chairman of Ways and Means; from the Prime Minister, who has constantly supported me in my office—I am proud to have the friendship of both right hon. Gentlemen; from the present Leader of the House and his predecessor, both of

671
whom, whilst being good party men, are also good Parliament men, and from the two Chief Whips—all four share with Mr. Speaker a deep love of Parliament and have been my closest companions. We have often disagreed, but never for long.
I owe much to the Services Committee, my constitutional adviser; to its three great Chairmen, the right hon. Members for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and Workington (Mr. Peart) and now the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). All these, with the Father of the House and the other elder statesmen of the House, have been my valued advisers and friends.
When I look back on my 20 years in the House, when I remember the great Speakers whom I have had the honour to succeed, when I have realised, as I have done so often, that I have presided over so many able masters of procedure and so many able and devoted Parliamentarians and statesmen, I am at once both grateful and humble.
The greatest of my predecessors said in his valedictory speech:
"My hopes will be for the continuance of the Constitution in general and that the freedom, dignity and authority of this House may be perpetual."
The bedrock of this House is allegiance not so much to the individual in the Chair as to the stored wisdom, the procedure, customs and courtesies of which he is the guardian and the exponent. Here is the place where men and women may differ freely, may attack each other politically and fiercely, yet respect each other personally, engage in honourable combat, each believing sincerely in the opinions that he holds but also in the right of the other man to hold diametrically opposite views. For this, Servicemen died across the whole world, Members of Parliament among them. For this the disabled ex-Serviceman gave his health or part of his body. This is a precious House bought at a great price through the ages.
I am for ever grateful to my colleagues for having allowed me to serve it as Speaker, as I am grateful to my constituents for having sent me to Parliament for more than 20 years, and to the Labour Party, which I was proud to belong to until high office made me vacate a lifelong service to one party to serve all
672
parties and democracy itself. For electing me to the Chair and for its tolerant acceptance of my many errors, I thank the House from the bottom of my heart.
The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am expressing the feelings of Members on both sides of the House when I say how sad we are to learn of your decision to retire from the Chair. At the same time, the whole House recognises the burden which Mr. Speaker carries, and understands and sympathises with your feeling that after five very arduous years the time has come for you to give up your responsible and onerous office.
Mr. Speaker, suitable Motions to mark your retirement will be moved in the House at a later date. But I would not wish to let this occasion pass without referring briefly to some of the many qualities which you have brought to the Chair. Mr. Speaker should above all be impartial, and be seen to be impartial. None of us, whether in Government or in Opposition, have ever had occasion to doubt this for a moment while you were in the Chair.
Mr. Speaker is the chief custodian of the traditions of the House; you have never hesitated to remind Members of the responsibility which we all share for the dignity and good reputation of the House. Mr. Speaker where possible should preside over the House with charm and good humour. The pages of HANSARD provide ample evidence of your wit and delicate touch, and you have added to this today.
To these traditional qualities, you have added at least one new dimension. Through your extensive travels abroad and generous hospitality at home, you have greatly strengthened the links of this House with Commonwealth and overseas Parliaments. It is indeed appropriate that one of your last acts as Speaker will be to attend the Commonwealth Speakers' Conference in Delhi at the end of this month.
The whole House will be sorry to lose a Speaker who has been unfailingly courteous and helpful to us all—to senior Members, to those elected for the first time, to the officials of the House and to visitors from home and overseas. At the same time, it is good to know that you will now have more leisure to devote

673
to your many outside activities, to music, to writing, to travelling and to the interests of children, particularly, of course, to handicapped children. We are very sorry indeed to see you go; and you take with you the high regard and warm affection of the House.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the whole House will understand the emotion you must have felt as you addressed the remarks you have just made to the House. It seems only a few weeks ago that the right hon. Gentleman the now Prime Minister and I, the Father of the House, the Leader of the Liberal Party and others were paying tribute to your qualities as Speaker on the occasion of your third election to the House.
As the Prime Minister has said, this is not the moment for us to express in full measure the debt of gratitude owed by the House to you personally for the period of more than five years when you have presided over our proceedings. There will be another occasion. But it is within the knowledge of all of us that you have presided over the work of this Parliament in three successive Parliaments, all very different for a number of reasons. The first when the parliamentary majority was perpetually on a knife edge, the second where one part had a substantial majority, and now the third Parliament when the other party has a substantial majority.
That being so, it must mean that two intakes of new Members of Parliament—two vintage intakes from my observance of them—have known no other Speaker. To them in future—and I know that this is true of those of us who came into the House in 1945 or 1950 or at any other point—it is always the first Speaker of the House of Commons one has known, just as it is the first headmaster of one's school, whom one regards as the quintessential occupant of the Chair. So that by and large for a very large number of Members of Parliament, with a great future and many years ahead of them in this House, you will be particularly remembered by them.
You have also been Speaker at a time when there have been substantial changes in our parliamentary procedures. You have eased those changes and made them workable as a result of your tolerance and your determination to see that pro-
674
cedures which were a little difficult to assimilate were understood by the whole House over this period. It would not be appropriate to repeat everything that the right hon. Gentleman and I and others said when you were elected Speaker for the third time. As we have been reminded, there will be another occasion. But all of us have felt that during your period of office you have brought to the conduct of the Chair not only the traditional qualities which we knew you had or you would never have been elected in the first place, of fairness, of tolerance and those well-known and off-repeated virtues of selective blindness, deafness and the rest which we know you have applied in good measure; but also because you have extended the function of the Speaker beyond our shores in your visits overseas and by the leadership you have given to many other countries where parliamentary democracy is still far from fully developed.
I conclude by expressing our thanks—and I know that I speak for hon. Members in all parts of the House—not only to you for your conduct of our proceedings during these years, but also to Mrs. King who during these last years has been of inestimable value to you, to all Members of the House, and not least, to the visiting delegations and to other guests of Mr. Speaker in your residence.
I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in expressing our best wishes to you in your retirement from the conduct of the Chair, and especially in his remarks that you will now have rather more time than you have had to indulge your recognised taste for music, the service you have always given, not least through music, to children and others at Christmas and at other times, and also your great knowledge and power of expression in literature. The good wishes of all of us will go to you as you vacate the Chair, as today we learn with regret is your irrevocable intention.
Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, the House will have heard with regret but with understanding the decision you have taken. It is hardly necessary to say that you occupy a great position which stretches back to the 14th century. You are, I believe, the 142nd occupant of the Chair. Before the office of Speaker your predecessors were known as Procurators,

675
and Peter de Montfort in the 13th century presided over what was known as the Mad Parliament which sat at Oxford. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing has changed."] We hope that you will not only turn to literature but that you will subsequently publish your memoirs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—since this is the corollary of anybody who holds high office in this country. We shall wait with some apprehension to see what description you give to this and other Parliaments over which you have presided.
If the office of Speaker has not carried the dangers which attached to the position in the past, it certainly carries with it the strains and burdens which must make a great physical demand on the occupant of the Chair. You have not had to face the dangers. The worst that can be said is that you have been smoked out of the Chair, but you have shown tolerance, good nature and wisdom. I think it was Lord John Russell who said of Mr. Speaker Shaw-Lefevre that when there was not a precedent he made one but was always careful to add at the end the phrase that his Ruling was given according to the well-known practices of the House.
You have jealously safeguarded the rights of every Member of the House, whether on the Government side, the Opposition or on the minority benches. The hospitality which you and Mrs. King have afforded to many Members of the House and, indeed, to members from visiting Houses of Parliament has made us feel that you are not a remote person but someone to whom hon. Members can go for advice. Your trips abroad have also been mentioned and have played a great part in spreading the message of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, I am sure that it is the wish of the House that we should wish you long life and happiness and that you should take with you the gratitude of us all.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Mr. Speaker, as a back-bencher I would not in any way seek to usurp the opportunity which the Leader of the House would normally have to pay to you the tribute of us all, but the announcement which you have
676
made today came so suddenly that not all of us were prepared for this sad occasion.
May I pay my personal tribute to you, not least because in the last three Parliaments I have had the great privilege of serving on your panel of Temporary Chairmen. I shall never forget your kindness to me while I was engaged on those duties. The team spirit which you inspired into us was a matter which all who experienced it will never forget.
I was particularly grateful to you when, for a fairly short period—luckily from my point of view and that of the House—I was an additional Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means when Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster was ill. I shall always be grateful for your kindness in seeing me through those weeks.
I should particularly like to place on record my enormous appreciation of what you have done for the benefit of the Commonwealth as well as for this House. It has been a most wonderful experience to meet Speakers from other Commonwealth countries when you have been entertaining them in Mr. Speaker's house. To hear you speak to them, to hear your brilliant remarks, making all of us love Parliament even more, are matters to be highly cherished.
It has been a privilege to serve under you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for what you have done.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. I wished to raise a point of order concerning the Prime Minister, but was overtaken by these events. Therefore, I apologise for the delayed action, as it were.
Referring to my Question No. 10 to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would like to see the speech to which I was referring made by one of his Ministers making a major statement on policy on behalf of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman then said that my supplementary question had nothing to do with a reduction in the number of Ministers in that particular Department.
I was advised, before putting down that Question, that that was the only way that this matter could be raised because of

677
the Prime Minister's intervention. If the Prime Minister's remarks are allowed to stand, there is no conceivable way by which back benchers can question the motives or accuracy of statements made by Ministers on behalf of the Government if those statements are made outside the House.
I understand that it is the tradition and privilege of back benchers to put questions to the Prime Minister about major statements on policy made by Ministers. If the only way that we are allowed to do it is by putting down a Question not referring to the speech made by date, nor to the Minister, but only by asking for a reduction in the number of Ministers concerned, it is outrageous and an utter disgrace. If this House allows the Prime Minister to get away with this business of deferring Questions in this way, transferring them, not allowing them, and so on, it is a denial of democracy. Therefore, I should be obliged for a Ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, about the whole business of the Prime Minister answering questions.
Mr. Speaker: The Ruling is quite simple, and I have given it before. The Prime Minister may be asked questions about statements made by senior Ministers—Ministers of Cabinet rank—but Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have the right to answer questions in any way that they wish. This is a point of argument between the Prime Minister and the lion. Gentleman. It is not a point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill, which will be concluded on Tuesday, 15th December.
At the end on Monday:
Remaining stages of the Air Corporations Bill, the Motion on the West Midlands (Amendment) Order and consideration of a Lords Amendment which it is expected will be received to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
678
At the end on Tuesday:
Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill and of the Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH DECEMBER—SeCOrid Reading of the Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill.
Motions on the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order and on the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Motions on the Farm Amalgamation and Farm Structure Schemes.
The House has agreed to adjourn on Friday, 18th December until Tuesday. 12th January, 1971.
Mr. Harold Wilson: First, on today's arrangements, which can profoundly affect the arrangements for next week. Following the initiative of Mr. Victor Feather this morning with the unions concerned in the electricity dispute, I understand that he has already called upon the Secretary of State for Employment and that the right hon. Gentleman is to meet the unions concerned at, I think, 4.30 this afternoon. The House is expecting a statement from the right hon. Gentleman. This was volunteered last night. If I am right about the difficulties in the timetable, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for us to have the statement by his right hon. Friend immediately after the Business Statement has been dealt with rather than wait, as I think would normally be the situation, until we have had the statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy, who, I think, on grounds of practice, precedence, protocol, and the rest, would speak first? If we can be assured that the Secretary of State for Employment will be able to speak at the scheduled time, that is all right. If not, it will be most unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman has to intervene in the debate later in the day. So will the Leader of the House accord such flexibility as he can between Ministerial statements to make sure that we may hear from the Secretary of State?
If the right hon. Gentleman has to report what I think he has to report, on what I have heard, the Leader of the House can be assured that we shall not want to

679
press the notice, which I mentioned last night, for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 if all the activities following Mr. Feather's intervention are going as I understand them to be.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on arms for South Africa, we on this side, since the time when that matter was debated in July, have shown considerable forbearance in not pressing it unduly on the Prime Minister and on the Foreign Secretary, because we are more concerned with getting the right result—namely, no shipments—than making the obvious points which can be made in debate. We would prefer this matter to be deferred if we are to get the right answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no decision taken and no statement made in the next recess—we had that promise for the last recess—but only when the House is sitting? This would mean that if the Prime Minister intends to announce a decision, which we hope will be the right decision, at the Singapore Commonwealth Conference, the House will be sitting and it can then be explained to us. But if there is to be any statement when the House is not sitting, may we have an assurance that a statement will be made next week on the Government's decision?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that I am grateful to him for putting that proposition to the House, because it enables me to respond in the affirmative. Provided that it is acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, when the Business is completed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will answer the next question.
On the second point, I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. The assurances have been given. Concerning a decision being announced and a statement made to this House, those assurances stand.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On the last point, do I understand that there will, therefore, be no decision announced during the recess? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the assurance given for the last recess applies for the next recess. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it will be after the
680
House comes back or whether we shall have a statement next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I gave the positive assurance for which I was asked, that when any decision is announced, a statement will be made to this House. I stand by that assurance.
Mr. George Thomas: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday in the Welsh Grand Committee the Government sustained an overwhelming defeat—[Interruption.] It is not unimportant in Wales.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's social and economic policy for Wales was completely rejected by a vote of 25 to 10 in the Welsh Grand Committee? Will he therefore ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he cares to make a statement next week on Government policy in Wales; and, further, whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, whose policy was rejected, is considering his position.
Mr. Whitelaw: These are essentially matters for the Welsh Grand Committee.
Mr. George Thomas: Oh, no!
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I am wise to say that. It has always seemed to me exceptionally unwise that a Scotsman who represents an English constituency should pronounce on Welsh matters.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard that an important statement lies ahead. There is a time limit. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will restrain their Business questions.
Mr. Bagier: Would the right hon. Gentleman invite the Prime Minister or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week about an apparent change of attitude in the practice of meeting back benchers? Is he aware that the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend have refused to meet a deputation of Labour hon. Members representing Northern constituencies—a group of 29 Northern hon. Members—unless that group includes Conservative back benchers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

681
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to state clearly whether this is a change of procedure which goes against the basic principles of this House and against past practice?
Mr. Whitelaw: As far as I know, there has certainly been no change of principle or past practice. I understand that it was suggested that the matters concerned might well be discussed by an all-party group. It was suggested that that might be a good idea.
Mr. Ross: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House about his decisions in respect of the Hunterston inquiry? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to him our desire that he should tell us about it rather than that we should read about it in the Press?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I am right in saying that it is not the practice of Ministers to announce planning decisions of this kind to the House. It is perfectly true that it is a very complicated report and a considerable decision. My right hon. Friend has placed copies of the document in the Library, and, naturally, hon. Members will be able to pursue him with Questions later. In the meantime, I believe that he is acting entirely in accordance with precedent in not, on very detailed and complicated matters, making a statement to the House.
Mr. Peart: Returning to the question of the delegation comprised of Northern hon. Members to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) referred, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter sympathetically? I am sure that he will agree that one must not be rigid about this sort of thing. It is right that groups of this kind should be seen by Ministers, and I always made a point of meeting Conservative hon. Members when I was a Minister. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will examine this matter carefully.
Mr. Whitelaw: In response to the right hon. Gentleman, I will, of course, look into the matter and investigate all the circumstances of the various cases. I would only add that I am personally perfectly ready to see hon. Members either together or individually. The only trouble
682
is that I have so many to see but never enough hours in the day in which to fit them all in quickly.
Mr. Edward Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principle goes a little further than merely suggesting that it would be a good idea for there to be an all-party meeting? In fact, the Secretary of State for the Environment has written a letter in which he refuses to meet this northern group of Labour hon. Members unless they are accompanied by Conservative hon. Members. [Interruption.] Is not this a break with long-standing practice?
Mr. Whitelaw: I would, before saying any more, like to look into the point which the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Mr. Rankin: Reverting to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I understand from the Press that the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to make an initial statement in Glasgow. That may be regarded as a compliment to Glasgow, it being the chief industrial centre of Scotland, but will it prevent the right hon. Gentleman from making a statement in the House at the appropriate time?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I would be wise to stick to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and say that it has normally been the practice that planning decisions of a complicated and detailed nature should not be announced in statements to the House. It would be a pity to change that practice.
Mr. Palmer: Returning to the question of Ministers seeing back benchers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it has not always been understood that in this matter, Ministers are deputies for the Crown? Do they not have an absolute obligation to meet hon. Members at any time that is mutually convenient?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly look into the various questions that have been raised on this issue. I have no reason to suppose that there has been any possible change in practice. Ministers of this Government are extremely anxious to meet hon. Members when they are requested to do so.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
4.5 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Before coming to the issues which are the concern of my Department, I should first like to assure the House, in view of what was said yesterday from all sides, that I have this morning confirmed with the Chairman of the Electricity Council that everything which is humanly possible is being done to ensure that advance warning of cuts is given to hospitals and other consumers for whom interruptions of electricity supply produce immediate and critical difficulties. Sir Norman Elliott also informed me that electricity boards are doing everything in their power to warn consumers generally of impending cuts.
The House will recall from my statement yesterday that there are at present two disputes in the electricity supply industry; one affecting industrial workers, which has already resulted in the present work to rule, and the other affecting supervisory and technical staffs, who are threatening to work to rule from Monday next.
As regards the latter, I reported yesterday that I had seen representatives of the Electrical Power Engineers Association and asked them to reconsider their decision to work to rule and the possibility of returning to negotiations. I can now report that following that meeting there have been discussions between the Electricity Council and the Association, and that this possibility is being further explored between them in discussions this afternoon. The House will, I know, join me in hoping that there will be a successful outcome.
In my discussions this morning with Sir Norman Elliott, to which I have referred, I also reviewed with him the situation in relation to both disputes. Following this, I decided to invite the unions representing industrial staff to meet me this afternoon, and I am glad to say that they have accepted this invitation, and I am meeting them as soon as I can leave the House following this statement. At the same time, I have invited the Electricity Council to have a further meeting with me later this evening, following my talks with the unions.
684
Subsequently Mr. Victor Feather got in touch with me and said that he would like to come and see me and report on the meeting he had had this morning with the unions representing the industrial workers. I have seen Mr. Feather this afternoon, and he reported to me that the four unions concerned had indicated that they would be willing to consider suspending industrial action if negotiations could be resumed and the possibility was not ruled out in principle of improving the current offer.
Mr. Feather then said that he wished to communicate this to the Electricity Council, and I said that I would be happy for him to do so, while stressing, of course, that I could not in any way anticipate what the reaction of the Electricity Council might be.
I ask the House, in view of the important meetings I am about to have, not to press me further this afternoon.
Mrs. Castle: Does not that statement confirm how unwise and ungenerous—
[interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must discuss this matter quietly.
Mrs. Castle:—how unwise and ungenerous hon. Gentlemen opposite were earlier this afternoon in jeering, as they indeed jeered, at the value of T.U.C. intervention in industrial disputes—intervention which, in this dispute, has opened up the hope and possibility of a just settlement?
Is it not a fact that following their talks with Mr. Victor Feather this morning the unions concerned have indicated their willingness to resume normal working, if normal-type negotiations can be resumed and if the Government will give an undertaking not to interfere with the outcome of these negotiations? May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, for an assurance that the Government will not interfere with the vital negotiations which are about to be resumed?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the claim of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association traditionally follows that of the manual workers in the industry and that therefore if a just settlement can be obtained for the manual workers we shall avoid any repetition of the disruption which might otherwise take place?
Mr. Carr: "Normal negotiations" are difficult to define. Normal negotiations, according to the procedure agreed in the industry, mean that when negotiations have broken down there should be recourse to arbitration. That was the point that I was investigating yesterday. I regretted, and still regret, that the normal course of negotiations has not been followed, certainly through no fault of either the Electricity Council or of the Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, in his usual sitting posture, talks about last weekend's speeches. I remind him that the decision of the unions was taken three days before the speech to which he refers. I hope that the House will not press me to comment further on the merits of the case now. I saw the unions yesterday, and I saw the employers this morning. I am seeing again this afternoon the unions representing the industrial workers, and I am then seeing again the employers. I believe that that is the right course to take, and that it would be wrong for me to say more at present.
Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, much as we welcome the progress which has been made and much as we wish him good fortune in the future discussions today, many hon. Members on this side believe that the interests of the economy and social justice demand that the settlement should not be inflationary?
Mr. Carr: The Government have made that repeatedly clear, and I certainly do so again.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will wish not to provoke discussion too far this afternoon, at a time when, following the initiative of Mr. Feather which was announced yesterday afternoon, there is a real hope that we can get not arbitration, not an industrial court, which both sides discussed yesterday, but a resumption of normal working under certain conditions? The right hon. Gentleman is right, I think, to stress that we should not press him further on that matter.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that those of us who have been trying to get a resumption of normal working—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not a matter for joking by hon. Mem-
686
bers opposite. Those of us who have been concerned with this have had it made absolutely clear to us that trade union leaders who are anxious to get a resumption of normal working on reasonable conditions have found their task made immeasurably more difficult by last weekend's speeches—hon. Members may have heard this stated with authority at lunch time today—including particularly the question of blackmail. It may have been that the unions did not go for arbitration three days before the speeches. It is equally the case that the employers did not go for arbitration, which they had every right to do under the agreement, before those speeches. They did not decide to go to arbitration. Those in the union movement who have been trying this week for a resumption have found that the reference to blackmail made it much more difficult, and the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw it on behalf of his right hon. Friend.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put by my right hon. Friend? Is it not a fact that in the decision of the unions today, communicated to the right hon. Gentleman by Mr. Feather, one of the conditions for resuming normal working immediately, with all that that means for eliminating hardship, is that the Government should give an assurance that they will allow the negotiations by the Electricity Council, the Boards and others to be unfettered, and that there will be no more pressure by the Government telling them what figure they can offer?
Mr. Carr: I have made it clear before, but I am delighted to make it clear again, that the Council is not under instructions from the Government, that what the Government have said about negotiations has been said strongly and openly and has put less detailed pressure and confines on nationalised industry negotiators than the confines placed on them by the right hon. Gentleman when he was in power. I repeat that they are not under instructions, nor will they be.
As to arbitration, we should make the facts clear. I should have preferred not to go into the detail, but the right hon. Gentleman has pressed this point and therefore I think that the House should have the full facts about arbitration. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said

687
that the employers had not been prepared to go forward to arbitration.
Mr. Harold Wilson Mr. Harold Wilson indicated dissent.
Mr. Carr: If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he would repeat his question on that point.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman last night. I said that some of us were confused about it and asked him to state the position. I asked whether it was not a fact that under the agreement the employers could go to arbitration on their own. I was not clear about that from what the right hon. Gentleman said last night. What I said today was—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite had better leave the right hon. Gentleman to get on with this. They are in a big enough mess already with their shouting. What I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman, in response to his request, is what I put to him last night and again today. I understand that the employers did not demand or go for the arbitration which they can do on their own. I asked the right hon. Gentleman about this last night. Will he now give us the facts?
Mr. Carr: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House the full, detailed facts, because I confirmed them this morning with Mr. Roberts of the Electricity Council, who is its negotiator in these matters. I was told that these were the facts: that the Electricity Council made clear in the Joint Council that it wished to follow its procedure and to resort to arbitration. There was then a break in the Joint Council's sittings and therefore the motion was not formally moved. When the Joint Council reassembled, the union members did not return in sufficient number for there to be a quorum, I understand. I may have slightly misled the House last night, and I apologise if I did. The position is not that either side can demand arbitration, but that if it is moved in the Council and a majority is in favour, which normally means if one side votes for it, then if there is a proper, formal meeting of the Council in which that is moved by either side, and if there is a majority of the Council—
Hon. Members: On either side.
Mr. Carr: But there must be a properly constituted meeting of the Council. If those conditions are met, then the arbitration goes forward against the will of the minority and the results are binding. But for that to happen there must be a proper meeting of the Council, and, as I have said, the members did not come back. We know about these things in the House. Therefore, there was not a properly constituted meeting of the Council in which the employers could formally move that motion.
An Hon. Member: What about blackmail?
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Whilst I do not want to press my right hon. Friend, will he bear in mind that although this go-slow, which has been on for only a few days, is still thoroughly unpopular with the general public. I had a letter this morning—[Interruption.] Any hon. Member can see it—from someone who is affected by the go-slow as a sick person but is prepared to continue to be affected and put up with it in the hope that the Government, or the Electricity Council, will not give in to what might be a thoroughly inflationary settlement.
Mr. Carr: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I note from the expressions of opinion from many members of the public that the views he has expressed are widely and commonly held. I can only repeat that the Government have made abundantly clear their position about the need to reduce the inflationary level of settlements, and that stands.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night I gave notice that we might, following the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, want to move the Adjournment of the House in order to debate this matter. However, in view of the activities which have followed this morning's initiatives and meetings, it would be inappropriate for us to do so. Indeed, I think that it would be inappropriate to press the right hon. Gentleman further since he is due in a few minutes' time to meet the trade unions on the manual side of the industry.
Can we have an assurance that there will be a statement tomorrow morning on the progress made this evening and overnight? It is very important that the House

689
should not go away leaving what could be either a hopeful or a very difficult situation to develop over the weekend. If we can have that assurance, I hope that the House will leave the matter where it is so that the initiatives started this morning can be followed through.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said about a statement tomorrow. Naturally one will be made. I think that the only possible question I should raise is that it might be difficult to make it at a particular point of time in the negotiations, and if that is the case I am sure that the House will understand. But it will be made at 11 o'clock if at all possible.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the progress of the negotiations for British membership of the European Communities made at the Ministerial meeting of the conference which I attended in Brussels on 8th December.
At this meeting agreement was reached that the alternatives listed in the Declaration of Intent made by the Community in 1963 would be open to certain African countries, namely Gambia, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. I remind the House that these alternatives comprise association under the Yaounde Convention; other association agreements with mutual rights and obligations, particularly in matters of trade; or commercial agreements to facilitate and expand trade between the Community and these countries.
The Community said that it could only state its position with regard to other Commonwealth developing countries in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, and the Caribbean, for which we proposed that the same options be available, in the light of discussions taking place with
690
respect to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
The conference also discussed further the basis of Gibraltar's customs arrangements with the Community following the agreement already reached—and reported to the House on the 29th October—that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome would apply to Gibraltar under Article 227 (4). It has been accepted that as Gibraltar is not a part of the United Kingdom's customs territory there would be no reason to include Gibraltar in the customs territory of the enlarged Community.
I again expressed the hope that the Community would shortly be able to make known its views on the arrangements to be made for Hong Kong.
The principles of the United Kingdom admission to the European Investment Bank were agreed.
In the course of a statement I made dealing with the question of transitional measures, I proposed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government a transitional period of five years for adaptation in both the industrial and agricultural fields and for adaptation to the Community's rules regarding capital movements and fiscal harmonisation. I stressed that, in putting this proposal forward, we thought it essential that, within the common period of five years in the four fields, effective provision should be made for arriving at a mutual balance of advantage between the United Kingdom and the existing Community.
In the industrial field, we thought this could be done if we could provide for a suitable accelerated rhythm for tariff rates and adaptations. For agriculture and horticulture, we should require that the adaptations be made with reasonable flexibility over five full years.
I said that the five-year period should not, in our view, apply in the cases of Community finance, New Zealand butter and cheese and sugar from developing Commonwealth countries, nor to the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom.
The Community noted our proposals upon industry and agriculture with satisfaction and said that they would examine our suggestions on capital movements and fiscal harmonisation in a positive

691
spirit. Deputies were instructed to pursue the discussion of all these questions in preparation for the next Ministerial meeting.
The Community said that it would establish its position on all of these questions within a global framework. This is naturally our own position. The agreements reached hitherto must all be regarded as provisional pending the outcome of the negotiations as a whole.
At the meeting I also outlined certain considerations which we believe the Community should take into account in dealing with the question of the British contribution to Community finance. I pointed out that the United Kingdom would be likely to enjoy only relatively small receipts as a result of Community expenditure in its present form. I recalled also that the existing members of the Community had had an extended transitional period in which to move to the agreed Community system of financing, and that correctives had been provided for governing member countries' contributions during a period of years after the final stage of Community direct income had been started. I noted that the Commission had stated in its observations on our estimates of the effect of Community financing upon the United Kingdom that, should unacceptable situations arise within the present Community or an enlarged Community, the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find equitable solutions.
I said that we would be making detailed proposals in this field as soon as possible.
Finally it was agreed that Ministerial meetings should take place next year on 2nd February, 16th March, 11th May and 22nd June, and that the timetable of meetings could be speeded up if necessary.
Mr. Harold Lever: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House will be disappointed at having so little information about the crucial question of the financial contributions, particularly having regard to the fact that the Commissioners reported and enlarged upon this subject some three weeks ago? When does he expect to be able to give the House this most crucial information?
692
Is the right hon. and Learned Gentleman also aware that any of our comments or questioning, approving or otherwise, is without prejudice to our right to judge the package as a whole if and when it emerges? With that proviso, will he tell us if he has been able to secure any special treatment for horticulture and hill farms within the agricultural context? Did he consult the N.F.U. before accepting the five-year period? Does that meet with its approval?
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the stand he is taking on behalf of the Commonwealth sugar producers and New Zealand. Will he make the other negotiating parties aware of what is not immediately obvious as a point of the highest importance from the political standpoint for historical and other reasons, but which is regarded in this country as a matter of the utmost importance—the protection of New Zealand and Commonwealth sugar interests?
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I can give him the assurance he asks for in the final question he asked. I do not think that there is any need for dispute on the subject in our proposals in regard to Community finance. As I said, I will be making these as soon as possible. The Community understands the position. Its document was an important one but technically it has not yet been delivered to us. In the last statement I made to the House, I requested the Community to reserve its position until it had heard our detailed case. This is a crucial matter and I am sure that we shall approach it in that light.
I referred specifically to horticulture in my statement. I have been very much concerned about it, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We are concerned that there should be full flexibility within the full five years for which I have asked. Of course, particular regard must be paid to horticulture. We have also reserved from the beginning the position of the hill farmers—and I have a personal interest in this. We will be going into that in detail in relation to Community finance and fiscal measures. There is also the question of the contribution we receive from Community funds in relation to matters of that kind. My right hon. Friend has been in close touch with the National

693
Fanners' Union throughout these negotiations.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the extremely wise and constructive statement he made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on Tuesday. But in his contacts with member Governments and the Commission in weeks ahead, would he remind them that we are all engaged in an enterprise of common interest to all the countries of Western Europe and that perhaps a more forthcoming attitude on their part than they seem able to have adopted to date would not come amiss?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate what ray hon. Friend has said. This is certainly the spirit in which the United Kingdom Government have entered the negotiations. I am bound to say that I have so far found the Community doing reasonably well in the circumstances.
Mr. Peart: The Chancellor of the Duchy has said that the Community noted our proposals for agriculture with satisfaction. In view of the fact that he is reported as saying in Brussels on Tuesday that the Community's farmers would gain extensive new markets, I ask him whether they give any indication at whose expense—our home producers or our traditional suppliers?
Mr. Rippon: There will be a change in agricultural trade, and everybody understands that. The significance of the phrase "the Community noted our proposals with satisfaction" is that they were entirely new proposals. It would not have been wholly unreasonable for the Community Ministers to ask for time to consider them. In fact, they have technically reserved their position. But insofar as they have publicly declared that they received them with satisfaction, that is a useful step forward.
They have also agreed that deputations should at once start considering how we move up the transitional period, because this matter is of great importance to us.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: My right hon. and learned Friend said in his statement that there is to be a five-year transitional period for agriculture. As under the terms of the E.E.C. policy fishing is covered by the common agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, can he,
694
firstly, say whether the five-year period for agriculture will cover fishing? Secondly, would he bear in mind that it was a Conservative Government which imposed the 12-mile limit, which was of immense value to our inshore fishermen, and that our inshore fishermen are confident in the hope that the 12-mile limit will be retained; otherwise they will be up the spout?
Mr. Rippon: The details of what happens within the transitional period are a matter for further negotiation. As far as the fisheries are concerned, as I have told the House on several occasions, we have entirely reserved our position on that matter.
Mr. John Mendelson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept, given the fact that the mandate to negotiate was given in the last Parliament and when the House last debated the matter there were wide differences of opinion as to the financial contribution, the transitional period, and all the matters he has now reported upon, that in view of the fact that the Werner Committee's proposals are more far-reaching than anything which is subject to current and immediate negotiations, there is now an urgent need for debate? I deliberately put this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a political question, and not to the Leader of the House. There is an urgent need for debate so that this Parliament, for the first time, should be able to represent the views of constituents and give their own opinions at a stage when there is a great deal of information available for judgment and not to wait until the very end, when the only thing one can say is "yes" or "no", without any intermediate judgments.
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that there must be a debate at the appropriate time and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have taken note of that. In conducting the negotiations, we have all along been proceeding on the basis initiated by the previous Administration.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his personal success in Brussels. Is he aware that his flexible approach to the Community, making reasonable concessions and at the same time seeking to safeguard essential British interests, will commend

695
itself to everyone in the House who wants a strong and united Europe?
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is important in these negotiations that we bear in mind that we are having discussions and there has not been much question of concessions as such on either side. We have deliberated on these matters and we are trying to reach solutions which preserve the mutual advantage of existing members of the Community and new applicants.
Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear whether he has now accepted not merely the whole of the Rome Treaty but the whole of the common agricultural policy, the Commission's proposals for the transitional period, but, in addition, has abandoned the claim for a maximum limit on Britain's financial contribution to the Community funds?
Mr. Rippon: None of those questions raises any new issues. We have proceeded on entirely the same basis as the previous Government, which implied accepting the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the general arrangements which the Community has made. We have abandoned nothing of our negotiating position.
Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend now answer the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart)? If there is more scope for agriculture among the E.E.C. countries in this country, at whose expense is it? Is it at the expense of our farmers or our friends in the Commonwealth?
Mr. Rippon: I think the position of third-country suppliers will be affected over a long period, but one of the results as far as our own farming community is concerned of successful negotiations would be that British home food production would tend to increase.
Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Commission had emphasised that should unacceptable circumstances arise within the present or an enlarged Community its survival would demand equitable solutions. Is it not worth re-emphasising that the Government are not prepared to surrender sovereignty but rather to devise
696
ways by which sovereignty can be productively shared to the benefit of all participants?
Mr. Rippon: That is correct.
Mr. Marten: Why does my right hon. and learned Friend not clearly answer the question from the right hon. Gentleman? When he says that five years was not enough for New Zealand and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, what period does he think is enough? He must have some idea. Can he tell the House what it is. Also, what are the safeguards he is asking for to ensure that we do not have an intolerable strain on our balance of payments even after eight years?
Mr. Rippon: Regarding New Zealand, we have asked for something in the nature of continuing arrangements subject to review—for nobody's arrangements are absolutely permanent—but we have not specified any period of years. On our contribution to Community finance, perhaps my hon. Friend ought to await the proposals which we shall be putting forward as soon as possible.
Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a passing reference, in a few words, to our relationships with Hong Kong. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear to his opposite numbers in Brussels that we in this country have been at the receiving end for far too long of the cheap imports from Hong Kong, particularly textiles? Two-thirds of our textile industry has been destroyed by unfair competition from Hong Kong and other Eastern countries, and 40 per cent. of our home market is occupied by the exports of that part of the world to this country. Will he make it clear on a suitable occasion when this matter is being ventilated, as it is bound to be, that whilst we have been on the receiving end of these vast imports of cheaply-produced goods, to the destruction of our industry, the Six have been taking only about 5 per cent., against the 45 per cent, absorbed by Britain? When may we have some equity in this matter if we are expected to be partners and not merely slaves?
Mr. Rippon: I regard that as a singularly unhelpful intervention. It shows that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the problems of Hong Kong. What we

697
are concerned with in these negotiations is to protect the people of Hong Kong, who have a volatile political situation with which to contend. We have asked our colleagues in the Community to keep in mind the needs of Hong Kong in regard to the generalised preference scheme and to ensure that there is no discriminsation against Hong Kong vis-à-vis for example, South Korea or Taiwan.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: May I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little further on this fisheries question? Are we to take it that the reason why it has not been included in the five-year period so far is that it has not been discussed? If not, why not?
Mr. Rippon: We have to agree broad terms. The Community has gone as far as it can to indicate the likelihood of agreement on the periods and agrees that we should work on that basis. We then have to determine what happens in the transitional period, and that applies across the board. As for the fishery regulation which rightly worried hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have said that it was introduced at an unfortunate moment. It only applies as of now to the Community itself. We have reserved our position on that, and I am satisfied that we shall have to raise the matter again in some detail.
Mr. Prentice: Apart from New Zealand dairy produce and Commonwealth sugar, is not the right hon. Gentleman negotiating about any other aspect of Commonwealth trade at all? At the end of the five-year period, apart from those Commonwealth countries which become associated with the Community, will other aspects of Commonwealth trade become subject to the common external tariff?
Mr. Rippon: We have been negotiating about the Commonwealth trading position as a whole. As regards the developed Commonwealth countries, with the exception of New Zealand and its special position, adequate arrangements can be made within the transitional periods that we are negotiating. That is a matter of timing. I have indicated already that our dependent territories have been offered association under Part
698
IV, subject to the discussions about Hong Kong. I have indicated the Community's agreement about independent developing countries in Africa. We still have to deal with Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland which, technically have a customs union with South Africa. We also have to deal with the problems of independent developing countries in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific and the Caribbean. The Associated States in the Caribbean have already been offered association under Part IV. In one way or another, we are looking after the interests of all the Commonwealth in detail. We shall also be discussing, as we go along, the position of the Asian members of the Commonwealth.
Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the proposals for monetary union envisaged in the Werner Report, which are always brandished by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) offer this country a very hopeful prospect in that our currency could be bolstered by the strong reserves of the Common Market countries?
Mr. Rippon: Like the other members of an enlarged Community, we would have a great interest in these developments. The position of Her Majesty's Government is that which was expressed by the present Leader of the Opposition in the last Parliament. We are prepared to go as far and as fast in this matter as the rest of the Community. It must be understood that, during the period of the negotiations, nothing is likely to happen which in any way prejudices our national interests in these matters.
Mr. Shore: At the end of this inadequate and truncated transitional period of five years, will companies be free to move funds for investment purposes anywhere within the area of the Six, and will private persons be able to acquire shares on their stock exchanges and buy land and houses in the countries of the Six? If so, has the right hon. Gentleman made any effort to quantify the effects of this on the British balance of payments?
Mr. Rippon: We have asked for a five-year transitional period in respect of capital movements. We have to accept the position as it is and may subsequently

699
develop in the Community. No completely accurate estimate could be made of the likely effect, say, in 1978.
Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing admiration in the country and in this House for the way in which he has handled these negotiations, in a steady and sound fashion—
Mr. Orme: What negotiations?
Mr. Crouch: But, above all, for the way in which he is prepared to look the facts in the face, accepting the truth both where it appears satisfactory and where it appears to hurt. It is this line of approach which is appreciated most in the country.
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It must be understood that with the transitional periods that we are proposing—the five-year period in these four respects—there is no reason to suppose that they do not represent a satisfactory arrangement for us. I am grateful to my colleagues in the Community for indicating that they are likely to look on these proposals with favour.
Mr. Sheldon: In the five-year transitional period for industrial articles, is it expected that there will be a straight line reduction of tariffs of, say, 20 per cent, every year for five years? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the period for the harmonisation of fiscal arrangements also remains at five years?
Mr. Rippon: Given the acceptance of the five-year period for industry, there would be an accelerated reduction of tariffs in the early period. The Commission has proposed the possibility of a 40 per cent, cut in the first year. I think that that would be reasonably satisfactory. As for the five-year period for fiscal harmonisation, I think that that is adequate for any matter that one can foresee arising at the moment.
Mr. McMaster: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, in his discussions in Brussels, he has yet discussed the provisions of the Treaty of Rome which relate to the free movement of labour? If not, when these matters come to be discussed, will he bear in mind the considerable apprehension in Northern
700
Ireland, in view of the rising rate of unemployment in the area, and ask himself whether a five-year period is suitable?
Mr. Rippon: That is certainly a matter that we shall be raising.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that no attempt is being made in the negotiations to bring South Africa into the arrangements for maintaining special Commonwealth preference?
Mr. Rippon: Like all the third country suppliers—Commonwealth countries—South Africa is covered by the transitional arrangements. Therefore, South Africa naturally has an interest in that aspect of the negotiations.
Sir F. Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a further word about the state of the fishing negotiations? Is it the position at the moment that negotiations are going on? If they are completed before we gain entry, since we shall not have been a party to them, is there any possibility of their being reopened? Can my right hon. Friend also say a word about the Channel Islands, which is a matter that I have asked him about before?
Mr. Rippon: We appreciate the special position of the Channel Islands. We have not gone into this in detail, but we shall, and I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern.
On the matter of the fisheries regulation, at an early stage I said to the Community that it might make things difficult if the situation were to change in a serious way while we were negotiating, and we have subsequently agreed that we shall have close regard to the way in which policies which we have to apply independently while negotiations are going on are affecting the outcome. We made our comments on the fisheries regulation, and we preserved our position about that entirely.
Mr. Michael Stewart: In view of the many questions that have been asked about Commonwealth aspects, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there are many hon. Members who want to see this country enter the Community, who understand that this country must accept certain costs and difficulties to set off against the great benefits of

701
entry, but who think that it would be intolerable if we had to enter on terms which were destructive of the welfare of Commonwealth countries to which we are under an immense obligation? Is the Minister satisfied that this is fully understood on the other side of the Channel?
Mr. Rippon: I think that over a period of years the Community has fully understood that when we put the Commonwealth case we are putting it as a matter of honour, duty and obligation to our friends in the Commonwealth, and that we are concerned with their interest and not just with our own narrow, national interests in this regard. If as a result of entering the Community this country is stronger and the enlarged Community is stronger, all will benefit, including the Commonwealth.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Should we not be concerned, not only to shield Commonwealth countries transitionally against the effects of departing from the established principles of Commonwealth preference, but also to retain for Britain and, indeed, for our European partners, the great opportunities that there are in these Commonwealth countries, including the old Commonwealth countries? Is not there a danger that in Australia, where we have a favourable balance of payments trade, Britain and the European countries will lose to the Japanese and Americans? Cannot the Europeans understand this? Can my right hon. and learned Friend not explain this?
Mr. Rippon: I think that they understand it very well. In recent years European trade with the Commonwealth has been increasing quite considerably, and I assume that this will continue. There is no reason why it should be affected by our negotiations. I think that the likelihood of greater Commonwealth trade with Europe will be enhanced as the negotiations are carried to success.
Dr. Gilbert: Reverting to the matter of the free employment of labour, is the Minister proposing to have discussions with the Six about modifying the present provisions of the Treaty of Rome in this respect, or is he prepared to accept them as they stand in toto? If the latter is the case, would not the result of the proposals which we expect from his right hon. Friends be that whereas citizens of
702
the Six will be able to come and go in this country without let or hindrance, all Commonwealth citizens will be treated as aliens?
Mr. Rippon: As I have said, we are to have discussions about the effect of this provision, and I shall be reporting to the House on that aspect of the matter. I do not foresee any insuperable obstacles in this regard.
Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that there will be widespread disappointment in the horticulture industry over the way in which he has retreated to a five-year transitional period, and that this period is inadequate for this important industry? will he also recognise that the transitional arrangements for both agriculture and the Commonwealth do not satisfy the pledges that have been given over and over again about obtaining full safeguards before we would countenance entry into the Common Market?
Mr. Rippon: I do not accept that. What we put forward as an opening bid, indicating what we thought was a reasonable period of adjustment, was three years for industry, six years for agriculture, and one year for Euratom and for coal and steel. The Community replied, "You want to get all the industrial benefits before you come in fully on the agricultural side." We foresaw that that point of view might be expressed. The suggestion which I put forward for five years and five years is designed to protect the position of agriculture and horticulture, and we feel that it is an adequate period. It is a period which, all being well, and assuming the success of the negotiations, will run from 1st January, 1973, to 1978. Any problems of substance that are likely to be thrown up within certain spheres of agriculture or horticulture will have been met and dealt with in that period.
Mr. McBride: I put it to the Minister that the real reason for the delay in telling us of Britain's financial contribution to the E.E.C. is that, as chief negotiator, he has failed to secure a ceiling for future British financial contributions to the Community budget knowing, as does the country, how seriously detrimental these will be to our balance of payments position.
Mr. Rippon: One cannot talk about failure to secure something when one has not even made a proposal. As I told the

703
House, we intend to make proposals as soon as possible on what I regard as a crucial aspect of these negotiations.
Mr. Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been talking about the question of negotiations. Does he agree that he accepted a one-year period for coal and steel—
Mr. Rippon: No.
Mr. Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman informed the House that one year had been accepted. Will he tell us how this magical figure of one year arose? Was it negotiation, or was it capitulation? Does he agree that there is talk of tampering with the structure of the steel industry in this country in order to facilitate our entry into the E.E.C.?
Mr. Rippon: I must put the record straight. That was our proposal, but it has not been accepted. We put it forward for negotiation on the basis that, on the best advice that we had received, one year was sufficient for us to adapt to the rules of the Coal and Steel Community, and Euratom.
Mr. Skeet: As the Community has been dumping agricultural surpluses on world markets, and this is its own surplus, does it understand my right hon. Friend's point when he says that New Zealand must be treated as a special case, or is the Community speaking with a dual voice?
Mr. Rippon: I cannot follow exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. We know that there are problems in certain surpluses. The chances are that in the Community for a period of years up to 1978 some things will go out of surplus and new things will go into it. We have been concerned to express the definite dependence of New Zealand on its exports of dairy products, butter and cheese, and we have put forward proposals accordingly. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks about lamb. My right hon. Friend who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his initial statement, as did Lord George-Brown, as he now is, in 1967, emphasised the importance of New Zealand's lamb exports. Provided that there is no sheep meat regulation which might change the position, in which case we would have to reopen the matter, and as things stand we see no difficulty about New Zealand's exports of meat.
Mr. Barnes: On the important question of equitable solutions being found unacceptable if certain situations develop for any member country, is it not the case that this has been very much the pattern in the Community so far? Is the Minister satisfied that the Community appreciates the importance to Britain of this being reaffirmed in the heads of agreement when they are reached?
Mr. Rippon: I think that the Community understands our point of view. It says that we should not be too worried because all the history of the Community shows that it moves cautiously and pragmatically, that it has always had regard to what any member may regard as a vital interest, and it has acted accordingly.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether, in view of his remarkably rapid success in reaching agreement in principle on transitional periods for agriculture and industry, he has real hopes of accelerated progress in negotiations on other important matters? In particular, can he assure those who look forward to getting the benefits of entry at the first possible opportunity that we may expect some agreement on the vital matter of the financial contribution by the summer of next year?
Mr. Rippon: I certainly hope that that will be the timetable, because in these matters uncertainty is helpful neither to existing members nor to new applicants. I cannot precisely forecast the timetable. We still have some difficult issues to resolve. As I said in my statement, we have fixed meetings for next year up to June, but we have also agreed that we can speed up the meetings if we have accelerated progress. I suggested that we might need extra days in June and in April, but the Chairman of the Community suggested that we might need an extra day in March if things are progressing rapidly. I hope that that will be so.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to the point of the extremely persuasive part of the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), does the Minister recognise that the problem of our trading relations with the poorer Commonwealth countries is the most sensitive of all problems in

705
these negotiations? Is he aware that many of us regard the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement as a matter of honour for us which is non-negotiable in Brussels?
Mr. Rippon: We have explained to the Community that we are absolutely bound by the terms of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement as it now stands. It is due for renegotiation at a certain point. Our concern is that the enlarged Community should have good trading relations with all the developing countries of the world, including Commonwealth countries. We are desperately concerned about trade with the small developing Commonwealth countries and the need to protect it, and the best way that we can protect it is to ensure that we are strong enough, within the enlarged Community, to be able to buy what they have to sell.
Mr. John E. B. Hill: Since the enlarged Community will have a decisive influence upon the pattern of world trade, is it not the case that the Community recognises that the very difficult problems of New Zealand and the Commonwealth Sugar producers—about which we feel so strongly—are as much their problems as ours?
Mr. Rippon: I am happy to say that I believe that to be true. It is very much in line with the speech made by Mr. Mansholt in July of this year. I believe that the enlarged Community would pursue liberal and outward-looking trading policies, especially in relation to developing countries.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept my view that he is doing very well? Will he further realise that for every rumble of the economic Luddites who resent any attempt to put national sovereignty in its right place there are at least three in this House and in the country who believe that national sovereignty is an anachronism, and the sooner it is removed to its reluctant death the better?
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for what he had to say in the first part of his question. We must get national sovereignty in the modern world into its right perspective. I agree that in joining an enlarged Community—as would be the case with any
706
other alliance—we enhance our own sovereignty by pooling with that of others. The French have certainly not lost so much sovereignty as to give them any great cause to be concerned.
Mr. Adley: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the suggestion that all our agricultural produce comes either from the Commonwealth or from the home market ignores the fact that a substantial amount comes from other countries? Does he not also agree that the proposition that the choice is between the Community and the Commonwealth is quite incorrect, and will he take the first opportunity, and every opportunity, to emphasise that a strong Commonwealth probably depends for its future upon our own entry into the European Economic Community?
Mr. Rippon: That is certainly my personal belief. Patterns of world trade are changing all the time, whether we are in or out of the Community. In our negotiations we have had regard—as we must have—to the effect that our entry might have upon traditional suppliers, whether members of the Commonwealth or not.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now answer a question that I put to him on Monday; namely, do Her Majesty's Government favour or disfavour the Werner Committee's proposals for a federal decision centre? Secondly, does not he think that his recent actions in Europe accord with what was said by a British Prime Minister 20 years ago; namely, "If you can't concede, try, try, try again"?
Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member persists in his misunderstanding of the position about the Werner Report. The first stages present no problems for us. The second stages would arise only when we were members of the Community, when we should have a full opportunity of seeing whether any particular step accorded with our views. We would be taking part in Community decisions. As for the third stage, that may be a valuable long-term objective but it is very far in the future. It involves amendment of the Treaty of Rome, and I do not think that it is relevant to these negotiations.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot move on. I must protect the business of the House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATE SUPPORT GRANTS)
Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me—if it has the approval of both sides of the House—that we take the first two local government Orders together—one on the rate grant and one on the rate grant increase. Is there any objection, If not, then the Minister will move the first Order and we shall debate both of them. If necessary, at the end of the debate we can divide on each Order separately.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On a point of order. May I express through you, Mr. Speaker, some apprehension about the number of naked lights and paraffin lights that are about, and ask whether a supply of buckets of sand or water may be made available? Will you also urge hon. Members who may not be used to handling these articles that they are dangerous, and that some precautions should be taken because of all the papers that are about, and the fabric of the building?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for his anxiety. We must carry on under difficulties. I said yesterday that for centuries the House has carried on under difficulties compared with which these are nothing. I still hope that in spite of what the hon. Member has said we may have a greater number of lights. I understood that there was to be an attempt to hang some from the Lobbies—[Laughter.]—I mean, from the galleries. I am grateful to the House for its forbearance in relation to supplementary questions. I found it difficult to see those hon. Members who were in the remote corners.
5.7 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Order, 1970, dated 20th November, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.
The subject of rate support grants and their technicalities is a topic that would tend to send the House to sleep without its being in darkness. I apologise to the House for the technicality of this topic. This is the third rate support grant Order to be made by this House since the new system of rate supports came in about
708
six years ago. I want to make one or two general remarks about the system of rate support and the way in which it has operated, especially in the last year.
First, it is vital that we should recognise the enormous dimensions of the expenditure that we are involved in in local government. If we take both current expenditure and capital expenditure of local government, local government now administers about £480 a year for every family of four. Therefore, local government is responsible for the administration of about £9 a week for every such family. Thus, it is an enormous sphere of expenditure, and it is vital that every precaution is taken to see that the money so spent is spent efficiently and effectively, and is administered well. Of this total current expenditure, the central Government are currently providing 57 per cent., which, as a result of these Orders, will rise to 58 per cent. over the two-year period. Thus, the taxpayer has a considerable payment to make for all the expenditure of local authorities.
I am concerned about the myth which tends to be built up that the rate support grant is a sort of benevolent act on the part of the Government, irrespective of the fact that the money has to be found. When we are talking about the proportion that should be met by the central Government, we are really talking about the proportion that should be met by the taxpayer as opposed to the ratepayer. The proposals made here are designed to increase that proportion, as indeed the proportions have been increased since these Orders first came in.
Another part of the machinery of rate support is the increase Order, one of which I am moving—and it is a substantial increase Order at that.
This concerns the increases that take place primarily in terms of costs and wages on those matters which are agreed as being appropriate for grant. In looking back over the six years, I hope that the House will recognise that on one occasion this procedure was broken. That was in 1968, when the then Government told local authorities that they would not move an increase Order, although local government was fully entitled to have one moved under these procedures.
Perhaps in considering the total pattern of rate support grants in the six years

709
during which they have been in operation, and the request that I have made to local authorities this year to reduce the total agreed expenditure by £10 million in the first year and £25 million in the second year, it will be borne in mind that the single act in 1968 of refusing an increase Order had a total effect of £100 million over that period, of which local authorities managed to save, by various methods, £50 million, though they had to pass on £50 million to the ratepayers at that time.
I believe that that is the wrong way to apply a Government decision—to try to squeeze local authorities—because it puts them in a position of impossible uncertainty about the future. We have, therefore, accepted, under the normal formula, the increase Orders that have to be made, and now local authorities are clear for the coming two years about the type of savings that they should make within the total amount specified here.
There are three basic elements to this Order: the domestic element, the resources element and the need element. In coming to our consideration of the total, the Government have three major matters to take into account. The first is the position on present expenditure and the general forecast. The second is any change or changes in demand and population changes that are likely to take place.
For example, on the question of demand, there is the likely increase in the size of the population in the schools or the likely increase in the number of elderly people needing welfare services. There are, of course, in addition, the various changes in population that take place in different parts of the country.
The third consideration is the general economic situation, and the total of the grant is always made within that context.
One of the most fundamental points is the agreeing of the figures. All sides in the consultations this year are agreed that there was a better method of agreeing the figures than there has ever been before. There was agreement on the figures, and officials of both the local authority associations and of my Department put in a new system for examining the position, and this covers a long period. On behalf of both sides of the House, I wish to pay tribute to those who took part in these talks and the
710
manner in which they reached detailed agreement on this difficult and complicated matter.
Officials of the local authority associations and my Department spent many hours and put in a great deal of work trying to reach a settled agreement about the exact nature of the figures. All agree that the system adopted this year was beter than that adopted ever before. However, they have agreed to try to find even better ways of tackling the problem, and I am sure that the parties concerned will achieve their aim in this respect.
As to the domestic element, traditionally up to now there has been an increase in this element of 5d. per year to the benefit of the domestic ratepayer. The proposals for the coming year are to reduce this to 2·8d. in old terms. I prefer to stick to the old rather than go in for the new pence in this matter, mainly because this method is better comprehended at this time in our history.
This is still, however, within the general theme of the original White Paper on the system of giving this particular form of advantage to the domestic element. It was suggested that over the years there was a need for this, so that the total increase should not fall on the domestic sector. Hence, the alleviation that look place. It was originally envisaged that about one-half should be met by this domestic element. In the past few years more than one-half has been met by the domestic element, and these proposals will tend to bring it more in line with the original intention of the White Paper. There will still, as a result of the increase in the total percentage, be enough to meet the whole of the suggested increase in the domestic element. There will also be a surplus on top which will go to the benefit of the general ratepayer.
As for the progression of the increase, which, in the past, has been by 1 per cent, per annum, we are suggesting here that for the next two years it should be one-half of 1 per cent. per annum. In this connection when considering the original intentions, it is interesting to note that in debating the Second Reading of the legislation that brought the present system into operation, the then Minister was asked whether the increase of 1 per cent. per annum would go on for ever.

711
He replied that it clearly could not and that it could go on only for a period. There must obviously come a time when the 1 per cent. increase must slow down, and it is for this reason that we have considered it right, instead of eliminating the 1 per cent. increase, to reduce the rate of increase by one-half of 1 per cent., and that is the proposal made in this Order.
I will put to hon. Members the basic consideration which we took into account in reaching this decision. I compare these with the altitude of the previous Government when they last increased an Order of this description, which was, of course, in the Order of 1968. First, as for the general view that local authority expenditure must have some relationship in its increase to the general increase in the gross national product and the strength of the economy, in 1968 the Government of the day said in their White Paper:
"'Taking local authority expenditure as a whole, the Government expects that in 1969–70 local authorities as a whole will restrain the level of their expenditure so that it does not in total exceed a figure in the region of 3 per cent, in real terms above what has already. been agreed for purposes of the Exchequer contribution in 1968–69, and the Government will propose rate support grant for 1969–70 on this, basis when the time comes'".
Thus the Government clearly stated that due to the lack of growth in the economy and due to the fact that local authority expenditure had consistently risen faster than the rate of growth, there was a need to put some sort of curb on the rate of increase of local government expenditure.
The White Paper went on:
"Expenditure by local authorities is therefore a very important factor in the management of the economy. In the past, moreover, local authority revenue expenditure has grown at an annual rate of 6 per cent. or more a year in real terms and much faster than the growth of the economy as a whole. Divergence on this scale cannot be allowed to continue, and the Government foresee the need for continuing restraint in the growth of local authority revenue expenditure over the years immediately ahead".
Therefore, the then Government considered that due to the rate of economic growth and the need to relate the increase in local government expenditure to that growth, there was need to fix the rate support grant in that year on the basis of an increase in real terms of 3 per cent. in the first year and 5 per
712
cent. in the second year. What I am proposing now is what for two years will be a faster rate of growth than was envisaged in the previous White Paper and, once again, in real terms at constant prices.
There is also need for the House to consider the individual elements which have gone into making up the total picture, and which are discussed in both White Papers item by item. Perhaps I may bring the attention of the House once again to comparisons of the two White Papers. In 1968 the previous Government said on the subject of education:
"The expenditure envisaged in education allows in full for the expected increases in the numbers of pupils in primary and secondary schools and for the likely growth of further and higher education. It takes account of the increase in loan charges as a result of the growth of the educational building programmes, and of the expected increase in the numbers of teachers in primary and secondary schools, which should make possible some improvement in staffing standards. There will however be room for only a limited improvement in other standards."
That was the view which the then Government had for expenditure on education over the two years in question.
On this occasion my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already announced proposals which affect the position, particularly in regard to primary schools, and, therefore, in the passage on education, although once again we had to suggest that there was need for a certain degree of restraint, we have taken account of the increases proposed by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps I can give the House the comparison in respect of education. This Order provides for a growth rate in 1971–72, the first year, of the order of 5·1 per cent. and in the second year of 4·9 per cent., in real terms, compared with the provision in the previous White Paper of 3·8 per cent. and 3·9 per cent. for the two years there concerned. So, on education, this rate support grant in real terms provides for an improvement in the education services at a faster rate of growth than that envisaged in the White Paper introduced in 1968.
On local health and welfare services my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made a pronouncement that part of the total Government measures in this sphere is to carry out greater activity in certain aspects

713
of health provision, particularly in respect of expenditure on services for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly. As a result, the rate support grant provides for a substantial rate of growth in those services. In the two years covered by it the welfare estimates give a growth rate in 1971–72 of 16·9 per cent, and in 1972–73 of 12·3 per cent. In the previous Government's White Paper there were substantial movements in the first year and a slowing down in the second, the figures being 16 per cent, and 7·3 per cent.
Total police expenditure includes expenditure on traffic wardens. The 1968 White Paper provided for quite a substantial increase in growth expenditure for the purpose of recruiting more traffic wardens then. The increase expected in this expenditure for the coming year will not need, in the view of those concerned with the estimates, as much growth on the traffic warden side but a faster rate of growth in the police force itself. Those figures are included in the provisions.
Another important item is sewerage. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) would agree that it would be very nice if someone could invent a very cheap way of handling sewage. The Jeger Report said that there was need for a substantial increase in expenditure on sewerage. This is a world-wide problem. One must confess to a slight sadness as one goes round the country opening various sewerage works to replace former works built in the 1890s to see a remarkable similarity between the two. One would have hoped that the advance of technology and chemical engineering might have done something to provide a less expensive method of dealing with this enormous problem. We now envisage considerable increases of Government and local government expenditure on sewerage. For the two years within this present Order we envisage increases of 7·7 per cent, and 7·2 per cent, in real terms. This current expenditure will be accompanied by very substantial capital expenditure in this direction.
Perhaps I can now compare the position of highways and roads as dealt with in the two White Papers. In the 1968 White Paper the then Government stated:
"The standard of maintenance of roads of lesser importance in this country has generally
714
been on a high level, but given the country's economic situation, and in view of the limited amount of resources that can be spared for roads as a whole, including the national road system, the Government's view is that no serious risk is involved in continuing to impose severe restriction on maintenance expenditure on minor roads in 1969–70 and 1970–71."
This year we are having a level of expenditure on non-principal roads which reflects the restrictions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the allocation of capital expenditure by local authorities. Where the general standard is considered to be good an allowance has been made for a reasonable increase of expenditure, so in the total estimates it is envisaged that some maintenance work will be contemplated.
We see a growth of expenditure on these various items which are a consistent reflection of Government policy. There is a substantial increase in education, although there is a reduction, once again as a result of Government policies, in expenditure on school meals and milk. This, as I say, is part of the policy proposals announced by the Government.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: With regard to expenditure on education and, in particular, with regard to the amount of money being spent on the reallocation of primary schools, has the right hon. Gentleman taken notice of the plight in Derbyshire? Having been a member of the education committee there prior to coming to this House, I know that we were rather concerned about the allocation made by the previous Government, which was then set at 3·6 per cent. of the total allocation. When I went to my constituency last weekend I found that a Press statement had been issued by the county council, Tory controlled as it is—by the Tory chairman of the education committee—saying that the allocation had fallen from the 4·1 and 3·6 of the previous two years to 0·4 per cent, in this allocation—a drastic reduction of 89 per cent. What has the Minister to say about that?
Mr. Walker: It is certainly not as a result of what we are discussing now. We are discussing the rate support grant in respect of education for the coming two years, and there is a substantial increase in real terms in the rate of growth in education for the coming two years as opposed to the amounts in the previous two years which were designated

715
by the previous Government. I cannot make a detailed comment on the primary school building position in Derbyshire without prior notice of the facts, but for primary schools in general announcements have been made of a substantial step up on the programme previously envisaged by the previous Government.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State accept that whilst this is not a matter of dealing with specific capital expenditure in 1972–73, he referred a few minutes ago very briefly to the growth of capital expenditure?
Mr. Walker: I do not deny that I mentioned capital expenditure, but we are here dealing with the rate support grant. As to capital expenditure on primary schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced a considerable stepping up of the primary school programme, and that is a fact.
I come now to what is, perhaps, the most controversial question from the point of view of the local authorities; that is to say, my decision that, after having agreed the estimates and the total figures with them, I would ask them to make an additional cut in their total expenditure of £10 million in the first year and of £25 million in the second year.
I recognise that the local authorities, having sat down with us and discussed their estimates and figures, are, naturally, disappointed to receive a general request of that nature when they have many things on which they would like to go ahead. However, I think that to make a general request to them for efficiency and a cutting back is a much better method than the one used by the previous Government when they refused an increase in 1968. I consider that there is still considerable scope for making general savings over the whole sphere of local government expenditure.
Mr. Julius Silverman: The reductions of £10 million and £25 million are to encourage efficiency. Is not this cut applied equally to local authorities which are inefficient and to those which are already efficient? Is not that the consequence of the method which the Minister proposes?
Mr. Walker: Yes, but one could argue that as a defect in the system as such since we do not do a separate negotiation with each of the 1,600 local authorities. As the system stands, there is one financial negotiation in which the Government can exercise a certain overall influence. As I say, the last Government acted by refusing to give £100 million in an increase Order, saying that local authorities were expected to make this up by improvements in efficiency and savings elsewhere.
We are making a graduated request which, in terms of the total expenditure, is of relatively small proportions. I believe that it works out at ¼ per cent, in the first year and ⅔ per cent, in the second year. I do not use those figures as statistics to be strongly defended because I recognise that there is a large section of local government expenditure which cannot be varied; on items such as teachers' salaries and so forth one cannot show any overall saving. Therefore, in referring to percentages of that sort, I recognise that local authorities cannot make savings throughout, but there is, nevertheless, a massive area of expenditure in which one can work for the relatively limited saving which I have requested.
There are two ways in which local authorities generally could be more active than they have been in securing higher standards of efficiency. First, I refer to their own organisation, L.A.M.S.A.C. the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee, an advisory organisation for management consultancy on the use of computers and the like. Those local authorities which have used this service—about half of them—have found considerable benefit. What I find depressing, however, is that, although many of the major towns and cities have used the service, less than 40 per cent, of the smaller authorities have contacted the organisation with a view to taking advantage of its services. I should expect the smaller authorities to gain more benefit from them. L.A.M.S.A.C. set up a small consultancy service for work study six months ago, and it has just decided to double its service by providing further officers for this purpose.
A charge is made for the service, but I understand that the fees are much lower

717
than those charged by private consultants, and I believe that in this way the local authority associations collectively, by supporting L.A.M.S.A.C., are trying to bring to the attention of local government a very useful service. I believe that, used to a much greater extent, it could greatly help.
The other way in which savings could be made is through purchasing methods. Local authorities purchase about £1,000 million worth of goods a year. They are very big buyers indeed. Recent legislation passed by the previous Government gave them powers to collaborate with neighbouring authorities in purchasing schemes. They can, therefore, have the benefit of greater bulk purchasing by getting together. I am sure that in this way, bearing in mind the tremendous level of local authority purchasing, authorities could find ways of reducing their costs and helping to make the savings for which we are asking, savings which, as I have said, are relatively small in terms of the total.
Although there is this criticism made by the local authorities at the additional imposition, at the end of the negotiations, asking for a degree of increased efficiency, I believe that they will not only recognise overall that we have operated the rate support grant system more efficiently than ever before as a result of the detailed negotiations which took place, but also, in view of the general economic position and the lack of growth over the past few years, they will recognise that, in asking them to go ahead with a rate of growth much faster than the rate of growth in expenditure by the central Government, we are being fair and reasonable.
On that basis, I commend the Orders to the House.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: The Secretary of State said that this was a subject which might send the House to sleep. That is certainly not true of the content of the subject, which is of the greatest importance to every citizen. It might be said to be true of the right hon. Gentleman's rather soporific speech. I can think of no greater contrast than that between the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made today and the one
718
which he made in the equivalent debate on the previous rate support grant Order two years ago. He was then very polemical, party-political and irresponsible in the line which he took. He accused the Government, above all, of concealing the consequences of what they were doing, both for the standard of local authority services and for what would happen to the rates.
Here are one or two typical sentences from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on 9th December, 1968. He said:
"I assure him "—
the then Minister—
"that if, in our judgment, the economic situation was very bad—for example, as bad as we were told it was a fortnight ago—then, obviously, we should have to be as tough as this and perhaps even tougher".
The present Government have been not merely as tough as that; they have been even tougher. He went on:
"… but we would tell the country precisely what the position was and what we were doing ".
That we certainly did not hear this afternoon. He said, a little later:
"I urge them "—
that is, the then Government, two years ago—
"to be honest with the country and to tell the people that there will be a need for an increase in rates or a cutting down of services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1968; Vol. 775. c. 50-59.]
We certainly have not been told that bluntly or frankly this afternoon.
Two years ago, a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whom we have with us on the Front Bench this evening, was concerned also with the lack of information both in the Order and in the speeches of Ministers at the time. There is an almost total lack of information given to the House today. We have not been told how the increase in estimated expenditure in these two years compares with the average, for example, of the last five years or the last 10 years. We were told nothing about what the consequences would be either for rates in general or for the domestic ratepayer in particular. I can remember no similar debate of this kind when the House was given less information.

719
One thing is absolutely clear, however. The Order accurately reflects the Government's basic philosophy. This is an Order hostile to essential public expenditure. It is an Order which shifts the burden of essential local services from national taxation, which is broadly progressive, to the local rates, which are socially regressive. Taken in conjunction with the Chancellor's mini-budget of a few weeks ago, the Order continues a deliberate process of redistributing income from the less well off to the better off. I shall substantiate each of those points one by one.
First, I say that the Order is hostile to essential public spending. There can be no doubt about how essential this local spending is. These debates are, for natural reasons, usually not very well attended, but the subject is nevertheless of direct relevance to basic standards in education, in the health services and personal social services, in the police service, in the fire service, in the sewage treatment and refuse disposal services, and the rest.
The Government show hostility to essential public spending because they set out their philosophy clearly, although not for the first time, in the report on the Order. I quote paragraphs 8 and 9:
"In view of the Government, the continuing growth of public expenditure … has a harmful effect on the economy and must therefore be restrained … This new approach"—
that is, the new approach of the Government—
"is expected to result in the rate of increase in public expenditure over the next four years being substantially less than had previously been envisaged."
Whatever the Secretary of State said this afternoon, his own report makes it cleat that this is also to apply to local expenditure, because it goes on:
"…the rate of growth of local authority expenditure will in future be brought more into line with the general rate of growth of the economy."
This reflects the Government's general hostility to public spending, their general view that this and the taxation involved are harmful to the growth of the economy.
They go on saying that despite the evidence from O.E.C.D. and other bodies
720
that other countries with a higher rate of of taxation compared with g.n.p. nevertheless have a higher rate of growth than we have, and other countries with a higher rate of public expenditure in relation to the g.n.p. nevertheless have a higher rate of growth than we have. Indeed, they ignore the striking recent finding of the O.E.C.D. that countries in which public expenditure has risen most rapidly are also those countries with the highest rate of growth. But hon. Members opposite are so ideological on this subject as to be almost completely blind to any rational argument.
The hostility shows not merely in the philosophy given in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report, but in terms of the actual estimated increase in local authority expenditure over the next two years. The rate of increase in estimated expenditure—that is, relevant expenditure—is to be 4·2 per cent. in the next two years. This is significantly less than what it was during the years of the Labour Government. I agree that there is an argument, which we had two years ago, about one single year, but as I understand the position—and these figures should be in the report—the increase in local authority expenditure in the years of the Labour Government from 1965–66, when we were moving to the new system, were, broadly, 6¾ per cent., 5¾ per cent., 4 per cent., 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. So we are to have a decrease in the next two years compared with the average of those years of Labour Government.
The hostility also shows in a point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) asked a question; namely, the so-called efficiency cut—that is to say, the cut of £10 million this year and £25 million next year due to greater efficiency. There is a just comment on this from the local authority associations, which, as the House will know, made a joint statement setting out the matter very well and very accurately. They said:
"The local authority associations have been willing, indeed anxious, to co-operate with the Government in seeking increased efficiency and the curtailment of unnecessary increases in expenditure. It was in this spirit that, even before the Chancellor's statement"—
that is some weeks back—
"the associations conducted their negotiations with the government departments concerned,

721
and accepted reductions in departmental forecasts which can only be achieved by operational economies.
They are therefore extremely concerned at the Government's proposed further reduction of the forecasts in relevant expenditure by £10 million in 1971–72 and £25 million in 1972–73 … The associations believe that, bearing in mind the present relatively high standards of efficiency, the departmental cuts, and the economies already achieved during the recent years of restraint, it will be difficult for local authorities to bear this double cut in grant without a significant increase in the rates or some curtailment in the planned development of services, or both."
We did not have any serious comment this afternoon on that possibility.
Everyone must be in favour of greater efficiency in local government, but it is particularly hard to achieve because local government is the most labour-intensive of all our services, our professions, our industries, whatever it may be called. It is extremely hard to make rapid increases in efficiency. To me this sounds like a cut which is basically arbitrary and basically capricious and basically designed to show how tough the Government can be with local authorities and how able they are to chastise them when they choose.
My second point is that what we have in the Order is a shift in the burden of local spending from national taxation to local rates, and especially to the domestic ratepayer. As the House well knows, the Labour Government sought to protect the ratepayer, especially the domestic ratepayer, from what would otherwise have been an intolerable burden due to the rising cost of local services.
We did this in two ways. The first was by an increase of 1 per cent. per year in the proportion of relevant expenditure which was covered by the rate support grant. As a consequence, that proportion rose in four years from 54 per cent. to the present 57 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in the proportion borne by local sources. Secondly, we introduced the domestic rate element which was designed to protect the domestic ratepayer in particular and which amounted to a subsidy rising by 5 per cent. a year. This in the last four years has been brought to the present level of 1s. 8d., which is the amount by which the burden on the domestic ratepayer has been reduced from what it would otherwise have been.
722
Now the Government have halved both increases. The proportion of local expenditure to be matched by Government grant is to go up by only ½ per cent. instead of 1 per cent. The domestic rate element is to go up not by 5d. a year but by 2·8d. and 2·4d. in the next two years. What will be the effect of that? We heard very little about the consequences from the Secretary of State. Clearly, the consequences for local authority finance will be most painful. This was made clear in the statement of the associations, and I repeat one crucial sentence:
"… it will be difficult for local authorities to bear this double cut in grant without a significant increase in the rates or some curtailment in the planned development of services, or both."
That is the final comment of the associations.
The matter was also summed up very well in an article in this month's Municipal Review—I am anxious not to quote party sources. The Municipal Review said:
"So long as the rating system remains unreformed, but yet the major course of local finance, local authorities are at a severe disadvantage. The Government's cut will be particularly burdensome at a time of almost unprecedented inflation when swingeing increases in rates are in any event forecast for the next financial year, but this is apparently what has been decided upon. It now remains for Parliament to exercise its judgment."
I hope that Parliament will exercise some judgment today, and I look forward to hearing speeches from a number of hon. Members opposite in the light of the speeches which they made when we discussed the more generous rate support grant order two years ago. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) are present. They and others described the then rate support grant order as disgraceful, scandalous, inevitably involving either a large increase in the rates or a substantial reduction in the standard of services, or both.
I am not surprised that the Secretary of State did not choose to quote any passages from his speech, perhaps the most party political of all, in the debate two years ago. I hope that any hon. Members who spoke two years ago and who are thinking of speaking on this subject today will take the precaution of going to the

723
Library to refresh their memories about what they said two years ago.
I am particularly concerned with the effect on the domestic ratepayer of the cut of 50 per cent. in the increment in the domestic rate element. It is not denied by anyone that rates are an extremely regressive tax. They are a tax that bears very little relation to anyone's capacity to pay. Probably many of us remember the figures quoted by the Allen Committee some time ago which took five income groups and found that the poorest group paid 8·2 per cent. of their disposable income in rates and the richest group paid 2·2 per cent. of their disposable income. There can hardly be any tax we know of in this country which is more socially regressive.
Mr. Arthur Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the difficulties over regression were added to by the fact that the Socialist Administration would not allow revaluation to take place as intended? This would have substantially relieved the problem.
Mr. Crosland: A revaluation was also postponed by the previous Government. In both cases it was done for good, clear and well-understood technical reasons. What the Labour Government did was slightly to minimise the regressive nature of the rating system by rate rebates, under which last year 800,000 domestic ratepayers were receiving partial or total relief, 80 per cent. of that number being retired persons. Over the four years of the scheme £52 million—and 75 per cent. of that figure comes from the taxpayer—has been paid out in rate rebates. This was a direct measure of social justice. The fact remained that even after these improvements, rates remained an extremely unsatisfactory tax.
That was why the Labour Government introduced the domestic rate element, to put more of the burden of local expenditure on national taxation and less of the burden of that local expenditure on, in particular, the domestic ratepayer. This policy of protecting the domestic ratepayer was in practice very successful. The average domestic rate poundage over the last four years has gone up by 0·5 per cent., 0·6 per cent., 3·8 per cent., and 4·5 per cent. respectively. As the right
724
hon. Gentleman observed, this was less than half the amount by which it would have gone up but for the domestic rate element.
Now, tragically, although I am afraid typically, this policy is to be reversed and the protection is to be halved. In other words, what we have here is a direct shift in the relative burden between the national taxpayer and the domestic ratepayer. I spoke of the speech made by the hon. Member for Poole two years ago. I look forward very much to a speech from him tonight. Two years ago he said:
"It is utterly wrong that the rates should be treated by the Government as a substitute for taxes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 74.]
We shall have some extremely interesting questions to ask him. [Interruption.] Oh, I did not know that he is a P.P.S. now—a very wise move on his part. Nevertheless, I look forward to an article by the hon. Gentleman in some suitably public place in which he will explain this marked shift of attitude, unless meanwhile, as honour would suggest, he has resigned his position.
One of the many questions to which we have had no answer is: What will be, the effect of this policy on the rates in the next two years? We have had no estimate of any kind as to the likely increase in rate poundage as a whole and, in particular, in the domestic rate poundage. I calculate that this halving of the domestic rate element combined with the halving of the increased support given by central Government to local government will cost the ratepayer at least £19 million is 1971–72 and £39 million in the second year 1972–73. It should be a perfectly easy calculation for the Minister to make, with all the resources at his disposal, in order to discover what the effect of it is likely to be on the rate poundage generally and on the domestic rate poundage in particular.
We have had estimates in the Press. The Financial Times has suggested a minimum of 11 per cent.; local authority papers have talked of something between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent. Let us have an answer in the House today. The hon. Member for Crosby, who is to wind up, is a great expert in these matters, a mathematician of long standing. Let him be so good, with the help if necessary

725
of his officials, as to give the House a rough estimate of what the effect will be of this new policy on the domestic ratepayer.
Thirdly, we have to see this Rate Support Grant Order against the background of general Government financial and economic policy. That general policy is to transfer incomes from the less well off to the better off. We started with the Chancellor's mini-budget on 27th October, which took 6d. off income tax, involving £350 million in a full year. The Chancellor also announced a number of increases in charges, amounting to cuts in the social services—free milk, school meals, health charges, commuter fares and the rest of it. I estimate that, even after making allowance for some increase in the hospital and school-building programme, announced simultaneously, this amounts to a reduction in the social services of something like £170 million in a full year.
That is the second part of the total package. We still have the statement on housing to come from the right hon. Gentleman following his introductory statement on 3rd November. This will certainly involve a large increase in rents. It will also involve a further increase in rates if, as I understand it to be the case, the local authorities are to pay part of the cost of any scheme for rebates to the private rented tenant.
In addition to these three items, all having a profound effect on the distribution of income—the cut in income tax, the increase in social charges and the effect of the housing policy yet to come—we now have an increase in rates and a shift from the taxpayer to the ratepayer amounting in 1972–73 to nearly £40 million.
Mr. Martin Maddan: The right hon. Gentleman seems to equate cuts in total expenditure on the social services with giving less help to the community. He ignores the fact that many beneficiaries of the social services are not the needy. He referred to my right hon. Friend's statement on housing. The most needy people in the housing sector are in the privately-rented sector and for the first time they will receive help under the new policy. The facts are the reverse of the generalisations which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Crosland: The facts are nowhere near the reverse of the generalisations which I am making. I have estimated that the increase in charges on all counts what is really a cut in the social services—will cost £170 million. I can assure the lion. Gentleman that the Secretary of State has no intention of finding £170 million more with which to assist the privately-rented tenant. All these cuts—school meals, milk and prescription charges—naturally bear more heavily on the less well off. This is not in serious dispute.
I now turn to one or two detailed points.
Dealing with the increase Order, do I understand that it fully compensates for the wage settlement with the manual workers?
Mr. Peter Walker Mr. Peter Walker indicated assent.
Mr. Crosland: I am glad to learn that. There had been distasteful hints and rumours, including the Prime Minister's television broadcast, suggesting that the local authorities might have been penalised for their wage settlement.
Dealing next with the distribution of estimated expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman indicated certain priority areas of spending where the growth rate will be higher than the average 4·2 per cent. He has mentioned housing improvements, mental health, home help, family planning, sewage and refuse disposal. I am delighted to hear that those are going up faster than the average, although under the present system of general rather than specific grants we cannot of course, enforce those priorities. If those are going above the 4·2 per cent rate, what will go up below that rate?
The report mentions parks, sport and minor roads, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about minor roads. Well and good, but sewerage is to go up by 7½ per cent.; house improvements are to go up, according to my figures, by 12 per cent. The right hon Gentleman said this afternoon that education was coming out very well, and that the personal social services were coming very well out of this. In that case, some of the field of local spending must do very much worse than 4·2 per cent. to keep the total figure down to that level. It will not be enough to cut out a few

727
parks or sports grounds or something like that. We shall have to have much more substantial cuts in some of the services if the total is to be held to 4·2 per cent.
I should be grateful if the Minister could give us a rather more specific answer on this when he winds up. If some of the tables in the report were given in percentage terms we might be able to follow it more easily. Incidentally, I found the report extraordinarily inadequate and hard to understand. I cannot make a party point of this. Having re-read our report of 1968, I found that equally hard to comprehend. As a joint inter-party venture next time, we might try to set these matters out in a more easily understood way.
My next point is very important, and again it is in no sense a party point. It concerns the distribution formula. The report says that the right hon. Gentleman has considered this with the authorities and decided to make no change now. That is what we said two years ago, and I do not criticise him for that. But there is an aspect of the distribution formula that is becoming increasingly disturbing and that affects the centres of our large cities. We all know what is happening. Each year the better-off classes are tending to move out to the suburbs or even beyond. This causes for the inner boroughs a loss of rating revenue. Moreover, under the present formula, because they lose population, therefore their amount of Exchequer grant also goes down. So we have a position in which the boroughs that are poorest are also those with by far the most difficult social problems. Because of the loss of revenue, both rating and Exchequer grant revenue, they become, as we can see in instances we all know, desperately anxious to hang on to the whole of their remaining population.
The question is whether this exerts a dangerous pressure in the direction of what we have had in the past few years, high-rise building often inadequately planned and of an inadequate standard, certainly in terms of space, very often almost tenement blocks, as some of them are becoming. I wonder whether the pressure to build in this way, which we find more and more socially unsatisfactory, is not partly due to the distribution formula behind the rate support grant.
728
I think that in one or two cases we are beginning to see the difficulties which some of the great American cities have had. Increasingly we see in the inner neighbourhoods a lack of resources going with the greatest social problems, instead of the other way round. This is something we should debate between now and the next rate support grant Order.
I have one general comment about local government finance. Every year we have almost the same discussion, which goes roughly as follows. Rates are a horrible tax. They are very regressive, very unpopular and very inflexible, and generally a bad thing. The problem is especially acute, we point out to ourselves each year, because the demand in real terms for local authority services is constantly rising, and, on the other hand, as I suggested just now, it is exceptionally difficult for local authorities to increase their productivity because of the extent to which they are labour-intensive. Therefore, successive Governments—the last one generously; this one meanly and miserably—try to meet this problem of local government by increasing the percentage of local expenditure paid for out of general taxation. When we do that there is a terrible outcry in the local authority Press and other parts of the Press, with people saying that there is less and less discipline in respect of local spending because the local authorities do not have to answer for levying a large part of the revenue which they propose to spend. Therefore, it is said, the Government are tempted into more and more detailed supervision and this is bad for the independence of local authorities.
We should not get hysterical about this situation. Circular 2/70, following exactly the lines of our February White Paper, pointed out quite correctly that much of local expenditure is on
"… key services for which Ministers have special responsibilities in determining standards or co-ordinating developments on a national basis."
I believe that that implies as a matter of logic a large element of national financing, since it is we in Parliament who are laying down these national standards.
On top of that, if we look ahead and consider particularly the urban problem that I discussed, the likelihood is of greater, not less, pressure for help from the central Government to particularly

729
hard-pressed local authorities. Moreover, even with 57 per cent. coming from the Exchequer it is perfectly possible, as Circular 2/70, following our White Paper, has recently shown, to relax detailed controls of local spending.
Let us by all means search for new methods of taxation; let us go on, as the Government are obviously doing, with the familiar arguments about local income tax, local sales taxes, and motor taxation, which is coming to the top of the popularity poll. I hope that the Government will also accept what we said in our White Paper about the ultra vires rule, so that the local authorities may indulge in profit-making enterprises if they wish. Let us do all this. Above all, let us seek to improve the rates. I think both Governments agreed that rates are likely to remain the principal local tax, as the Royal Commission pointed out. But let us concentrate on making rates more equitable and less regressive. I wish the Government good luck in their search, and we look forward to what the Green Paper says when it is published in the New Year. But I hope that we do not conduct this search in a mood of impending disaster or alternatively of expectation that we shall find in our search a marvellous simple panacea which at one stroke will solve the whole problem of local authority finance, because I do not believe that we shall do so.
But we should not be too distracted by these general questions of alternative local taxes. I want to return to the Order. It is unacceptable because it will mean both a curtailment of services and certainly the biggest rise in rates we have had for many years. It is unacceptable because it represents a straight transfer from the national taxpayer to the local ratepayer, and because it is part of a general Government policy of transferring resources from those less well off to those better off.
We shall not vote against it, because there is some increase in help, but the increase is both miserable in amount and inequitable in distribution.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Jones: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), and I am also pleased that I can agree with
730
some of his speech. I hope that I shall be able to point out the error of his ways in other things that he said.
I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the question of rates and revaluation after he had criticised the rating system for being regressive. Yet at the close of his speech the right hon. Gentleman was saying that there was really no alternative. Surely that strengthens the point that we need regular revaluations to distribute the collection of revenue from rates as equitably among ratepayers as possible? Clearly there is some common ground between us, but just to plead that, whilst the right hon. Gentleman's Government did not apply revaluation, neither did the previous Government, is rather a thin reply to my intervention.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the main problem for any Government is simply the practical matter of availability of trained valuers?
Mr. Jones: It may be, if a Government waste their time on schemes like the Land Commission.
Mr. Julius Silverman Mr. Julius Silverman rose—
Mr. Jones: I will not give way because we have a limited time for the debate.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the form of the Increase Order and the Order itself. It is very confusing, and I hope that it can be elaborated. The last time this matter was discussed the Government spokesman admitted that he did not understand certain comments in the Order.
I am in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on the selectivity of assistance. I know all the complications of the rate support grant arrangements and the three categories under which they come, but we should be helping the great cities and giving greater weight to their problems.
The Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, 1969, introduced by the Socialist Administration raised the estimates on the 1968 Order by £155 million for the last financial year and by £201 million for 1970–71. These were what the then Government in paragraph 5 of the 1969 Report called
"unforeseen increases in costs since the 1968 Order."

731
Of these figures, 56 per cent. and 57 per cent., respectively, were financed by Exchequer grants; that is, a further £84 million in 1969–70 and £111 million for the current financial year, thus leaving the residue of £71 million and £90 million, respectively, to be borne by the ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman said that our proposals are hostile to ratepayers, but the previous Government, because of their under-estimates, loaded the ratepayer with these substantial amounts.
That was not the end of the story. Since last year's Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order further escalation of costs has led yet again to a revision of the estimates, giving further increases of £13 million last year and the tremendously large sum of £243 million for the current year. This has led to another £6 million for last year and £114 million for the current year being borne by the ratepayer.
Although, as the right hon. Gentleman says, rates may escalate, this will be as a deliberate act of policy. In the past two years rates escalated more than on any previous occasion because of maladministration by the Labour Government and this is a complete negation of many points which the right hon. Gentleman made against the Order. The nature of the protection of the domestic ratepayer is thus revealed as nothing more than an attempt to soften the impact of disastrous economic policies leading to constant cost increases. I hesitate to challenge the right hon. Gentleman on this point, but I have gone carefully into that figure and I do not think that my figures are open to challenge. The previous Administration, by mis-assessment, misjudgment and by allowing the inflationary situation to continue hammered the ratepayer by the rate increase orders year by year.
A policy of sound economic management, coupled with a policy to bring local authority expenditure under a controlled rate of increase are the best forms of protection for the domestic ratepayer. The Government have inherited a frightening rate of inflation which arose from the 16 per cent. award to the refuse collectors in London in 1969. That was one of the great failures of the previous Administration's wage policy.
732
The most important document before us is the Report on the Rate Support Grant Order for the years 1971–72 and 1972–73, H.C. 172. The present Administration can have only minimum influence over the two previous years and the only course open to them is to find their share of resources to deal with the inherited inflationary situation. Paragraph 9 of the Report says:
"Local authority expenditure represents a substantial part of total public expenditure but, more significantly, it accounts for over half of the growth."
I welcome the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that local government expenditure is to be brought under firmer control. To this end local authorities should be required to look for savings in improved efficiency and to pass work which does not have to be undertaken by public authorities to other authorities.
The target for relevant expenditure for 1971–72 is £3,795 million and for 1972–73, £3,970 million, a rate growth of 4·2 per cent. for the current year. The reduction of ½ per cent. in the annual growth rate which is to be permitted to local authorities is a fair one. The fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition is the determination on the part of the Government to limit expenditure in the public sector which has to be met by ever-increasing taxation. The Government have asked local authorities specifically to consider improved efficiency, elimination of work which is unnecessary or could be undertaken by other bodies, greater use of management services and the L.A.M.S.A.C. facilities and the introduction and extension of a scheme of pooled purchasing arrangements and bulk purchasing.
The high standards of our local authority services have been built up on the excellence of the professional institutions. Our standard is higher than anywhere else in the world. But these professions are isolated. There is the clerk's department, the treasurer's department, education, welfare, estates, all in separate departments. As was recommended in the Maud Report, we should be working towards management discipline across the professions, and I welcome the recommendations which my right hon. Friend made on this. This will achieve a more effective use of resources, which is

733
a subject which the right hon. Member for Grimsby omitted from his speech. We need greater efficiency and greater discipline of management across the professions. To this end I welcome the introduction of an increased efficiency factor. This has been found to be useful in the farming industry and I am sure it will be equally useful in local government services. The saving of £10 million a year for 1971–72 and £25 million for the subsequent year is by no means unreasonable. I welcome this philosophy and realism in financial terms which lies behind this year's rate support grant order.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: I will not follow the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) except perhaps to comment on one or two of his observations. He referred to the efficiency cut. The efficiency cut has nothing to do with efficiency. The larger local authority which is already efficient, which uses L.A.M.S.A.C. and which uses bulk purchasing methods get the same cut as the inefficient authority. What has this to do with efficiency?
This is a mean little cut introduced by the present Government in respect of local authorities after the completion of negotiations. The Municipal Journal has commented on this matter as follows:
"One wonders how relevant reductions of this sort are, or whether they should not be made more a justification for central Government to appear to be chastising local government."
The cut has nothing to do with efficiency since it affects the efficient and inefficient alike, and the £10 million and £25 million are distributed throughout the whole of the local authorities.
I read the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Northants, South during the debate on the last Order. It was entirely different in tone from the one he made today. One would almost imagine that a lesser burden was being imposed on the local authorities this year than last. He mentioned how much the local authorities would have to pay. I think he said that after the increase Order was made the local authority would have to pay £65 million—was that the figure?
Mr. Arthur Jones: No. The figure was £114 million.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Silverman: This time they will have to pay at least that much. It is contemplated in most places that there will be an increase in rates of anywhere between 2s. and 2s. 6d. in the £ in almost all local authorities and in some an even greater amount as a result of this order.
I noticed during the last debate to which I referred that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) made certain zoological references. He then said:
"The Government were in one of their craziest moods when they devised this procedure in 1966."
I think that the present Government are adopting the same procedure, except that they are cutting down on the domestic element and making other cuts. The hon. Gentleman went on:
"The great bulk of local government expenditure plods relentlessly, rather like a huge elephant, and periodically the Minister mounts it waving an increase order, but facing the tail of the elephant instead of the trunk, and looking at what has been trampled by this elephant in the past rather than what is likely in future." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 1069.]
I do not know on what side of the elephant the hon. Gentleman is sitting today, or whether he is waving his increase Order at the tail or at the trunk, but the net consequence is that when both the 1970 Order and the increase Order are put into effect the ratepayer will be so much the poorer.
It is all very well to talk about economy, but there is not that much scope for economy for local authorities. They, of course, have certain tasks in regard to education and in providing increasing numbers of teachers to deal with large classes. Local authorities will have to continue to incur such expenditure since education is the main spender. Nor can there be any economy on the police force or in public health. Once we get into the area of cuts by local authorities they are not carried out through major economies but in cheese-paring ways which save a penny or two-pence on the rates and inflict hardship and lose amenities for the community totally out of proportion to what is saved. The sort of economies we see are cuts in night classes, adult education, by saving a certain amount of lighting

735
here with danger to the population, by leaving a road in disrepair there with similar dangers. These are the odds and ends, the "small change", of public expenditure where cuts inflict hardship quite out of relationship to any benefit which they bestow on the ratepayer. These cuts will only be intensified by this Order.
We are discussing today not so much the matter of public expenditure, but the matter of who is to pay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that local authority taxation is regressive. It may not be possible for many years to come to find a practical alternative, but in the meantime certain measures can be taken to make them less regressive. The Minister has mentioned a most important matter, the domestic element. We are very sorry that this has been cut. There will be hardship not only on the ratepayers as a whole, but a relatively greater hardship on the domestic ratepayer who will now have to pay a greater proportion than he otherwise would have borne.
Other things can be done to relieve the regressive nature of the rates, one of which is the rebate scheme. I know that this Order does not deal with that matter and that I should be out of order if I were to pursue it at length. If we want to deal with the regressive nature of the rates, I feel that an extension of the rebates order is now necessary to increase the level at which people can get rebates. I am sure that in saying that I have the support of many hon. Members in all parts of the House.
This measure will bring hardship to many ratepapers, and particularly to the poor ratepayers. This comes at a time when the Government propose a reduction of sixpence in the income tax. I suggest that some of that money might much more suitably have been applied in reducing the burden borne by ratepayers, many of whom will get little benefit from income tax reductions but will find their burdens increasing, at the same time as the wealthier income taxpayer and high surtax payers will benefit from the next Budget.
The hon. Member for Northants, South also mentioned revaluation, which I do not see securing any benefit for the
736
ratepayer. It may redistribute the burden sometimes one way, and sometimes another. Certainly the last revaluation made very little difference in redistribution. In some local authorities, such as Birmingham, the domestic hereditament benefited, but for many it went the other way and imposed an additional burden on the domestic ratepayer. Therefore, this is no solution to the problem. The only assistance which can now be given is by the Exchequer.
A major part of the Order relates to the increase in labour costs and wages. Whilst we may deplore inflationary wage claims and increases in wages for general economic reasons, there is no doubt that the Government are the beneficiary. They probably derive benefit from excise duty, purchase tax, and the rest, on goods consumed by people with higher incomes which is more in proportion than the amount of the increase in wages.
But what happens? Consider, for instance, local authority wage increases. The Government get the benefit from increased taxation; the local authority gets nothing. The local authority pays out and the Government get the benefit. I should think that this is an added reason for a greater amount of Exchequer assistance to relieve the burden on the rates generally and particularly on the domestic ratepayer. I consider the Order inadequate, because there remains an immense burden which, during the next financial year, will certainly be resented by the poorer ratepayers throughout the country.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. Martin Maddan: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) couched his criticisms of the Orders at least in moderate terms. The hon. Gentleman did not fly off into areas of greater contention, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland).
Mr. Julius Silverman: I did not wish to emulate the terms in which hon. Gentlemen opposite couched their speeches a year or two years ago. They were quite extravagant and ridiculous.
Mr. Maddan: I am sorry to be rebuked for congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his moderation.
Mr. Silverman: Withdraw.
Mr. Maddan: I do not withdraw. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me later, if he wishes, to accuse me of lack of the moderation of which, no doubt, he will assume that I was guilty before.
In considering these Orders we must start from the economic position in which the country as a whole finds itself—that is one way of putting it—or, as I prefer to put it, in which every person finds himself as a result of the policies of the previous Government which led, during the last 12 months of their term of office, to the galloping inflation from which we are now suffering—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not seem to agree. But I do not see how anybody could disagree that we have inherited a situation of galloping inflation as a result of the policies—or the failure of the policies —of the previous Government.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not widen the debate. He can, however, make a remark en passant.
Mr. Maddan: I will not tempt the hon. Gentleman to draw me further. I will continue on the Order.
The position in which we find ourselves is one which requires local authorities to be encouraged to economise. If it is merely a few candle ends, that is not to be despised. I expect that most hon. Members have had to economise from time to time in either a public or private capacity. Useful total savings are usually achieved by adding together a lot of candle ends.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which one can accept without any party political undertones, about difficult economic circumstances. He says, or implies, that because of these it is necessary for local authorities to rein back their expenditure and that this is the Government's policy. But how can the hon. Gentleman reconcile that, which is a logical policy on its own, with the Government handing out more than £300 million in income tax reductions at a time when there is a necessity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not widen the debate too far.
Mr. Maddan: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman, except to say that
738
expenditure is one thing; taxation is another.
We must encourage economies in expenditure. We must not despise them because they are small. Small economies made over a wide area can add up to a substantial total. That is where we start.
No pressure operates so effectively upon local authorities to economise as the feelings of the ratepayers. If the result of the Order is to shift the balance towards the ratepayer from the central Government, that may be no bad thing in increasing the sense of reality in the local authority finance committees and debating chambers.
I should like to contradict the right hon. Member for Grimsby on the line which he took, entirely contrary to that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), now the editor of the New Statesman, who deplored rates as a hopeless tax and wanted to see them ended. I thought that the right hon. Member for Grimsby rather praised rates and was satisfied to leave the situation very much as it is.
That is not my position. I think that the rating system has many weaknesses. It is carrying a burden which it is not really effectively and fairly able to bear. So I look forward with lively anticipation—not that it will be a sudden salvation from all our problems—to the Green Paper in the hope that from it and the discussions on it new sources of finance for local government may be found.
That is relevant to the Order because we are now, in my opinion, at the beginning of a transitional period. We must look upon what we are doing in the rating sphere as the beginning of a transitional period. We must not do too much calculating and extrapolating what is being done today to 1975 or 1978, because I hope that substantial changes will be made in local government finance before that time.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby said that local authorities have to carry out what are, in effect, services to national standards laid down by Parliament and that, therefore, it is for the central Government taxpayer to finance them. The right hon. Gentleman implied that that was a proper system. I entirely disagree.

739
Parliament lays down all kinds of standards. About 10 years ago Parliament laid down standards for heating, lighting, and so on, for office accommodation. Parliament did not say that the taxpayer would pay for commercial firms to bring their offices up to those standards. Of course not. We lay down standards, but that does not mean that we have an automatic necessity to finance the implementation of those standards.
I strongly believe in the need for determined, independent, efficient and strong local government. I believe that that will not be maintained for long when the rate grant support from the central Government reaches into the more than 60 per cent. bracket, which it will shortly do on present trends. I believe that such a situation will eat into the independence and, therefore, the effectiveness of local government. In so far as the Orders slow down that trend, they are to be welcomed. They do not reduce the domestic element but increase it, but not as fast as has been done in the past. In so far as that is so and it brings into sharper focus the responsibilities of local authorities to their ratepayers, that again must be welcomed.
We must consider these Orders in the context of many changes in local government, its structure and finance, which will come before many years have passed and which will be known and decided within the two years covered by the Orders. In that context, and in the context of the national economic situation we have inherited, I do not hesitate to support these Orders—indeed, I give them extravagant support if that is what the hon. Gentleman wishes to hear from me.
I end with a small local point in connection with the county of East Sussex, which contains my constituency. I do so to underline the points I have made. In terms of grant per head of population, East Sussex gets the lowest of all the counties of England and Wales, so I am not arguing from the point of where my county of East Sussex is treated extra favourably. The fact that East Sussex has the lowest grant per head of any administrative county results from the formula in relation to education units, and no doubt discussions between the county and the Ministry will continue on that point.
740
Nevertheless, having said that, my judgment of the Orders is that they will help in the creation of economies and in the generation of responsibility in local authorities, and that they will prove consistent with the trends we want to encourage and bring about in the reform of local government which we shall be considering before too long.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) in that he is right in saying that the Orders shift some of the burden from the centre to the local ratepayers. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) pointed out. What the hon. Gentleman did not go on to say—I will say it for him, and I hope I have his full approval—is that this in itself is a highly inflationary action. What could be more inflationary at this time than to cause, and openly to cause, one of the heaviest increases in rate burden that we have faced for some years? I do not think that that fact can be challenged. This, taken together with the considerable rent increases we have been promised, is bound to inflate demands for wage increases in order to cover the inevitably increased costs involved to the great bulk of the ordinary workers.
I have not had any rebuttal on this matter from the hon. Gentleman, so I assume that he must accept this situation. I find this quite extraordinary. He pointed out that we were in an inflationary situation. It is at least agreed on this side of the House that almost every action the Government have taken so far has fed the fires of inflation and made it infinitely worse. This is another example. These Orders are bound to be further inflationary in their effect.
Quite often, there is a certain unreality about these debates because we talk of global figures, rarely being able to bring them down to local terms. But I want to quote the example of my own constituency by relating what was said by the chairman of the finance committee of South Shields Council. I may add that he is a supporter of the present Government, since South Shields is not a Labour-controlled authority. He says:
"The future is indeed very black and we must exercise stricter control than ever in

741
the past … and … expunge some of the figures … We are now on the slippery slope. There is no ray of hope for the foreseeable future."
Those warnings are only too likely to be accurate and they confirm my view that the whole effect of the Orders is severely inflationary. An hon. Member opposite welcomed the Orders because, he said, they would encourage local authorities to hive off—that is the fashionable phrase nowadays—some of their activities to other bodies. I want to put the facts which a local authority has to face.
The North-East is an area where it is urgently important to provide fresh employment and fresh facilities for new employment through the provision of sites for new industries. As long as the support and grants given by the last Government persist, there remain opportunities for industries to come into the area, although those opportunities are being rapidly taken away by the present Government.
But these prospective industries have to have adequate sites for development, and this is essentially and inevitably the responsibility of central and local government. The whole problem of the clearance of derelict sites and the development of new sites, by reclamation from the river and from old industrial sites, is for the local authority to tackle and it wants to accept its responsibilities. I give it great credit for wanting to do so. But heavy expenditure is involved, even with the support that the central Government have been able to offer in the past and which we hope and pray may continue for some short while yet. But that we do not know, although we have heard many threats.
Who else is going to do this job, involving, as it does, all kinds of expenditure in trying to provide new industrial sites? No one else will do it. We have to rely on ourselves, and that is what my local authority wants to do. It accepts that it has a local responsibility, with support from the central Government. It does not want to hive off this problem and, indeed, there is no one to hive it off to. We are involved at the moment in very heavy expenditure on a joint project with other authorities for a major new incinerator linked with the redevelopment of an important area of land. Can anybody suggest to me that that is a project
742
which can be hived off and undertaken by somebody else? Of course it cannot. Another major project which has been urgently needed for many years is the cleaning of the River Tyne, for which there has come a gradual acceptance. It could bring great benefits, both in terms of the living standards and recreational facilities of people in the neighbourhood and prospects of bringing in new employment. Is that a project which can be hived off to someone else? Of course it is not. The only people who will carry it out are central and local government combined. Indeed, it is unlikely that there will be much contribution from central government in that case. I like to believe that there might be, but a large proportion of this great expenditure is bound to fall upon the local authority.
These are the realities one has to face. We are bound to be involved in great educational expenditure. We have the heritage of bad, old buildings for schools and hospitals, health service centres and so on. We want to change all these because we know that it is essential in providing a new appearance for the whole area. We are eager to tackle the job. To whom can that be hived off? Other than the local authorities, who on earth will undertake it? No one will. The only projects that no doubt could be hived off are those which might possibly bring a profit, and those are precisely the things on which I want some assurance that the Government will encourage local authorities to retain. This is the hope for our local community. We have these empty, windy words from the other side of the Chamber and when one analyses the words they mean nothing when considering the conditions of the kind of area for which I speak
The likely effect of these Orders in an area like that which I represent is bound to be inflationary. I have quoted what the chairman of the finance committee said about it. The treasurer's estimate and that of others who have done their best to work out what the effect is likely to be, is that we are almost bound to be involved in a rate increase of half a crown in the £ in an area like ours, without tackling any new developments which we wish to carry out. The treasurer is assuming that there may well

743
be an increase of about 20 per cent. in revenue expenditure over 1970–71. Whatever the local authority does in trying to hold things back to some extent, it will still have this kind of increase. We did not hear this kind of reality from the right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate. I felt that we were in a sort of cloud-cuckoo-land while the Minister was speaking, because what he said seemed not to relate to the situation as we see it in our areas.
The Order states:
"Nothing is included for possible future increases but in the event of an unforeseen increase taking place in the level of prices, costs and remuneration which has a substantial effect on the relevant expenditure of local authorities, the Secretary of State may by order increase the amounts of the rate support grants."
We appreciate that this is a fairly common form which statements come in. I ask for one modest assurance that there will be no delay in introducing what almost inevitably will need to be an increase order and that it will be done well before December of next year. We can already see that we shall be bound to face increases which will have to be paid by the local authority in April or thereabouts of next year, and they will have to meet that out of their own revenues. Therefore, we should have some assurance from the Minister when he replies that there will be an effort to meet this need quickly because of the very difficult circumstances with which we are all faced?
The serious point we must all face is the danger of the inflationary movements. In heaven's name, why should we add further to the inflationary forces? Why should we, in these Orders, be doing our best, in effect, to make matters worse and not better? I ask the Minister to pay some attention to this matter which is not one merely coming from those of us who have every party political reason to see evil motives in such Orders but from his own supporters, such of them as there are—there do not seem to be many at the moment.
There were some who were regular spokesmen on this subject in past debates. I particularly remember the vigour and determination of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) who used to appear in the House, whatever the time
744
of day or night, to castigate the previous Government and to demand further increases in the domestic element in particular, of the rate support grants. Where is he today? Gone, alas, are these voices which used to be so much concerned.
I therefore appeal very strongly to the Minister to see what further assurance he can give to authorities like those which we represent. Those authorities are committed properly and rightly to essential expenditure which cannot be met without an unfair addition to the rate burden, in the terms of the Orders he is now presenting.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Local authorities will be extremely cynical about the speech we heard this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). As someone who has been in local government for 21 years, I should describe it as crocodile tears and a complete reverse from everything that was said from the Dispatch Box when his party was in power. I, of course, was not here then, but having read the debates then with great care, I do not believe that there was much substance in what he had to say today. The Orders clearly encourage the extra expenditure needed on health, welfare, and education services, and the basic programmes which our local authority associations have put forward have been substantially met.
It is right to remind the House that the right hon. Member for Grimsby was far from accurate in many of his statements. It was not, as he said, in one year that the local authorities lost out on relevant expenditure but in fact in two years, in 1967–68 and 1968–69, when they lost £73 million, and not the figures mentioned by the right hon. Member for Grimsby. But in percentage terms 52·8 per cent. instead of 54 per cent. and 53·5 per cent. instead of 55 per cent. represent cuts of 1·2 and 1·5 per cent., which are more than double the reduction which my right hon. Friend has offered this year of a growth in this percentage of half of 1 per cent. Let us be clear that the right hon. Gentleman had not got his facts right.
He went on to say that, in the coming year, we were likely to face the biggest

745
rate rise experienced for many years. That is true. But one of the clear reasons for it which most ratepayers understand is that the cost of money is very high and that local authorities have been forced to borrow at exceedingly high rates due to the actions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that the Government were feeding the fires of inflation. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that at least we have had a clear admission of who started the original act of arson. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite began all the trouble when they were in power, and it is interesting to see how they are now all too anxious to magnify the estimated rises in rates.
As a former leader of the fourth wealthiest local authority in England in terms of rateable resources and as one who took over from an extremely spendthrift Labour-controlled council, I know that it is impossible to stop overnight a process which has been put in train by three or four years of Labour administration. It is virtually impossible to halt rising rates overnight when one's capital programmes are committed so far ahead and one has to borrow money at the sort of rates that we were offered under the last Administration. It cannot be done overnight. It cannot be done even in 12 months.
Mr. Ray Carter: At a stroke !
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: That is getting to be quoted so much out of context that it is not worthy of comment.
It was also interesting to hear the quotation by the right hon. Member for Grimsby from the Municipal Review. Clearly it suited him on this occasion. He would not have quoted from that journal two years ago, because it made many scathing remarks about the deceit practised by his Government on the local authority associations.
I come now to my observations on the Order, and I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his very lucid explanation and the highly competent manner in which he conducted the formal R.S.C. negotiations. I was one of the local authority representatives round that table, and in my view it would be difficult to find any-
746
one other than my right hon. Friend who could have mastered such a difficult brief in so short a time. Local government is fortunate to have a Minister at its head who has such a grasp of the real essentials.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will persuade his colleagues not to follow the example of the previous Administration whereby his Department issued Circulars instructing local authorities not to spend any more money, and other Ministers issued circulars exhorting local authorities to spend on more services, without willing the means. That is the important point. Exhortation by other Departments is all very well provided that they are prepared to shell out when the time comes and provide the necessary cash to carry out their programmes. If they do not, they are being quite unfair and merely indulging in propaganda exercises for their Departments, since the rate payers will have to foot the bill without help from them.
The first point that I wish to make on the Order concerns the difficult administrative problems that will be caused to local authorities by the decision to increase the domestic element by 2.8 old pence, bringing it to a total of 9½p in 1971–72, and by 2.4 old pence or 1p, making a total of 10p in 1972–73, instead of expressing these sums in whole new pence terms from the start. In view of the difficult accounting problems of local authorities which use computers to levy a rate in two half-yearly equal instalments, it would have been much more helpful and more in keeping with the modern image of efficiency which local government has if these items could have been expressed in whole new pence and if the domestic element could have been a total of 10p in 1971–72, 11p in 1972–73, and so on.
My second point relates to the decision to reduce the forecast totals for the two years by a total of £35 million, with no reason given other than on the ground of improved efficiency on the part of local authorities. That clearly penalises local authorities which are efficient, which have already spent considerable sums on management consultants and putting in new schemes, and which have supported such orgaisations as L.A.M.S.A.C. Although I do not give unqualified support to that organisation since, in my

747
view, it is going outside its proper work and starting to arrange seminars and conferences, impinging on the operations of far better organisations such as the R.I.P.A., I hope that L.A.M.S.A.C. will confine itself to computers and management consultancy and not start going into matters which are far better covered by the Industrial Society and R.I.P.A.
It will be difficult for local authorities to find the extra savings called for by this £10 million and £25 million.
As one who was engaged in the final formal negotiations, I pay tribute to the officials of the Ministries and local authorities who conducted the detailed negotiations over many months in such harmony and with such useful results.
In the detailed meetings at official level, the process of working out the trend covered items such as central purchasing. But that is nothing new to local government. All the matters had already been covered, and it is perhaps a pity that my right hon. Friend has decided to ask for them a second time. Either it is a case of my right hon. Friend having his cake and eating it, or of having his cake and taking one of our slices as well. If the Secretary of State was not my right hon. Friend but the right hon. Member for Grimsby, one might legitimately suspect on excellent past precedents that the cuts amounting to £35 million were based upon nothing other than the Minister's desire, having looked at the totality, to have a bit more of the total share of the local authority cake. It is a pity that this has been found necessary. It smacks too much of the cold hand of the Treasury creeping in at the last minute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) spoke of the separate teams in local government—the town clerks, the housing managers, the welfare officers, now superseded by directors of social service, and the like. He asked for management disciplines much along the lines of the first Maud Report. It is not much encouragement to those efficient, progressive local authorities who carried out this process a year or two ago to be exhorted by this £35 million efficiency cut to try to do it now to help bring down the overall costs of local government.
748
In recent times there has been much greater and better co-operation between Ministry officials and local government officials than was ever experienced during the five years when the Labour Party was the Government, so let hon. Gentlemen opposite not be happy about what is being said. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were deceitful when they were in power. They put over a story which could not be substantiated. At least my right hon. Friend has been open from the start, which is what hon. Gentlemen opposite were not, so let them get no comfort from what I am saying. There is no comfort for them either, in the expressions of views by representatives of local authorities all over the country. It is sad that this rather small sum should remain between the local authorities and the Government. I hope that the Minister will think again on the next occasion about whether some of this efficiency cut ought to be restored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said he was "getting unhappy that the percentage grant of relevant expenditure was getting near 60 per cent.". He thought that this would not be a good thing for local government. I think that my hon. Friend is completely wrong about this. I do not think that any particular percentage means a loss of independence for local government. If the spirit of local government is there, if co-operation between central Government and local government is there, the percentage is immaterial.
At a recent International Union of Local Authorities Conference, an excellent paper was presented by Dr. Marshall, the former Treasurer of Coventry. It showed conclusively that in many countries local authorities receive payments from their national exchequers far in excess of the 60 per cent. about which my hon. Friend was talking. I do not believe that there is any magic figure above which local government will lose its independence.
Speaking as the Deputy Chairman of the Association of Municipal Corporations, I can say to the right hon. Member for Grimsby and his hon. Friends that the total finally emerging from the negotiations is not regarded as inadequate for the expenditure that is likely to be necessary on continuing and developing the

749
various services which were accepted by the Government and by local authorities. I believe that there are two things that need to be done before the next Rate Support Order comes before the House. First, there must be an examination of the Green Paper, which I hope will throw up some new ideas. It is pretty clear that there is unlikely to be any method of financing local government other than by the rating system, but there are other ideas which I should support. One is to have a local lottery, which would be an element in the Order, because one could then say that a particular figure could be reduced slightly. Another idea is to provide a certain amount from local commercial radio.
I do not accept the argument put forward by previous Governments that because of a shortage of qualified staff it was not possible to proceed with revaluation. I remind the House that at the first major revaluation after the war, when valuation was filched from local authorities—the first of the acts to lessen local authority responsibility by the Socialist Administration of 1945 to 1950—to get an early revaluation district valuers called in outside firms of surveyors and valuers. Having been on a valuation court, I know that the work done by the outside surveyors was extremely good, and well up to the standard of the district valuer. There is therefore no reason why the previous Government should have funked the issue of revaluation.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he put his arguments to the House but, like the right hon. Member for Grimsby, I believe that the layout of the document leaves much to be desired. Apart from those hon. Members in the Chamber now who are fascinated by the esoteric subject of local government finance, few people outside will get past even the first page, not even with the 12½p on the front as the alternative price. I hope that a method can be found of putting the Order into better language.
I conclude with an apology to the House. I have a long-standing engagement at 7.30 with a professional association. I fear, therefore, that I may not be here to hear the whole of the debate, but I hope I have made my points as succinctly as possible.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Probert: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), because if I do I shall find myself wandering into realms with which I do not want to deal, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would have a salutary effect on his thinking if he were to read what was said by his right hon. Friends on this subject when they were on this side of the House.
I find myself in some disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and the Minister in their oblique references to Circular 2/70. From 1st April next year this circular will have an effect on the rate support grant, which in turn will have an effect upon rating generally.
I believe that this innovation will seriously curtail local authority projects such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred—land clearance schemes, and so on. Apart from that I think that there will be a greater increase in rates than there has been for many years, solely as a result of the Government's policy. I think, too, that the rate support grant itself will be under-estimated.
On 27th November the Prime Minister made a speech at Manchester, and The Times of 28th November reported him as saying:
"At the same time we propose more extensive assistance towards the cost of improving basic services and clearing dereliction in the development areas."
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister was sincere in expressing that view. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services did some fantastic work when he was Minister of Housing in a previous Tory Administration in attempting to persuade local authorities to go ahead with derelict land schemes. He did all he could to encourage them in this matter and gave grants of up to 75 per cent. or 80 per cent.
I am sure that both he and the Prime Minister are sincere. Local authorities were very lethargic about this. They seemed to do nothing, despite the generous grants. It was the unfortunate episode at Aberfan that acted as a spur to them, and encouraged schemes for the clearance of derelict land to go ahead in many parts of the North-East and

751
South Wales. I feel that the Prime Minister is not fully aware how the new procedures which will come into effect from 1st April next year will affect derelict land schemes of local authorities. I intend to write to him personally on the matter.
From next April derelict land schemes will not be included in the key sectors; they will come under locally-determined schemes. The Rate Support Grant Order provides for the expenditure of £1 million and £1·1 million on open space, derelict land and clean air in 1972–73. I suggest that this is in no way sufficient to cope with the schemes that are already planned in South Wales and, no doubt, the North-East and elsewhere. When these schemes are taken out of the key sector local authorities will be inhibited. I suggest that one way out would be to deal with the matter on a regional basis. In cases where local authorities have severe problems the Government should see that the schemes for derelict land are covered by the locally-determined schemes and placed in the key sector.
But there is a far more serious effect, and I am afraid that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and hon. Members opposite, have not realised it. The circular to which I have referred states that:
"All capital payments made during the year on locally determined schemes (including any part financed from Government grants) will count against the allocation."
The effect of this will be quite dramatic. Urban districts and non-county boroughs will have to charge to their annually locally-determined schemes allocations the gross cost of those schemes. This means that they will come nowhere near the total expenditure that would be incurred. I hope that my right hon. Friend—who will soon be sitting on the other side of the House—will realise this deficiency in Circular 2/70. I appeal to the Minister of State who, as everybody would agree, has greater knowledge of the matter than any of his hon. and right hon. Friends—
Mr. Crosland: I must claim slightly greater credit for the Labour Government for the level of grants in respect of the clearance of derelict land than my hon. Friend has done. Is it not the case that special grants in almost every case have
752
been made under a succession of Distribution of Industry Acts? They would not be affected by Circular 2/70.
Mr. Probert: I do not accept that. Circular 2/70 is clear. Derelict land is included in the schemes for which urban districts and non-county boroughs will have freedom to operate and the gross expenditure on those schemes will be charged against their annual allocation from the county areas concerned. I shall be glad if I am proved to be wrong about that, but I should like the position clarified.
In accordance with the Prime Minister's intentions and the intentions of my own party when in Government, local authorities have already been persuaded to embark on these schemes. I would have thought that they would therefore be placed in a very difficult situation. Circular 2/70 is a civil servant's circular. Civil servants would say, "It is a matter for local authorities. The local authorities must decide their priorities". After a closer examination I am sure that the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman would not accept such a facile answer.
The Government naturally want to control the global expenditure of local government. The new arrangement is considered to be a way of doing this. But all grant-aid schemes will remain under the direct control of the Government. If what I suggest came about the Government would still have direct control. They would have to approve the derelict land schemes that were proposed.
There are two ways of remedying the situation. Derelict land schemes can be placed in the key sector. I think that that is the better solution. Alternatively, the net cost of the approved schemes only could be charged to the allocation to urban districts or non-county boroughs from county councils. In both cases the Government could discriminate in the case of development areas or areas where derelict land is a serious problem, so avoiding a blanket acceptance of my suggestions.
There are many aspects of the new financial scheme which take effect from 1st April. I conclude by touching upon only one. Everybody who has any experience of local government will appreciate that towards the end of the

753
financial year the money in the kitty should be spent quickly. The new set-up may have a serious effect in defining what the rate support grant must be. We shall have a rate support grant increase order next year, and fantastic problems will arise if we are not careful. It will mean that towards the end of the financial year non-county boroughs and urban districts will have to go cap in hand to their big brother, the county council, to see what they can get out of the pool. My hon. Friends have not been aware of what is in the circular. Even more ignominious and more frustrating—local authorities will be quarrelling with each other as to who shall have what out of the county council pool. This is a fantastic way to deal with the matter.
At one time we had what was called a rate equalisation grant which the rate support grant has to some extent supplanted. The former grant was allocated in the first place to county councils and they dished it out to the various urban districts, similar to what is now to happen on a larger scale. Things almost broke down and then we got the Jenkins Report, which proposed that the matter be dealt with via urban districts and non-county boroughs. This remedied the difficulty overnight. Unfortunately, the new system will take us back in time, and I hope that because of these serious defects the new set-up will be reviewed by the Government.
What will be the position of housing schemes for urban districts and non-county boroughs? If they want to produce a cycle of, say, 300 houses, I understand that the money required for the house erection aspect will come out of the key sector, though the ancillary services such as street lighting, heating, sewerage and so on will be allocated in gross from the annual allocation of the local authority, urban district or non-county borough within the county district. This will put this type of allocation beyond the means of such authorities—and this for essential services. This inadequacy needs further consideration.
I have tried not to be partisan tonight. I appreciate the sympathy which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services have in this matter. I feel emboldened to ask the Prime Minister to see whether the question of derelict land can be placed in the key
754
sector, certainly for areas with special problems. I have particularly in mind areas like South Wales and the North-East. They will be grateful to the end of their days for the sort of sympathetic act for which I have asked.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I regret that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) is no longer in his place. He claimed that the speeches made by my hon. Friends bore no relation to the problems he was facing in his constituency. He might have found the same fault in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), since the problems of derelict land do not apply any more in South Shields than they do in the attractive part of East Sussex which I represent.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) seemed to think that there was some great merit in claiming that some of my hon. Friends should read the speeches which we made two years ago. I cannot recall whether I had the privilege of catching your eye in that debate, Mr. Speaker, but certainly on the occasions when I have addressed the House on the subject of rates in recent years the case I have put has not varied. What I hope will vary is that tonight I will receive a more satisfactory answer, because we now have a Minister who is well versed in these problems about which I have spoken, and on which I must comment again tonight.
I have previously told hon. Members that the constituency which I have the honour to represent has at least as high a percentage, if not the highest of any constituency in the country, of retired people living on fixed incomes. That means that many of my constituents are gravely concerned about the incidence of inflation. I need hardly remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that at the time of the General Election this matter was uppermost in their minds. Inflation was worrying them gravely then, and it is worrying them now.
They are worried, too, about the amount of rates that they must pay. I frequently come across examples of people who retired on what they thought was an adequate income, but after a few years in retirement they are finding that not only is inflation making life difficult for them but that increases in rates are in some cases making it impossible for them

755
to continue to live in the houses which they thought would be suitable for them for the rest of their lives.
When the hon. Member for South Shields said that there were "slight differences" in the problems which were exercising our minds, I thought how right he was. For example, he wanted to know what would happen to the local authority in his constituency which was busy arranging for new industries to be developed. In my constituency we have virtually no industry. Such industry as we have is largely concerned with services, and they were not encouraged by the last Government.
This means that there are no places in which people in my constituency can go to get an additional slice of the cake which increases in size for those who are geared to the industrial life of the nation. Even those who work in industry in my area are receiving wages well below the national average for similar industries. I therefore ask the Minister to comment on the problems of those living on fixed incomes and particularly worried not only about inflation but about rates increases. His remarks will be eagerly awaited by the people I have the privilege to represent.
I come to the wider picture of how rates affect East Sussex. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) referred to this problem. My county treasurer has worked out some figures, and I will give a short summary of the results at which he has arrived. When one looks at the amount collected in rates East Sussex, one sees that we come fifth in the league table of 58 counties in terms of the amounts collected per head of the population. By collecting £35·67 per head of the population, we come fifth.
On the question of grants, we are at the bottom of the league table, No. 58. We get £32·65d. per head. When the two are put together, we come No. 53 out of 58 in the league table, with a total of £68·32 per head as the total of rates plus grants. I may have been wrong, but I thought I heard the hon. Member for Aberdare refer to Brecon.
Mr. Probert Mr. Probert indicated dissent.
Mr. Godman Irvine: In any event Brecon comes No. 54 in the list. It
756
charges £21·23 per head of the population as against £35·67 in East Sussex. In rate grants Brecon gets £73·44d. as against our £32·65d., which puts Brecon fifth in the table for grants. It ends up by being fifth overall, with the addition of rates, with £94·65 per head of the population to spend as against £68·32 in East Sussex.
My county treasurer expresses grave anxiety about the way in which the educational unit will be weighted in future. He calculates that it will be a sum in excess of £300,000 which East Sussex will be losing. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the position of my constituency and give careful consideration to the points I have put forward on behalf of my county.
I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on his having to open various sewerage plants. I, too, have seen some of these plants, and I agree that some of them do not look very different from some of the older ones. But there is one ray of hope. I commend to him some of the plants to be seen in places like Denmark and Switzerland, which successfully recover a great deal of the material which is collected in refuse, put the remainder into a drum, add the remaining sewage to it, and produce a compost which is sold largely to local authorities. The result makes a very considerable financial contribution to the local authority resources. These plants are much more attractive places, and it would do my right hon. Friend no harm to pay them a visit and see whether such a system might not be of benefit here.
7.40 p.m.
Mrs. Doris Fisher: When discussing the Order we need to take into consideration the fact that the domestic relief given is being given in a year in which local authorities are facing very severe financial problems and rates will be rising substantially regardless of what is laid down in the Order. I should like to emphasise some of the things which will be applicable to a city such as Birmingham, which is perhaps our largest local authority and may well bear one of the largest burdens.
The effect of the domestic element of the rate support grant is, as a rough estimate, that it will cost the city's domestic ratepayers £196,000 in the first year and

757
practically £250,000 in the year following. That, with the efficiency cut of £200,000 proposed for 1971–72 will result in a rate increase of about 2½d. being placed on Birmingham householders by the Tory Government, regardless of any cuts or financial savings which the city may itself make.
The Order speaks of a saving of £10 million from increased efficiency, and that saving has to be borne pro rata by all local authorities. Birmingham, being the largest local authority, is responsible for one-fiftieth of that amount, so the result is that we are penalising efficient local authorities. For many years I have been a member of the Birmingham City Council and have prided myself on ours being an efficient local authority. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has just left the Chamber, because he would probably agree with me that the chairman of the City Council, not a member of my party, is not a very efficient chairman of the finance committee.
Birmingham has had its management consultant teams at work. It has had its organisations and methods survey. It has increased its productivity bonus schemes to its manual workers in order to get increased efficiency. We have had bulk purchase for many years. We have co-ordination of departments and services. That being so, where can a local authority which prides itself on being efficient save the amount asked for in the Order? The reduction for increased efficiency means that in the first year Birmingham is being penalised to the extent of £200,000 for being efficient, and to the tune of £250,000 in the following year. A loss of such magnitude to a city which prides itself on being a good local authority can be made up only by increasing the domestic householders' rates or lowering the services provided.
When looking at efficiency we must also look at the direction in which cuts can be made. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), and I, too, would like to know where we can make cuts. No less than 17·3 per cent. of total local authority expenditure goes on salaries to teachers, and I sincerely hope that the Government are not suggesting a cut in either the salaries or the numbers of teachers. Another 52 per cent. is accounted for by wages,
758
salaries, superannuation and National Insurance. I do not think that Birmingham is different from any other local authority in these percentages of what has to be paid out.
Another big item of expenditure is 13·7 per cent. interest on and redemption of debt. I do not know whether the Government will suggest ways in which rates of interest will fall rapidly so that we can economise in that respect. We find that 65·7 per cent. of the total expenditure of a large local authority goes on these two last items. I ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aston asked: where do we make the efficiency cuts? Where do local authorities make their penny-pinching?
The Government speak of savings by eliminating work which does not have to be done by public authorities. I would be very interested to hear the Government name the work which someone else could do much more efficiently or more cheaply. We have here a kind of bandying of words which has no meaning at all to local authorities. It is completely confusing, and seems to show a complete lack of understanding between local authorities and central Government.
It is fully accepted by practically everyone that private enterprise will take part only in undertakings which show a profit. What are the profitable services that are operated by local authorities? What is the work which they could eliminate by saying that it could be batter done by private enterprise? It will obviously not be the personal services, because those are the expensive services: the educational services, the services for the aged and the handicapped are not services that private enterprise will want to take over. I am sure that it will not want to take over sewerage. Will it want to take over the swimming baths, the water undertaking or the burial grounds? It is important that the Government should let local authorities know where lie the savings from eliminating work that ought to be undertaken by people other than local authorities.
In paragraph 8, page 2, I read something with which I disagree entirely. It says that the continuing growth of public expenditure causes a "discouragement of personal effort". Anyone who knows anything about the work of local authorities knows that in the main it is the

759
expensive services that they have to undertake because no one else will do them. Can it be said, for example, that the growth of public expenditure has discouraged children from staying on at school after the age of 15? In fact, it is doing exactly the opposite, encouraging personal effort.
I am often worried by the present Government's attitude to what is called public expenditure. Since I have been a Member, I have sensed that the expression "public expenditure" has come to be regarded almost as a banned word, like words in some of the famous books which have been banned. It seems almost that public expenditure ought not to take place at all. In truth, we know that many Acts of Parliament increase local government spending. One of the criticisms which local authorities sometimes make is that legislation is passed but the finance is not forthcoming to put the schemes into operation. As has been said, the burden is being shifted from taxation to the ratepayer. It is easy to pass legislation, but if the necessary finance is not forthcoming, local authorities have no alternative but to disregard the legislation, putting off its local operation, or to increase their rates.
Many extensions of services to the aged, the infirm and the handicapped are not fully implemented by local authorities for the simple reason that adequate finance does not come from the Government, and they feel that they cannot raise their rates to provide for those extensions.
On the one hand, the Order asks for developing services and, on the other, it asks for continuing restraint. The two cannot go together. If there is to be continuing restraint, there will have to be a discontinuance of services.
It is of great personal concern to me in my constituency that there is little or no increase in the amount of money going to what are called parks. Birmingham has gone ahead rapidly with slum clearance. We are developing the city centre with fine new housing, but so many of our schemes are blighted by the open spaces left derelict, just left for one, two or three years, where fly-tipping takes place and where the general landscape, if one can call it that, presents an abject outlook. The local authority is finding
760
money for its houses because the tenants are having to pay for that facility, but the general landscaping is bad. Open spaces are left bare and derelict, so that the overall appearance of local authority developments in slum clearance areas is appalling. It is most unfortunate that better provision in this respect cannot be made straight away for the people who live there.
I plead with the Minister to give special consideration to local authorities which embark on substantial slum clearance schemes. Let him be far more generous in the allocation in respect of parks. They are not parks as such; they are just public open spaces planted with grass and trees in places where such things were not known before.
The folly of the Orders before us is that in a year when ratepayers will face unprecedented rate increases the Government are making arbitrary efficiency reductions which cannot be sustained and are reducing the relief to the domestic ratepayer. The only consequence will be a substantial curtailment of local authority services or substantial rate increases. At the same time, many of my constituents know that they will have to face higher rents because of future Government policy. With all these increases coming about, and with food prices rising at the same time as a direct result of Government policy, life looks bleak for the average household. Yet, at the same time, the mini-budget gives benefits to those already better off.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We have as a guest in this country just now Professor Galbraith. It is a pity that he cannot be here to listen to our debate, for were he to be present he would be able to listen to a Government pursuing a policy which is turning into reality in Britain, after the six years during which we tried to go the other way, his concept of public squalor in the midst of private affluence. That is what the Order will inevitably produce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) both referred to the cut in income tax which the Chancellor announced on 27th October. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said very honestly that

761
the Order shifts the balance towards the ratepayer. In fact, the two can be put together as part of an obvious strategy on the part of the Government. On the one hand certain people have reductions in taxation while on the other—the hon. Gentleman put it fairly—the householder will have to pay more. He will have another counter-balance to what he fails to gain from the income tax reduction.
There is one way in which the householder will not be asked to pay more, that is, if the local authority services are reduced. But this brings the Galbraithian distortion into greater prominence, because local authority services are services which those who are worst off require most. A man living in a nice house in an outer suburb with a big garden in which his children can play and no derelict areas round about in which they can be contaminated or have accidents does not think much about local authority services. The basic elements are required, but, apart from them, he can carry on pretty well. If, on the other hand, he lives in the inner part of a large city, such as the constituency which I have the privilege to represent, the services which the local authority can provide are essential for all kinds of amenity. A good environment—how laughable it is that the right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for the Environment—can be a reality for him only through the services which the local authority gives.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Hove to say, in his enthusiasm, that he wants the Government to go ahead with shifting the balance towards the ratepayer, with the inevitable corollary of reduced services if the ratepayer is not to be asked to pay more. He sits for Hove, a nice seaside resort, where there are amenities of every kind. In my constituency, however, for very many of the people whom I represent amenity is minimal, and the Order can only reduce the standard still further.
To the great misfortune of the citizens, the city council of Manchester has for the last three and a half years been controlled by the Conservative Party.
From the moment it took over, the Conservative Party showed a mean mindedness completely against the great civic traditions of the City of Manchester. Over these three and a half years, the Conservatives have continued with their
762
mean mindedness and linked with it inefficiency. They are reducing services, reducing standards and creating misery for the people whom I have been sent here to represent. The policy which the Order embodies will inevitably add to the inefficiency and increase that mean mindedness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) referred to derelict land and to the speech which the Prime Minister made when he came to Manchester a fortnight ago. It was my misfortune to be present and to listen to that deplorable speech. In the course of it, the Prime Minister spoke both about derelict land and slum clearance. It would have been far more appropriate if instead of making that speech he had come to my constituency, in my company if he so wished, and had seen areas which the Order will make more difficult and more unpleasant to live in.
Since my election to Parliament six months ago, I have been in correspondence with various civic departments about the problems of derelict land in my constituency, derelict land which is a health hazard, on which children hurt themselves, on which rubbish is tipped. Over the course of six months I have got almost nowhere in my efforts to get that derelict land cleared. I have got nowhere in getting the council to do something about it. I do not even have answers to my letters.
Mr. Paul R. Rose: Is it my hon. Friend's experience that not only does he not receive letters from the city council and not only is there this health hazard, but there is often the terrible hazard of rodent infestation? The Manchester Corporation displays remarkable complacency about this serious problem.
Mr. Kaufman: The problem of rodent infestation is encountered in my constituency. It is one of the most abominable things that families with children have to put up with in certain parts of my constituency. It takes quite an effort to get Manchester Corporation to do something about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) spoke about amenities around new housing developments. We have growing housing developments in my constituency.

763
One is near a railway viaduct, Rostron Close. Over the past two months I have twice written to the council asking it to do something about the rubbish which is tipped on this land making an eyesore in front of what should be a great new amenity. So far I have not even had a reply to my letters. Nearby there is a railway arch which has been left open and children can run through it into the traffic.
My correspondance with the council about other sites has reached the stage when I have had a letter from the city planning officer to tell me with some satisfaction that a public spirited organisation in my consituency the Rusholme and Fallowfield Civic Society is taking over one of these derelict sites itself and turning it into a playground. It is utterly deplorable that a great city like Manchester should rely on the civic sense of a voluntary body to do a job which the council is there to do, although I pay tribute to the civic society, which is a fine body. I have had a letter from the city planning officer to tell me about other sites, for instance the Beresford Road site, about which he says that the council cannot do too much, because the cleansing department has only a limited amount of capital and labour to undertake the work. Yet the Government are reducing the resources which will be available to deal with this kind of problem.
The document refers to housing improvements. There are two blocks of flats in my constituency, Heywood House and Brook House, which are some 30 or 40 years old and which are in some need of improvement, but where hundreds of people live. The flats are deteriorating rapidly into derelict civic slums. The tenants are growing disheartened at living there. Whenever I go to these blocks of flats I am certain to be met by complaints about broken glass, mess, lack of amenity and all the rest of it. After a great deal of pushing and after first saying that it could do nothing, Manchester Corporation is to do something about one of the blocks. Far from having increased expenditure on housing improvements to help such blocks of flats, we shall get nowhere with the Government's policy of reducing the amount of help available.
Mr. Maddan: The hon. Gentleman has selectively quoted various aspects of Government policy. Will he refer to that aspect which proposes to change the method of housing subsidy and thus create unprecedented amounts of resources which will be available for rebuilding houses in the sorts of areas and in the big city centres of which the hon. Gentleman is speaking?
Mr. Kaufman: Government policy will put unprecedented amounts on the rents in the constituency. The Manchester Evening News has estimated that the Government's policy will add nearly £1 a week to rents for my constituents, many thousands of whom live in corporation dwellings, and a spokesman for the corporation has described that estimate as realistic. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman to Manchester at any time to tell that to the people who live in corporation dwellings and whose rent was increased months ago, but not until after the General Election and the municipal election.
The Order will have harmful effects in other respects. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood mentioned the necessity of providing amenites for new estates. New estates are being built in my constituency. People complain to me that there are no libraries to service people in the new estates and, worse still, libraries are being closed down in other parts of my constituency where they have been a great boon to old people whom the sheer meanness of the Conservative controlled Manchester Council has deprived. We cannot expect any expansion under the policy which the Order embodies.
Part of the perimeter of my constituency is on the Mancunian Way. It was a great misfortune a little time ago that the child of one of my constituents was killed while playing over the Mancunian Way. At the inquest her father made the point that there were limited play areas available to children in the area. I am in correspondence with the council about this and in this respect the council is actually trying to do something, and some action is being taken. But play areas require money and resources and the Order will not make that kind of provision possible, even though it is so

765
necessary for the children of the people I represent.
This Order tells us about the elimination of unnecessary work. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) in a scathing speech—scathing in terms of the sycophancy with which hon. Members on the other side of the House greet anything which the Government put to this House—spoke about this part of the White Paper. If corporations are being called upon to eliminate tin-necessary work, and heaven knows the Manchester Corporation is not doing anything unnecessary—it is not doing things which are necessary—how on earth can they expand amenities greatly required by constituents? For example, the Manchester Corporation is promoting a Private Bill which will, among other things, compensate people whose domestic amenities are disturbed by the noise from Ringway Airport. I have asked the corporation to consider giving the same compensation to my constituents who live near the freight liner depot in Ardwick and Longsight and whose homes are being made uninhabitable by the freight traffic.
The corporation will not put this into the Bill, it has not got the money. The policy embodied in the Order scarcely makes it possible for the corporation to do anything about it. There is a great debate going on in Manchester about the need for a place where people can make open-air speeches, an extension of democracy. The city council wanted to do something about it, it was actually considering it—it has been considering it ever since April. After passing a resolution in April saying that it was desirable, it decided in November to take no further action because of the expense.
The Chairman of the City Planning Committee said that such a Speakers' Corner would cost half a million pounds, I would be the last to advocate spending that sum on a Speakers' Corner when it could rehouse hundreds of people in my constituency, who badly need housing, However, as the Manchester Evening News said in a leading editorial on 26th November:
"Such estimates are sometimes to be taken with a grain of salt."
They are made because the Corporation are not willing to do it and are looking for an excuse.
766
This is something which the people of Manchester want very badly, as is shown by my correspondence, but it is highly unlikely that we will get it at half a million pounds or even £500 under the skinflint policy embodied in the Order.
All of these matters are burdens which will be passed on to a Labour-controlled council in Manchester just as similar burdens will be passed on to other Labour-controlled authorities when we gain control of hundreds of seats next May, as we obviously will. In the country as a whole and in Manchester in particular, it will then be for the Labour Party to revive the civic services and civic pride. Our cities must be well run or the social problems inherent in them will worsen. We have the experience of the United States to show us what happens to great cities, especially the inner parts of great cities, when they are neglected and when private affluence is put ahead of dealing thoroughly with this problem. The philosophy behind the policy the Government are putting forward is one of neglecting our large cities and neglecting our urban problems. This is a philosophy which is wrong and the longer the Government continue with it and the policy embodied in the Order the sooner will the country come to realise how wrong it is.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) for having, in such a detailed way, dealt with the problems which affect constituencies in the great cities of this country. Since his constituency is next to mine and the next area for clearance straddles both our constituencies I can say a profound "Hear, hear" to all that he has said. The words "public expenditure" are dirty words in Conservative circles. Over the past three years in this House I have listened to speeches from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite attacking the growth in public expenditure which took place under the previous Government.
As a glutton for punishment I watched the Conservative Party conference on television and heard the roars of disapproval every time public expenditure was mentioned. We are now in a situation

767
where public expenditure will not and cannot be cut because the jobs which have to be done are too important and they are more important than a great deal of the spending which takes place in the private sphere. This Order will not in itself reduce public expenditure but it will force a heavy increase in rates which bear heavily on the less well-off, so that the Government can cut the taxes which will most benefit the wealthy. This is part of the package which the Chancellor brought to the House some weeks ago. It will have the same purpose as that package—increasing the burden on the average householder and holding up the growth of essential services.
Now we can see what the Conservative Party manifesto meant when it said:
"We will increase the independence of local authorities."
What it really means is that it will see to it that the ratepayer gets a big increase. During the next few months the citizens of my city and a great many other places will see what a combination of a Tory central Government and Tory-controlled councils can produce. To hear hon. Members opposite one would think that all had been sweetness and light in the discussions between the local authorities and the Government. One might almost expect that to be the case since nearly all the local authorities are Conservative-controlled.
I want to draw the attention of the House to what Alderman Kathleen Ollerenshaw of Manchester City Council said at the end of the discussions. She is the chairman of the education committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Until this year she was chairman of the Manchester Education Committee and is a highly respected figure in Conservative education circles. The Times Educational Supplement of 27th November reported this:
"Internal squabbles between members of Conservative groups on Conservative-controlled councils will be caused by the result of this week's rate-support grant negotiations, Dr. Kathleen Ollerenshaw … said on Wednesday. The negotiations, she told The Times Educational Supplement, had played right into the hands of the opposition groups. Conservative councils would be faced with either a drastic increase in the rates or a drastic cut in their expansion programmes. They would probably do both, fall between two stools, and would in some cases lose the next local government elections, she said."
768
I can assure her that the Manchester City Council will be one of the places where her prophecy will come true.
What are the points on which the local authorities felt strongly in these negotiations? First, there was the reduction in the rate of increase of the percentage assistance given to authorities from 1 per cent. to ½ per cent. The 1966 White Paper proposed steady increases so long as the local authorities were reliant upon rates for the majority of their revenue. The local authority associations in the negotiations stressed at the meeting with the Minister the need to continue this steady increase in aid but the Minister refused to accept this argument because he argued that the increase had in the past been used to shield domestic ratepayers unnecessarily from the financial effects of local decisions. The unfortunate timing of the decision meant that there will be considerable rises in rates this year because of increasing costs alone. This was the one year when there was this cut in help from the Government.
The second point was that, relevant expenditure having been broadly agreed, deductions were made of £10 million from the 1971–72 figure and £25 million for improvements in efficiency. "Efficiency", in the Government's view, apparently means making extra charges for local services. Perhaps the Minister will suggest what charges should be made when he replies. Certainly the city of Manchester, at any rate in its officials, has a very high reputation for efficiency. I am sure that the City Treasurer, who has a high reputation in municipal financial circles, could give the Government a hint or two on efficiency. But, efficient or not, the same cut will apply to all authorities.
The authorities' third point relates to the real growth represented by the levels of relevant expenditure referred to in the Order. The City Treasurer pointed out that this does not represent an improvement in the standard of service. A considerable proportion of this new money will be necessary simply to maintain standards in the face of increasing numbers of schoolchildren and elderly people, increases in the volume of sewage, and so on. In the face of this built-in or natural growth, the local authority associations felt that the proposed growth

769
rate would allow little in the way of improvements.
The City Treasurer has, incidentally, made an estimate—he insists that it is only an estimate—of the grants that would be available to Manchester under the rate support grant. This shows that last year the domestic element had a 35·8 per cent. increase. In the coming year it will have a 9·9 per cent. increase. The resources element last year increased by 7·9 per cent. and next year it will be 4·9 per cent. The needs element increased by 12·6 per cent. last year and it will increase by 9·7 per cent. in the coming year. According to my calculations, these differences are less than in the country as a whole, since the Manchester needs element is very considerable.
I turn to education. In House of Commons Paper No. 172 the Government claim that:
"Provision is made for a significant improvement in the level of non-teaching costs per pupil in primary, secondary and special schools and in further education establishments and account is taken of the higher loan charges which will result from the Government's decision to increase the school building programme."
I hope to hear more detail from the Minister when he replies.
The Educational Publishers Council and the Educational Equipment Association brought to our notice recently the relative decline in expenditure on books and equipment. These bodies have vested interests, of course. They want to sell more hooks and equipment, as those of us who have been in the teaching profession and at the receiving end of the salesmanship know. Nevertheless, it is time that those of us who are especially interested in the development of education added our voices to the points they make. One point is that eight years ago, in 1961–62, 3 per cent. of local education authority spending was devoted to books, equipment and stationery. It is now 2½ per cent. on the last available figures for 1968–69. The amount spent on textbooks and library books for primary children was just over £1 a year per child. If we count a 40-week year and not a 52-week year, that is only 6d. per week, probably less than the amount the children spend on comics.
It is no use our building fine primary schools if we do not spend enough money each year to equip the teachers and the
770
children to do their respective jobs. I am against the purchase of large numbers of sets of textbooks. I have unearthed in cupboards in schools textbooks that were years old, out-of-date and often inaccurate. But in the coming years there will be a need for the purchase of many textbooks. Decimalisation may have some disadvantages, but at least it will have the advantage of getting rid of a vast amount of old-fashioned books based on the old currency.
The level of expenditure on books and equipment, particularly in primary schools, is hopelessly inadequate. Inflation has been especially felt here, because I understand that the cost of paper has increased in the past four years by 40 per cent. and the cost of printing and binding by about 34 per cent.
Purchase tax, too, has a considerable effect, not on books but on stationery and equipment—what we call the bread and butter items of school expenditure. Local education authorities must pay purchase tax on much of their educational purchases, about 16 to 20 per cent., so that of the money they spend at least one-fifth returns to the Government. Government Departments do not pay purchase tax and do not realise the expenditure involved here. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of this and as part of the next package give local education authorities exemption from purchase tax at least on items of educational equipment which they purchase.
The capitation allowance which some local authorities make available for the purchase of books and equipment is woefully inadequate. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will use the powers which she has, and which she should use, to direct local authorities to spend a larger proportion on them.
Why is all this important in the context of the rate support grant? It is because when local authorities are looking for areas in which they can cut, this is one that they choose. They cannot do much about teachers' pay, because that is fixed nationally. They cannot interfere with the school building programme, because it is long term. So they come down to a pretty narrow field.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick mentioned that Manchester has had a Conservative Council for 3½ years.

771
Before coming to the House in 1967, I was head of a school in Manchester, and the last meeting I attended took place shortly after the Conservative Council took office. That was in May, and in September we were called to a meeting to be told that the council had decided in that calendar year to make a cut of 2½ per cent. in education expediture. In the middle of the year the range was very narrow, and it was money for books, equipment and stationery which had not been spent during the current year which caught it. I urge the Government to encourage local authorities to spend money on equipment, books and stationery in schools.
The difference between the attitude of the two main parties is to be seen in public expenditure. Money spent on education, the social services and the whole range of local government services is more important than private spending. I understand that around the offices in Whitehall the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is called the Minister for Private Affluence, and the Secretary of State for the Environment is called the Minister for Public Squalor. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not live up to that title, but the rate support grant Order does not encourage me to think that my hope will be realised.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. Ray Carter: I rise principally to address myself to a constituency matter on the rate support grant.
Before doing so, I will address myself to some of the bizarre comments that have come from the Government side today. They remind me of an incident which occurred during a by-election I fought at Warwick and Leamington in 1968, when the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, was pulling every punch to win a series of by-elections. During the second week of my campaign he issued a Press statement saying that Conservative councils had been extremely successful in holding back rate increases and, in some cases, reducing the rates. I could not believe this, because I knew that the Labour Government had introduced rates subsidy legislation, and at that time the central Government was subsidising local authorities to the tune
772
of 10d. in the £. I said to a journalist, "Surely he knows of the existence of this, and knows that what he is saying is not true." The journalist said, "Oh, no, he probably does not know at all." Having heard some of the comments from the Government side today I am quite prepared to believe that the journalist was right.
At that time I was a member of a Tory-controlled local authority in Berkshire which was able to increase expenditure whilst at the same time reducing the rate burden—probably because of rate subsidies. I have found it strange that Conservative-controlled local authorities should criticise the Labour Government for not giving them enough help when I have asked them to take a certain action to improve local services. I wonder what these Conservative-controlled councils will say to the ratepayers now that a Conservative Government have taken the reverse action and reduced the contribution from the central Government?
From my experience as a councillor, I am convinced that rates are the best form of taxation. I have doubts about the way rates are levied, and I think that the system is rather iniquitous. Nevertheless, ratepayers can see what the local authorities provide for them, whereas they cannot see what general taxation provides. Local people can also see what needs to be done and raise their voices in support of a particular cause. When a rate increase has to be made to raise money for that cause they are often quite prepared to pay the increase.
This cut in the rate support grant is disastrous. It represents a cut of 46 per cent. It is bound to increase the burden on the ratepayers, and it is bound to be inflationary. Already my own Conservative-controlled City of Birmingham is talking in terms of a 2s. 6d. in the £ increase. This comes on top of two previous years when increases have exceeded 2s.
I come now to the point that is of concern to my constituency. It is an issue of life and death. It is a matter with which I was concerned as a candidate for 18 months in trying to get the Conservative council to take action. It refused, it lied, and I was subjected to

773
a great deal of evasion on the part of the chairman of the public works committee. Twice I called on him to resign. He lacked the wisdom to do so and is still there.
This whole matter concerns a road called Longbridge Lane which runs from the biggest car works in Europe, British Leyland. That road carries articulated lorries which contain six to eight cars; it carries a great deal of the traffic going to and from the works delivering vehicles and the people who work there. It is probably the worst road in Britain. As a result of this cut in the rate subsidy, it stands no chance in the future of being improved or remodelled. The accident figures for this road are staggering. In the past three years there have been over 130 accidents; more than 50 have resulted in some form of hospital treatment, five have ended in death.
I initially took up this case when a man was killed in an area along the road where there is no light. I immediately asked the Conservative chairman of the public works committee to take action to get the road improved. He wrote back to say that this was impossible because the Government, then the Labour Government, would not produce the necessary finance to carry out the improvements. I wrote to the Ministry to ask why it refused to grant this finance to the Birmingham City Council. The Ministry told me that it was not a road which could qualify for Government assistance; all that was required was that the Birmingham City Council should ask the Minister for loan consent. I went back to the chairman of the public works committee. He admitted that he was wrong. I then asked him to carry out some form of inquiry to establish the relative prioriy of this road vis-à-vis the other roads in the city. He refused.
All this was published in the local Press. I sent the chairman of the public works committee 3,000 names of people who were vitally concerned with this road and who wanted to see it reach a state where death and blood was removed from the scene. I was implored by residents in the road who, week in and week out, had to go into the road to lift mangled bodies from cars to urge the Conservative council in Birmingham to carry out the necessary road improvements. All kinds
774
of people got in touch with me, but I was unsuccessful.
Since coming to the House I have asked the Conservative-controlled council in Birmingham to take action, but it has said it cannot do so. However, I wonder what that council will do now that a Conservative Government will allow it to have even less money in the kitty.
What am I to tell my constituents of Longbridge Lane who have witnessed over 130 accidents in three years in which five people have been killed and 40 have been taken to hospital? I can only tell them that this Government are heartless; that they have their priorities totally wrong.
I hope that even at this late stage Birmingham City Council, which has not so far shown a great deal of compassion, will urge the Government to rethink their proposals. Obviously it is too late in the day. I shall have to go back to my constituents and tell them that I have tried extremely hard to get improvements made in this road but that the chances in future are even slimmer because of the cut in the rate support grant. I think that the council, even though it is politically partisan, should be honest and come clean and admit that the Government are not interested in improving the environment in which people live.
I sincerely hope that some extra thought will be given to our road problems in cities—problems which are increasing day by day, and certainly increasing in my constituency, which has this tremendous factory right in the middle of it. If the Government have second thoughts I am sure that the people of Longbridge Lane, even though they have waited three years for improvements to that road, will be grateful. I therefore appeal to the Government to think again.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Peter Rost: As a ratepayer, I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I speak on behalf of long-suffering ratepayers, particularly in south-east Derbyshire.
I should like to pose two questions for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who so ably opened the debate.
Despite the substantial help which the Government are providing in the Order,

775
rates will again go up substantially. I should like to know, first, whether we really are sure that the additional expenditure being undertaken by local authorities is necessary; and, secondly, whether the whole question of reforming the system of local government taxation will be considered?
On the first point—whether the extra expenditure is necessary—I do not suggest that there can be any substantial reductions in, for example, education. On the contrary, we are obliged, and we intend, to increase expenditure in such important spheres. But I maintain that there are substantial areas where we could produce more efficiency than is at present being achieved.
I should like to be reassured that local authorities all over the country are effectively employing bulk purchasing policies to create greater economies. I should like an assurance that local authorities throughout the country are getting sufficient guidance whether they are perhaps undertaking too much paper work.
I should like an assurance that local authorities are not employing more personnel than they really need, because this is a major item of expenditure. I have particularly in mind direct building departments. I am convinced—and I would like to be proved wrong—that certain direct works departments are not running as efficiently as perhaps they could be and are not able, in some cases, to do the work as economically as outside private enterprise firms could do it.
Mr. Clinton Davis: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to cast such aspertions at large about direct building operations carried on by local authorities, but it is quite another thing to substantiate his case. Will he produce cogent evidence instead of making these bare assertions?
Mr. Rost: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is not my purpose now to give chapter and verse of individual cases. I have merely posed the point that I believe that the Government and we in this House should ensure that there are no cases of inefficiency and that the whole question should be looked at again. In the past, such cases have come to light. The whole
776
thing needs looking at if we are to control the ever-rising increase in rates.
Another example of where perhaps we are employing more people in local government than we need came to light during the recent dustmen's strike. One local authority decided to contract the work out and found that private enterprise was able to do it not only more cheaply to the ratepayers but more efficiently because it doubled the number of collections, making them weekly instead of fortnightly. In addition, the employees in the private contracting firm were earning substantially more than the dustmen employed by the local authority. I merely suggest that perhaps we have not looked deply enough into the whole question of whether functions now performed by local authorities could be more economically carried out by outside contracting on a more competitive basis.
My third example is that of road maintenance. The activity could well be looked into. Perhaps private contractors could do the work far more efficiently and cheaply than those employed at the moment by the local authorities. These are some of the activities my right hon. Friend could look at and advise the local authorities accordingly, in order to achieve economies.
Rating reform has been mentioned in the debate. There are great inequities in the present system. There is one aspect which causes more distress and annoyance perhaps than any other. I have a petition already signed by several thousand of my constituents on this matter. It affects primarily owner-occupiers but also some tenants who spend their own money on improving their houses—particularly in the installation of central heating—and then find that they are re-rated as a result. Quite rightly, this causes considerable annoyance. People who have spent their own money on improving their houses regard it as unfair that they should be subject to increased taxatian as a result. I should be obliged if my right hon. Friend would look into this aspect of local government rating as an example of an unfair system.
A second matter with regard to the unfairness of the rating system is that in many cases the nationalised industries do not pay their fair whack of rates. This causes an unbalance in many local

777
authorities where there are large nationaised industry headquarters or properties which do not contribute towards the rates, and an extra burden is placed on the rest of the community. To spread the burden more evenly, I should be obliged if that matter could be looked into.
But that is only a quibble, because it is the overall problem of local taxation which must be examined. The present system is most unsatisfactory. Over the next year or two, the whole matter must be subjected to reform. Naturally, I am not this evening making any suggestions along these lines, as this is not the time to do so. But I emphasise that we have to restructure not only local government boundaries and the administration of local government, to achieve greater efficiency, but at the same time we have to completely restructure the finance of local government, so that the burden at least falls more evenly on the taxpayer according to his ability to pay.
I give wholehearted support to the Order because I regard it as an interim measure until we can tackle the fundamental problems of local government reform, involving boundary structure, administration and finance.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart: I wish first to emphasise and re-emphasise that rates are a regressive form of tax. They tall more harshly on the poorer sections of the community than on the richer sections. It is all the more reprehensible, therefore, that the Order will tend to push the burden further on to the ratepayers, making an already regressive tax even more so. The decision having been taken to swing more of public expenditure on to local authorities, it is extremely urgent that the Government should do something tangible about the reorganisation of local government finance, if possible at the same time as there is a reorganisation of local government boundaries.
The Order concerns me very much on behalf of my constituency. The Swindon authority has already announced a supplementary rate increase this year of 6d. in the £ from 1st January. It has also indicated that this increase will be followed by a further increase of 3s. in the £ from 1st April next. It is absolutely no use telling this local authority that it has to contribute to
778
overall efficiency, because apparently as a Conservative controlled council, it says that it has already made this contribution by a reorganisation of its internal management structure.
The people of Swindon will be concerned that the present Order may very well put on them greater burdens than they bear already and expect to bear from the 1st April next.
The services which are likely to suffer when the cuts come to be made—and cuts are inevitable—are those in the hands of local authorities. I have in mind, for example, the meals-on-wheels service, the home help service, the maintenance and repair of roads, and facilities in our towns. As a Member representing an expanding town, I am extremely concerned about the lack of facilities for those who have been induced to come there to live and work. Only a week ago I met a deputation of young people who complained bitterly that there was nothing for them to do and nothing provided for them in Swindon. For their leisure activities they have to go as far as Bristol. It is services of this sort that the local authorities will cut. As one of my hon. Friends said, they are part of the environment and of the society in which we live. Unless we are prepared to spend more public money in these directions, our environment will suffer.
Too little attention is given to the transport services provided in many of our towns. In many cases the nonexistence of them is becoming a disgrace. Before long we shall find vast tracts of our towns laid to waste for the provision of roads which will never accommodate the cars that will be attracted by them. At the same time, large sections of our communities will be denied the opportunity to travel from home to work or to the town centre.
Far from reducing the rate support grant and asking local authorities to economise, the Government should be honouring their pledge to set local authorities free and give them the opportunity and wherewithal to improve their environments and the local services without which the country cannot exist.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Peter Fry: Mercifully, my intervention will be brief. I support these two Orders with some misgiving. I regard them as being, in the

779
end, a bitter pill for many domestic ratepayers. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), I do not set great store on revaluation. I remember the last revaluation. I suggest that it created almost as many difficulties as it solved, especially amongst owner-occupiers.
The problem of rating reform is germane to this whole debate. I agree with the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) that there is no quick and easy panacea. In the years that I spent in local government studying this problem, I became convinced that the eventual answer must be a combination of measures. Obviously some degree of the present rating structure must remain. I have in mind those parts of it which apply to business and commercial premises. In addition, help must be given to domestic ratepayers, especially those on small incomes. Assistance must also be given to our great cities with their denuded central areas.
The time has come to be much more realistic. All those who benefit from the rates should contribute if they are in full-time employment. It is ludicrous that there can be two adjoining houses paying the same rates, one occupied by a widow whose income is just above the level at which she can gain some support and the other occupied by six or seven people who are all in full-time employment.
I believe that, after constant revaluations, as the level of the rates increase people will become increasingly dissatisfied with the present system, and, therefore, I am looking forward eagerly to the Green Paper which we expect after the Christmas Recess giving the Government's conclusions on the reform of local government finance.
I appreciate that one of the Government's purposes in presenting these figures to us is to make local authorities look again at their programmes to see how much they can save. But let us not fool ourselves; the margin that they have is exceedingly small. Anyone who has sat on a county council finance committee knows that very little can be done. I have spent three or four hours on an education committee to save £10,000 on a budget of £1½ million. This is very
780
often the extent of what can be done in local government to cut local expenditure.
On the other hand, I believe that what the Government are doing today is very good for setting an attitude. I remember a couple of years ago being on a governing body and examining the estimates of a school for the coming year. I was horrified to see amongst the projected expenditure one deep freeze and six automatic sewing machines. When I tackled the headmistress about this, she was surprised to think that I considered that expenditure unnecessary. I said that if we were ever to try to get any sense into local government finance we had to start at that level. Each school governing body and each sub-committee of a council has to examine whether its expenditure is essential.
As I say, I believe that the margin for cuts is very narrow indeed, but I regard these two Orders very much as a holding operation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said. I await eagerly and critically what the Government will have to propose after the recess, and, therefore, though I support both these Orders, I do so with a certain amount of trepidation about the effect that they will have on many domestic ratepayers.
9.3 p.m.
Dr. John Gilbert: There are many reasons why one can deplore the cuts involved in these Orders. There are, however, two points which I should like to emphasise. They both relate to matters on which local government spending is inadequate, and where it will have to rise, at least in one case. They are two similar problems, but the principles involved are quite different.
The first involves the Minister for Social Security and the whole question of provision for the disabled. Due largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), there is on the Statute Book an Act which represents the first comprehensive attempt to deal with the problems facing the disabled. That is now the law of the land, but many sections of the Act await Ministerial action before they are brought into effect.
When those sections are brought into effect there will, inevitably, be huge increases in local authority spending on the

781
disabled, and quite rightly so, and I have to be frank and say that many hon. Members, on this side of the House at any rate, are apprehensive that the delay in activating certain sections of the Act is probably due to the fear in the Minister's mind that when local authorities get down to compiling a comprehensive register, as it will be their statutory duty to do, it will be found that the total number of disabled is very much greater than any of us has hitherto suspected. We must hope that is not the case but, if it should prove to be so, it will mean that the total sum of human unhappiness and suffering is also much greater than we have hitherto suspected. When this part of the legislation is implemented the financial burden upon local authorities will inevitably be much greater than at present. I hope that the Government will not merely try continually to delay on this exceedingly important social problem.
My last point concerns concessionary bus fares for the old, the blind and the disabled. Some local authorities have a very good record on this; some have introduced merely token schemes, and some—like my own—have done virtually nothing. Schemes have been negotiated with transport authorities and undertakings but nothing has been done. The local authority has dragged its feet. The schemes have not been implemented. In the case of the blind and the disabled the amount of money involved is often trifling.
This is a social problem of increasing seriousness. We are not talking about luxuries—about such things as television sets; we are talking about the basic problem of the old-age pensioner in getting from his or her home to a shopping centre, or to a local social club, or in visiting neighbours, friends and relatives in different parts of the same borough. If they are really concerned about the social problems of old age the Government should act speedily and with generosity. I have had more correspondence on this than on any other subject since I became a Member.
These schemes do not make a great demand on national resources; they are purely transfer expenditures. The buses are running anyway. Most of the schemes operate in off-peak hours. There is no additional consumption of petrol or oil.
782
There is no great addition in terms of maintenance. There are no extra wages to be paid to the bus crews. There is no reason why we cannot do something for our old people—something that would mean very much to them.
Not long ago I put down a Question to the Minister asking him if he would ascertain exactly what schemes were in existence, so that we could know what the facts were. He refused to do so, but gave no reason. I hope that he may be induced to change his mind. If we have a survey I am afraid that he may find that the problems are much greater than he suspects. If so, there will be an overwhelming case either for the institution of a national scheme for concessionary bus fares for the old, the blind and the disabled, or for him to make it mandatory on local authorities to introduce their own schemes—not merely token schemes but schemes with minimum acceptable standards.
9.9 p.m.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I want to stress some of the problems that are being faced by boroughs—especially those in the inner London area. There is likely to be a foaming Niagara of discontent about rates in the inner London area. I hesitate to think what will happen next March. Certain political tactics may be devised because there is to be an election in May, but in my borough the situation has got out of control. The local authority, which has been Conservative since 1968, has introduced schemes based largely on political dogma, which have wasted the resources available in this borough—resources that could have been used in many vital spheres.
One of the first things the council did in trying to deal with the problem of homelessness was to take over an old G.L.C. property of 110 dwellings and herd 110 families into it. I understand that a similar policy is being undertaken in Wandsworth. We on the Labour side of the council described in graphic terms what would happen. We said that it would be a waste of money and that tremendous social problems would be created by herding families together, and that is exactly what has happened.

783
There is a certain amount of lawlessness there, but the families which are innocent of that lawlessness must carry the stigma. Instead of being able, as we could have done, to buy up properties individually all over the borough and deal with the homeless in a humane way, the council embarked on this policy, and the folly of it is now abundantly plain.
Families in Duncan House, which is what it is called, are living in misery not because of the nature of the block of flats—there are many worse—but because of what the people in the surrounding area believe and because there are some who live in Duncan House who do not conform to the rules. This policy was born out of political prejudice.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) spoke of direct labour, and, while he did not exactly castigate direct labour schemes, he suggested that there might be something wrong with direct labour forces throughout the country. Time and again I heard in my council from 1968 onwards that sort of allegation. There was no evidence, but just the bare assertion. That will not do.
Since the Conservatives came to power in local government they have suspected and attacked direct labour schemes, notwithstanding the evidence that has always been available. Although there are a few instances where direct labour schemes have not operated properly, in the main they have improved standards, have accepted high standards and have saved substantial sums for local ratepayers.
Mr. Rost: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is no evidence of inefficiency in direct labour schemes? Whether or not he is, I was making the point that in many cases it is difficult to judge whether there is inefficiency and whether the work could be done more economically by private enterprise contracting outside simply because the opportunity is never afforded for contracting outside.
Mr. Davis: That is simply not so. We in Hackney had an independent survey into the direct labour force. The Conservative members of the council believed that it would show direct labour schemes
784
to be inefficient. They were proved to be wrong. This has happened in other parts of the country. We have been engaged in competitive tendering. Indeed, more often than not the direct labour force has won these tenders, and deservedly so. So the hon. Member's intervention will not do. All he has done is to underline his earlier attack on direct labour schemes, which was bereft of any evidence at all.
I cannot think of even one scheme which the Conservatives have innovated. In not one case have they produced a novel idea. When I was chairman of the welfare committee my chief welfare officer was constantly producing new schemes—Continental holidays for the disabled, and the like—but we have seen nothing of that sort since 1968. But we have had cuts in our library and welfare services.
In one respect the Conservatives have been absolutely positive. They introduced a scheme whereby bailiffs distrain on arrears of rent in the sum of £20. This has been a tremendous success. It was introduced last year and as yet not one distress warrant has been issued. But they had to waste money in setting up the scheme. We spent hours debating it, when it was pointed out quite clearly that the whole thing was an extravaganza and could not possibly begin to operate in any positive way.
In one instance my local authority has been obliged to incur expenditure because of the reckless behaviour of another local authority. There is a terrace of houses in Paragon Road which was acquired from the old Hackney Borough Council by the Greater London Council. It comprises 12 properties, and is part of a larger estate which the Greater London Council now has.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but he must link it with the Orders.
Mr. Davis: I was seeking to establish, Mr. Speaker, how our health department has been obliged to waste money because of the activities of another local authority.
No fewer than seven public health notices have been served by the London Borough of Hackney's medical officer of health on the Greater London Council—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect, I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's account of a quarrel between the two local authorities, but he must link this with the Orders.
Mr. Davis: This is something on which my local authority has been obliged to waste its resources. The health department employs a large number of people who are vitally required to undertake this sort of work in respect of private landlords, and the resources that have been wasted could usefully have been employed elsewhere. One has only to go to Hackney to see how many private landlords fail to equip their properties properly and allow them to fall into wrack and ruin. It is an absolute scandal that the Greater London Council should behave like a Rachmanite landlord and cause the London Borough of Hackney to deploy its resources in this way—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be the absolute scandal the hon. Gentleman talks about, but we are discussing the rate grant and an increase of the rate grant and he must link his remarks to the Orders we are discussing.
Mr. Kaufman: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if this Order had not been put forward the householders would have been aided more by the Government, and that, therefore, the resources which the householders are now being called on to provide under the Order would have been available to pursue this quarrel with the G.L.C.?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) will be grateful to his hon. Friend for trying to get him in order.
Mr. Davis: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for his ingenuity, Mr. Speaker, but the point has been made and I can now pass from it.
What I have been trying to establish is that in a whole variety of ways there has been a poor allocation of resources by the London Borough of Hackney. This is clear in Hackney, as it is clear in a large number of boroughs in inner London which are now controlled by the Conservatives, though, happily, only for a few months more.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. John Silkin: There are debates in the House which excite emotion, anger, even bombast, yet when the smoke of battle has cleared one has learned little of the essential differences which divide the two major parties. I believe that it is, rather, in a quiet debate of the sort on we have had today, a debate in which hon. Members on both sides have related these Orders to their several constituencies, that we can clearly see the differences between the two parties expressed.
Broadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) pointed out earlier, there is a prejudice even a grudge, in the Tory philosophy against public expenditure. The basis of Labour thinking, on the other hand, is the unashamed approval of public expenditure. I make no apology for that view. It seems to me that civilisation is about public expenditure, and civilisation, like compassion, cannot be had on the cheap. The glories of Greek and Roman antiquity which we can still marvel at today were not the result of a cheeseparing or pennywise philosophy. The greatness of a civilisation is in direct proportion to the ratio of its resources which its devotes to the community as a whole.
It is, therefore, in the light of a desire to increase, not to diminish, public affluence that we on these benches scrutinise the Orders before us. Equally, it is in the light of a desire to cheesepare that hon. Members opposite, or many of them, view the Orders. I thought that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) expressed it most clearly of all. He came here, he flashed across our darkened sky like a comet, and disappeared we know not where—possibly in the direction of Hampstead—and he told us that his condemnation of the Labour administration in Camden which had preceded that of his own party was based on the charge that it was spendthrift, by which he meant, I suppose, that it spent more than he and his colleagues are presently spending.
That is not a matter upon which I should digress now. Rather, I think, we can leave it to the intelligent electors of Camden to make their choice in due course. But, at least, the choice is there, and it has, as I say, been clearly expressed.
Mr. Peter Walker: The electors have made their choice already.
Mr. Silkin: No. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the choice in this House was made on a false prospectus. The local electors will make their choice in due course, but at least they will make it on the basis of what we know to be the facts regarding public expenditure and the desire for public affluence. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—who, also, does not seem to be here at the moment—described it as a Galbraithian situation.
I thought that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) duly expressed the spirit of his hon. Friends when he talked about the need for local authorities to deal in candle ends, though he may have been influenced by the state of affairs which we have been experiencing.
Mr. Arthur Jones: An association of ideas.
Mr. Silkin: An association of ideas, perhaps, yes.
It is our first criticism of these Orders, therefore, that they go against the whole spirit and the whole philosophy that we have about public expenditure.
It was in the inevitable need, as we saw it, for an increased public expenditure in local government that the 1966 White Paper on local government finance had its origin. It spoke of a steadily rising increase in the percentage of expenditure and it said that this was to be met by the rate support grant wherever possible. Is this the moment to abolish, or at any rate diminish, this steadily rising increase in percentage? It has been for these four years a steady fixed increase of I per cent., and advisedly so.
It may well be that one day hon. and right hon. Gentlemen despite, there will be a change in local government financing; we do not know; but until that happens we must have central Government assistance increasingly brought into the realm of local authority finance, because while rating remains our only local source of taxation it needs the help of the central Government.
I come to my third point. In any event, this seems to me of all times to be the wrong time to be reducing that steadily increasing percentage from 1 to ½ per cent., or any other figure. The
788
very fact that the two years preceding it were years of considerable restraint, as the Secretary of State pointed out, is itself an argument for taking a different attitude today. The two years of hard slog that followed devaluation brought with them great difficulties and hardships and undoubtedly local authorities expected to play their full part in combating these difficulties, and they were right to do so.
Nevertheless, the fact that for two years there was this hard slog and restraint left certain problems. The Minister of Local Government and Development has already been quoted several times, probably because, as I have always suspected, inside him there is a little Fabian bursting to come out, but every time it reaches the conscious area, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hits it with a hammer and knocks it back. I quote him in the debate on the Rate Support (Increase) Order a year ago, and very wise words they were:
"Repair and maintenance of buildings cannot be neglected for more than two years without major expenditure on structures becoming necessary. Repairs on roads cannot be neglected for more than two years without resulting in major expenditure on road foundations. School books and school equipment cannot be left to become worn and out-of-date for more than two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 1071.]
Of course he was right.
What would be a reasonable figure of growth, the lowest one could find, to deal purely with the repairs and maintenance of which he spoke? Local authorities are in no doubt: they put the figure at an average of 5 per cent. What we face in these Orders is an average increase over the two years of 4·2 per cent. I do not believe that that will be sufficient, without a considerable increase in rates, to keep repairs and maintenance alive and with us. I applaud the Minister of Local Government and Development. I am sure we will hear him reiterate tonight the words he used so wisely a year ago.
The third point of disagreement we have with these Orders comes in the cut of £10 million for 1971–72 and £25 million for 1972–73, cavalierly described as an "efficiency cut". I cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State plucked the figures out of the air around No. 11 Downing Street. I suspect that there can

789
be little basis for these figures or any concrete basis for them in terms of an efficiency cut. It was noticeable that only one hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned the efficiency cut aspect, apart from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Arthur Jones: Is it not true that the £35 million represents approximately 1 per cent. of local government expenditure, which is surely a modest figure?
Mr. Silkin: Before I entered this House I was, for my sins, like the Minister of Local Government and Development, a lawyer. If there is one thing a lawyer trades in it is exactness, and if there is one thing he does not trade in it is percentages.
I am talking in terms of £35 million, a considerable figure. I was also talking about his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead, the only hon. Friend he has who mentioned the question of efficiency. He said that this was total nonsense and he was agreeing with those of my hon. Friends who have attacked the whole of this efficiency cut basis.
The Secretary of State made the best case he could in the Report, on page 5, paragraph 22. Here he tells us how he proposes to get his £35 million. Local authorities are to get it for him, through the greater use of management services. He mentions L.A.M.S.A.C., but he does not mention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) acutely pointed out, the fact that a large number of local authorities already use these services. He mentions bulk purchasing, calling it "pool purchasing arrangements". Again, he does not mention, as my hon. Friend acutely pointed out, that many local authorities are already using these arrangements. Then he says the introduction or extension of incentive schemes will help. All this will result in the saving of £35 million. He goes on rather modestly to say that the full impact will not be realised immediately. I very much doubt whether it will he realised at all. He may produce a few thousand pounds but I very much doubt that it will be £35 million.
Mr. Peter Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the previous Government, by refusing to make an increase Order slashed £100 million, and £50 million of that was absorbed? That
790
action shows that £35 million in two years probably will be absorbed.
Mr. Silkin: I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can go on for ever trying to blame their sins on the previous Administration. I am willing to take the right hon. Gentleman's point and say that we were at that time in a crisis year. We had a balance of payments deficit of what were alarming proportions. This has fortunately now been turned into the greatest surplus the country has ever known. I am sure that in assisting their Labour Government to reach this balance of payments surplus even Conservative local authorities were patriotic enough to feel that they had to play their share. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston pointed out that the so-called efficiency cut affects the just and the unjust, those who are efficient as well as those who are inefficient. But, even if it were spread, what scope is there to local authorities to make the cuts?
I was very impressed with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher). I cannot quite remember the figures she gave. They were in percentages, and the House will have heard some strictures from me about percentages. Possibly she introduced percentages to save us the frightening financial concrete sums that were in her head. She said that 52 per cent. of the expenditures of the city of Birmingham was by way of salaries, and gave a figure of, I think, 13 or 13·5 per cent. that was interest and loan charges. That does not leave much of a margin for efficiency cuts.
But that is not the end of the story The overwhelming amount of work that a local authority has to do is dictated to it, I would say rightly, by central Government. If, for example, the Secretary of State for Education and Science wishes to give a directive about the size of classes in primary schools, which we hope that she may well do, it is the local authority that will in due course have to meet a large proportion of the cost. Therefore, what room there is for a local authority by itself to make cuts of the sort the Secretary of State talks about, I do not see. I give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of any doubt. I doubt whether left to himself, he would have introduced that figure. It was probably whispered

791
to him outside or inside No. 11 Downing Street.
I mentioned a moment ago the question of salaries and quoted my hon. Friend's estimate of salaries being 52 per cent. of the expenditure of the city of Birmingham. Yes, but what about the salary claims in the pipeline? I realise that the manual workers' increases in pay is met by the increase Order, but there are further pay settlements in the pipeline. I hope that I am not being, in the sinful expression of today, inflationary when I say that it will not surprise me if teachers, police and firemen, in addition to being required in greater number, will also require bigger salaries in the year or two ahead. In other words, there is needed for local authority expenditure an increased figure for repairs and maintenance merely to keep the situation as it was. I pray in aid the Minister for Local Government and Development, who I am sure will support me on that.
For what is needed is not a cut-back for efficiency but an increase to make the local authorities more efficient, and that is what we are after. Otherwise the local authorities will be left with the dilemma of either not doing anything—letting the situation get worse—or putting the rates up by a considerable amount.
In so far as that additional burden falls upon the individual ratepayer, the Secretary of State has played his part in halving the rate of increase in the domestic rate. He says, quite rightly, "Yes, this had to stop some time". He quotes his predecessor in the 1966 Labour Government as saying, "Of course, it would not go on for ever at 1 per cent.". But his predecessor in 1966 had in mind the possibility that there might be other methods of rating finance and he could not possibly commit himself for all time. He believed that as long as the need was there the domestic ratepayer should be protected. Various estimates have been made of what a domestic ratepayer may have to face in increased rates. One hon. Gentleman suggested that the minimum increase might be as much as 2s. 6d. in the pound. This is a very great increase, if it comes. For these reasons we on this side of the House do not view the Orders with favour.
I started with the philosophy that divided the two major parties. This has
792
ben on honest debate; no attempt has been made to paper over the differences or to try to bring the two philosophies together. There is the philosophy of public expenditure and there is the philosophy spending only what one is obliged to spend. Those are the two philosophies which are in conflict today. Unfortunately this is part of a continuing process, a process that was made evident from the moment the Government were elected. It can be seen in the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the shift of burden from rate to taxation and the other way round in the cutting of income tax and the increase of rates. This can be seen all the way through. It is happening in a dozen areas of which this is only one.
My right hon. Friend has explained the traditional reasons why we on this side of the House cannot divide on the Orders. Unfortunately, our hands are bound but, if we could, I have not the slightest doubt that not only would we divide on the Orders, but the country as a whole would be with us in that Division.
9.42 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) did me the honour of quoting a number of statements which I made on the previous occasion when we were discussing a rate support grant Order. He quoted me as having said that there had been insufficient money for repair and maintenance for the previous two years. No doubt at that time I was referring to the two years previous to the debate, when there had been neglect of repair and maintenance of buildings or neglect of roads, and my point was that we could not go on with that. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that two years ago the Labour Government were in such a mess that they had to be cheese-paring, the implication being that we are doing so well now that we should not call for any restraint.
The debate on the rate support grant Order is bound to range widely over local government affairs, and one cannot therefore give an orderly reply. It is a wide-ranging debate because the subject of the Order is the development of local authorities' services, the increase in Government grant and the proportion of the cost

793
to be borne by the taxpayer and the ratepayer respectively.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech called the House's attention to the fact that we face, and must face, the fact that the growth of local auhority expenditure is greater than that of the growth of total public expenditure. I must disagree with the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) that we cannot have development of services and a continuing restraint. Of course we can.
The hon. Lady asked for consideration of assistance for open-space creation in slum clearance areas. Indeed, we would give encouragement, and indeed have done so, to general improvement area orders which solve some of the problems for the hon. Lady. If she would look at the figures for parks, for example, she would see that whereas in 1969–70 there was a minus percentage, not an increase, in 1970–71 there was an increase of 2·9 per cent. In both the years for which this Order now applies the increase is 4 per cent. It represents a very substantial increase on just the type of local government service to which she was referring.
Since I have the figures in front of me, I notice that those relating to refuse might be relevant on the points raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). In that case in 1970–71 the growth which was then recognised in the relevant expenditure was 3·7 per cent. in the next two years. We are recognising it as 6·5 per cent. for each year, which is a very substantial increase. The hon. Gentleman referred to public health in general. Had he looked carefully at the figures he would have seen that in 1969–70 the figure taken into account was £163 million, and in the next year £176 million. But for the two years with which we are dealing in this Order, the figures respectively are £209 million and £219 million, which finishes up almost a third above the figure in 1969–70.
Since so many subjects are covered, it is easy for the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) to complain about lack of information on some subject or another. He mentioned education, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). I shall be brave enough, in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
794
for Education and Science, to give the right hon. Gentleman a little information on this subject. The rate support grant negotiations were preceded by a long and careful study of the data available for the forecasting of local authority educational expenditure. That study was carried out jointly by officials of the Department of Education and Science and of the local authorities. The results are set out in detail in a joint report, which is a co-operative effort greatly to be praised. The report recorded almost complete agreement between the Department and the local authorities.
It was therefore possible to say that the forecasts of the educational components of relevant expenditure for rate support grant in 1971–72 of £2,055 million and for 1972–73 of £2,148 million include provision for increases in education proper of 5·1 per cent. in the first year and 4·9 per cent. in the second year. This compares pretty favourably with the previous figures of 3·8 per cent. for 1969–70 and 3·9 per cent. for 1970–71. In regard to non-teaching expenditure the settlement this year allows for substantial improvement factors. Again making a comparison with the years 1969–70 and 1970–71, the figures of increase then were 2½ per cent. and 1 per cent. For the two years which we are now debating we have taken into account increases of 3½ per cent. and 3 per cent. So we are nearly doubling the increase over those years.
The hon. Member for Manchester referred to the Educational Publishers Council and the Educational Equipment Association report and criticised the low provision for the purchase of school books and equipment. It is for the local authorities, in the first instance, to say whether the analysis in the report is sound.
But concerning the rate support grant two points can be brought out. First, the higher improvement factors will allow for an increase in real terms in the area of expenditure covering books and equipment. Secondly, since part of the case for more expenditure is the rapid rise in prices, the rate support grant system is designed to allow for price increases which authorities incur. They have claimed a price increase of about 6 per cent. in the current year for purchases under the heading of equipment

795
and materials, which includes books. The increase Order takes full account of that increase.
The negotiations for the figure for education expenditure are a typical example of one of the main features in the rate support grant exercise this year—the extent of the consultations between central Government and local government leading up to these Orders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) confirmed that the local authority programmes have been substantially met in deciding the relevant expenditure figures, and that the figures for relevant expenditure were not now in dispute between the Department and the local authorities.
Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is no dispute over the figures, then he is certainly living in a dream world, as was the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), whose remarks have been totally contradicted by other distinguished members of his own Association of Municipal Corporations.
The hon. Gentleman is not answering the question which I asked; he constantly quotes things going up even faster than the average of 4·2 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what in compensation is going up significantly slower than the average rate of 4·2 per cent., apart from a few parks?
Mr. Page: Administration is a good example. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is now arguing that there should be any restraint over local authority expenditure. He complained about the statement in the report that we had asked for restraint. Indeed, he quoted a paragraph in the report, which I thought a reasonable paragraph, in which we had merely called attention to the need for restraint in the increase in local government expenditure.
I have turned to the report which the previous Government put before the House in 1968 in support of the grant Order where the words are quoted:
"Taking local authority expenditure as a whole, the Government expects that in 1969–70 local authorities as a whole will restrain the level of their expenditure."
It uses practically the same words as we have used in the report this year.
796
The previous Government, in paragraph 14 of their report, said:
"In considering the estimates of expenditure, account has been taken of the need for developing services, of the relative priorities attaching to them and of the necessity for continuing restraint as explained in paragraph 9."
Strangely enough, to stress the point, there is a misprint and that line is repeated,
"them and of the necessity for continuing restraint as explained in paragraph 9."
It is perhaps incidental that it was stressed in that way.
Mr. Crosland: I must press the Minister. As to restraint, I am objecting to the total contrast between the speeches which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend were making two years and one year ago with the speeches which they are making today. However, the Minister is not answering the question which I put to him, which is not about the totals. The Minister said that expenditure on education and various other matters is increasing by more than the average rate of 4·2 per cent. If 4·2 per cent. is to be maintained, it must be paid for by other services rising substantially less than 4·2 per cent. Apart from a few parks, I want to know what those other services are.
Mr. Page: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to read out the full list?
Mr. Crosland: The major items.
Mr. Page: I have the list here. Among the items where there is a slightly less percentage increase this year are school meals and milk.
Mr. Crosland: Go on.
Mr. Page: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have patience as I look down the list. There is also a slight reduction in the figure at the moment for the police, which my right hon. Friend explained does not take account of the future increases which one contemplates there.
Mr. Crosland: Go on.
Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman apparently wishes me to read down a very long list of figures. I have given him one or two examples. I am quite prepared to lend him the list, if he

797
wishes, or to write to him about it, or to put it in the Library.
Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman has had since 4 o'clock today to do this.
Mr. Page: What the right hon. Gentleman is really arguing is that there should not be any restraint at all. That was the burden of his argument when he quoted from the report. He quoted figures of percentage increases over previous years. I have done a little mathematics on this and I find that the average over the years from 1964 to 1970–71 is 4·7 per cent. This compares not unfavourably with the figures of 3·7 and 4·8 per cent. that we have chosen for the next two years.
One would think, from the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that the Government's proposals this year are in some way a cut in the grants. In fact, we are proposing to increase both the total of Exchequer grants and the proportion which those grants bear to local authority expenditure. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) also talked about a cut in the rate support grant. There is no such thing. I sincerely sympathise with him about the dangers in Longbridge Lane, but if he examines the figures for highways he will see that we have taken account of increased expenditure and that there is not a cut in any way in highways expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) pointed out that the amount of rates paid had escalated more in the last two years than at any other time. Yet the right hon. Gentleman asked us to say by how much the rates might be increased during the next year or two. I am not going to be led into any quotation or estimate or guesswork on that.
Mr. Crosland: Very wise.
Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the domestic ratepayers would have to pay a great deal more. They have all benefited from the reductions of the rate poundage over the years, and the increased grants provided have been more than sufficient to cover the cost of the domestic element. Some part of it has thus accrued to the ratepayers generally. It seems to us on this occasion that the effect of the 5d. reduction
798
each year has been to shield the domestic ratepayer from virtually all the increases that have taken place in local authority spending. The Government do not consider it appropriate that the domestic ratepayer should be so insulated from the cost of services. While between 1966–67 and 1970–71 average disposable incomes rose by 21 per cent., the domestic rate poundage increased by only 9·3 per cent., so that accordingly we have decided that the domestic element next year should be not the traditional 5p but somewhat less.
Mr. Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that most Conservative councils have not been carrying out the expenditure which they should have carried out, and is he suggesting that they were quite wrong to give the domestic ratepayer the full benefit of this?
Mr. Page: I do not think that follows. It does not follow from what I was saying.
Mr. Kaufman: Surely the philosophy of the hon. Gentleman's party at the General Election, a philosophy which had great appeal for obvious reasons, was that indirect regressive taxes should be cut back, because these were a burden on the cost of living. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has made absolutely clear, one of the most important regressive taxes is the domestic rate. What the hon. Gentleman seems to be telling the House is that the Government have decided, as a deliberate matter of policy, to increase a regressive tax so that those with large incomes can get benefits from the reduction of direct taxes.
Mr. Page: I will not be led further into that rather philosophical dissertation. I want to deal with some questions raised previously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) asked for assurances about steps being taken for efficiency by local authorities. Many local authorities have employed consultants and have taken steps to make their operations more efficient.
I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), and the hon. Lady the Member for Ladywood about, as the hon. Lady put it, penny-pinching, and, as the hon. Gentleman put it, about cutting minor useful services. That is not

799
the intention and it should not be read into paragraph 22 of the report. It is the hope that all local authorities will take the example of some of the better local authorities in using management services to improve their efficiency, I doubt whether any local authority, even though it has used management services to improve efficiency, can put its hand on its heart and say that there can be no more savings.
The hon. Member for Aston raised an interesting point when he spoke about the increase in wages and how the Exchequer received a certain amount back in income tax. When the right hon. Member for Grimsby said that he was glad that the Order provided for the payment of grant on the whole of the amount of the manual workers' pay increase, I should have mentioned that although the Government, through grants, will bear 57·5 per cent. of the cost, that part of the costs falling on the rates will place about a 3d. rate on the ratepayers—a significant burden.
Decisions by local authorities on the pay of local authority employees will be reflected in the rate bills, and these increases have nothing to do with Government decisions on the rate support grants.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that the whole of the Order was inflationary. But there is a growth in expenditure, and it has to be paid either by the taxpayer or by the ratepayer. It is not necessarily more inflationary if one charges it to the ratepayer rather than the taxpayer. There is proper argument as to who should pay, but the hon. Gentleman's inflation argument does not stand up to examination.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the rate increase coupled with the proposed rent increase is bound to lead to further wage demands.
Mr. Page: It will result in a rent decrease for many in the system that my right hon. Friend has put forward. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one figure. If the grant in 1971–72 was 58 per cent. instead of 57½ per cent., the extra grant would be £18 million. If applied to the relief of rates generally, it would reduce them by less than 2d.
800
The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that there would be no delay in introducing an increase Order. His Government skipped a whole year in bringing in such an Order. We have no intention of failing to bring in an increase Order in the proper time if the circumstances warrant it, as set out in paragraph 7 of the report which the hon. Gentleman quoted.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) asked about derelict land. He was mistaken on one or two points. This receives specific grant which is paid in respect of actual expenditure, and there is nothing in this Order which restricts the amount of the specific grant payable. An estimate of the amount of revenue grants payable is made and it is deducted from the Exchequer grant as part of the process of calculating the rate support grant. Most derelict land grants are capital grants. The Government are not cutting back the progress in reclaiming derelict land. In fact the reclamation programme is increasing, and we wish to ensure that it continues to increase.
Mr. Probert: The hon. Gentleman missed the whole point, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in his intervention. Paragraph 12 of Circular 2/70 says:
"All capital payments made during the year on locally determined schemes (including any part financed from Government grants) will count against the allocation, except in so far as they are financed"
by matters which do not concern us now. The local authorities which come under county councils will have their allocation for the year increased by the inclusion of a capital grant and, therefore, will be prevented from going ahead with their schemes.
Mr. Page: I will study what the hon. Gentleman has said and see whether there is any way in which I can explain the position further to him.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) spoke about the disabled. I agree that this expenditure is likely to increase very substantially. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made special provision referred to in paragraph 14 of the report for the specific purpose of the mentally handicapped and the other categories mentioned there.

801
Towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Member for Grimsby said that rates are a horrible tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East all referred to rating reform. I go along with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that we ought to search for new sources of local government revenue. As soon as possible, the Government will be putting before the House a Green Paper for the discussion of possible new forms of revenue for local authorities. But I cannot see at the moment anything to take the place of these, and, therefore, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must concentrate on making rates more equitable. It may be that one would like to switch from rental values to capital values or to a contribution from the earning non-householder. We will discuss those possibilities over the next few months, and I think that we shall have some interesting and constructive debates.
For the moment, we are dealing merely with the rate support grant Order for the next two years. I ask the House to accept it.
Question put and agreed to
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Order, 1970, dated 20th November, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, 1970, dated 20th November, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932 to the Rural District of Barrow-upon-Soar, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]
Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act,
802
1932 to the Rural District of Market Bosworth, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

TRAFFIC WARDENS (FUNCTIONS)
Resolved,
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharples.]

LONDON TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES (PENSIONS AND COMPENSATION)
10.11 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the London Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.
We cannot skip over this Motion quite so quickly as we did the others. These Regulations went before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on 1st December, and that Committee was particularly interested in them because they seek to be retrospective to 22nd October, a provision which is authorised by Section 37(3) of the Transport (London) Act, 1969.
The House may be surprised to be called upon to consider Regulations relating to London Transport when, just over 12 months ago, the whole undertaking was handed over to the Greater London Council. Strictly, I should say that it was handed over to the London Transport Executive or, even more accurately, mainly to the London Transport Executive, a small part to British Railways, and another small part to the National Bus Company.
The House has to consider these Regulations because Section 37 of the Transport (London) Act. 1969, required the Minister as he was, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, to make Regulations providing for the payment of compensation to those who have suffered loss by the transfer of a transport undertaking to the London Transport Executive. The persons are described in Regulation 3.

803
They are entitled to compensation upon the relevant event, which is set out in Schedule 1. This, in short, means that when their employer changes from the London Transport Board to the London Transport Executive, or to the National Bus Company or to a subsidiary of the National Bus Company, they are entitled to compensation if they lose by that transfer.
The sort of compensation to which they are entitled is set out first in Part III, the resettlement compensation. If anyone who has been in employment with the London Transport Executive for three years loses by the changeover, he can claim resettlement compensation. Under Part IV an employee can claim long-term compensation for loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, or worsening of position. Under Part V an employee can claim retirement compensation or his widow or dependents can claim payment in the event of his death.
I should be happy to go through the Regulations in great detail and say exactly what the employee is entitled to, but I should point out that they follow the usual form which is already well known to the House. The British Transport Regulations were the same kind of Regulations.
I am sure that by the Regulations we have provided full compensation for anyone who suffers loss by reason of the change from the London Transport Board to the London Transport Executive. In order to make certain that nothing is lost by the fact that they have not been
804
brought before the House for about 12 months after the change took place, the Regulations are retrospective for 12 months.
Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend has said that the Regulations are retrospective. Did I understand him correctly to mean, in his last words, that the only reason for making them retrospective was that this was the first opportunity that Parliament had of bringing them into force, and that we are not making a precedent of retrospective legislation?
Mr. Page: Normally these compensation Regulations come in rather a long time after the event, because consultations take place between all those who are interested, and their organisations. I can assure the House that on this occasion there has been full consultation with the organisations of employees and employers, and that full agreement has been reached on the terms of the Regulations.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Tom Bradley: In elaboration of the point made by the Minister, I should declare an interest. I have the honour to be the president of the trade union that negotiated these terms. We are very happy and satisfied with them, and it would ill become me to oppose the Regulations in this place. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will approve the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the London Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

INVALID VEHICLE (MR. PAUL BATES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hordern: I wish to talk about my constituent, Mr. Paul Bates, and, in particular, about the strength of his case for a vehicle suitable to his condition. Paul Bates is a well-known Horsham figure. His courage and determination to lead a normal life have long been a source of inspiration to his many friends and to all those who have come across him—and especially to those who are disabled.
Paul Bates is a respiratory tetraplegic. He was struck down while on active service in the Armed Forces in Malaysia in the 1950s, and is effectively immobilised. He is, therefore, classified as a war disabled pensioner, and there is no dispute about this classification.
For many years war disablement pensioners who qualify by reason of the severity of their disablement have had the benefit of the use of the Minister's discretion, exercised under successive Royal Warrants since 1946, of providing them with a vehicle. This vehicle has usually taken the form either of a saloon or an estate vehicle in which these pensioners can be driven. It is accepted that there is no absolute right to these vehicles but, equally, there is no known case in which any such pensioner who was qualified has not had a vehicle if he wanted one. This was confirmed by Mr. Kenneth Robinson when he was Minister of Health in a statement to the House on 15th February, 1967.
This service has been a humane and generous action for those who have become severely disabled on active service for their country. What is more, the generosity does not stop simply at the provision of a car. Free road fund licences are issued, and insurance is also provided free. Further, an allowance is given towards the running costs of the car, and I understand that this amounts to between £50 and £100 a year. The vehicle itself is regularly replaced after a period of about five years. The Minis-
806
try will even adapt the car to reasonable modifications.
There is no dispute about the extent and generosity of the service that is provided. It is one of which the country can justly be proud. Where disabled pensioners have lost the use of both legs, they rightly deserve, and are getting, the best treatment the country can give.
My constituent, Paul Bates, has been offered one of these vehicles. Unfortunately, he is too disabled to be able to get into it. For this reason, and seemingly for this reason alone, he has been refused an alternative vehicle. It is true that he has been offered a grant, amounting to £120 a year, towards the running costs of a suitable vehicle, but that in no way approaches the extent of the benefits provided to those who are less severely disabled.
I repeat what these benefits are: a vehicle costing about £1,000 replaceable every five years or so; a free road fund licence; free insurance; and a running allowance of at least £50 a year. Against this, Mr. Bates has been offered a flat allowance of £120, and, of course, he is expected to provide his own car. This is an obvious anomaly and one which simply cannot be tolerated.
There would seem to be two courses open to the Minister. One is to provide a grant which would be comparable in money terms to that now given to these particular war pensioners who qualify, and the other is to provide a vehicle of comparable cost with the same services as are being offered. I recognise, of course, that these vehicles are not provided as of right. But it is a fact that they are provided to those who have lost the use of both legs. It is extraordinary to say the least, that they should not be provided to those who are even more disabled than those to whom they are provided.
What sort of proposition can it be that a certain service is given to those who are badly disabled but is not given at all to those who are even worse disabled? I cannot believe that there are many in this category. This small band of war disabled pensioners—I emphasise the word "war"—are so badly disabled that they cannot use a Ministry vehicle. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how many

807
of them there are and what cost would be involved in paying them a grant instead of providing them with this service.
However, this is not the only alternative. The other is to provide another kind of vehicle. I understand that this has recently been done with a Triumph Herald, fitted with a special door. My constituent wants something like a Commer 2000 van or another vehicle which would be comparable in cost to the cars which the Ministry now provide.
The remarkable thing about this case is that Mr. Bates has never been asked what sort of vehicle he would like, or whether the vehicle he would like is in any way comparable in cost. When one considers that the whole service is discretionary anyway, it is odd that his request should simply have been refused without a further inquiry.
I hope that the Minister will not rely on the argument which was used by his predecessor, Dr. Dunwoody, the then Parliamentary Secretary. Dr. Dunwoody wrote to me on 18th May last as follows:
"One difficulty about changing the arrangements in this way is that it cannot be viewed in isolation from the needs of National Health Service patients. If more money is to be injected into the invalid vehicle service it is essential that priority be given to those groups with the best claims whether they be war pensioners or National Health Service patients."
I am sure that my hon. Friend would never he guilty of talking that kind of nonsense because the fact is that Mr. Bates has a much stronger case than all those who now receive these benefits.
I want to refer to an extract from another letter which has come into my hands. It was written last February by the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Health and Social Security. I ask my hon. Friend to rely on this letter rather than on the letter I have just quoted. The final paragraph in reply to a civilian body which sought parity with war pensioners reads:
"One final point I would like to make is that of the difference in treatment, so far as the vehicle service is concerned, between the war pensioner and the National Health Service applicant. The statutory powers for the provision of cars for war pensioners stem from successive Royal Warrants and the aim has always been to acknowledge the self-sacrifice of the war pensioner in defence of his country as well as to restore his mobility. This is in accordance with the well established principles
808
in other fields and, I am sure, continues to command general support."
I trust and hope—indeed, I am confident—that my hon. Friend will carry out the spirit of that undertaking. I am sure that he will agree that Mr. Bates has a very good case and that it would be wrong that the present very generous system should be brought into disrepute because of what looks like an administrative oversight.
The point is very simple. How can it be justified either in equity or logic that a service can be provided to a category of disabled war pensioners but not at all to war pensioners who are even more severely disabled? How can it be right to select a service to apply to one small band of war-disabled pensioners but not to those who are even more disabled than those to whom it has been provided?
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) for giving one or two of us a chance to comment on this case. Paul Bates is well known to those of us on both sides of the House who have an interest in the disabled. This is a nonpolitical matter, and I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to tell his civil servants, who are often very understanding, that in this case they look like making themselves appear rather foolish.
This is the case of a man who contracted polio in Malaya. He is 6 ft. 4 in. in height, but basically he has to lie in a horizontal position and use a respirator. If he were not so disabled the Department would provide him with a car, because his case would not then present a problem. As it is, Paul Bates presents a problem. I say to the hon. Gentleman "Solve it. Be flexible. Be useful. Be understanding. Be compassionate".
The guy is only asking for a van. It will not cost any more. I must say that I let the Department off the hook in this matter, but I accuse the Treasury of always talking about value analysis. I keep saying, whether I am dealing with a Conservative or a Labour Government: "If you deal properly with this case you will find that in the long run the money will be very well spent and you will, in fact, save a considerable amount".
We are talking about a man with a severe disability who, in a state of paralysis and from a horizontal position, is

809
making his contribution to our economy by exporting beds all over the world. If he had gone into a home and had not made this effort the State would over 15 years have paid out £75,000.
We are asking for a vehicle for Mr. Bates which costs less than the one which the Department is normally prepared to provide. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his influence. Let him get hold of the very good men he has in the Department and insist that they show common sense and provide the vehicle which is, after all, this man's right.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: As this may well be the last small debate for some time on disabled drivers in the broader sense, I think it appropriate for me, as chairman of the all-party Disabled Drivers Group, to pay a tribute to Mr. Speaker, who has told us today that he is soon to leave. Mr. Speaker has for a long time been Vice-President of the Disabled Drivers Association, and I know how extremely interested he is in these matters and how much he has done to help with disabled drivers' problems. I am sure that the whole House wishes to acknowledge his support for that cause.
The case of Paul Bates is an extreme example of a rigid attitude maintained all along the line, whether in the Treasury or in the Department of Health and Social Security I do not know. That line simply must be broken. Mr. Bates wants a van. Why should he not have a van?
It comes back to a question of flexibility, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has a flexible mind. He has told me that he is going deeply into the whole question. Yesterday we had an all-party meeting with all the various disabled drivers' associations upstairs in a Committee Room. When I threw the meeting open to the guests, the disabled drivers, the very first point which was raised came from a Miss Felicity Lane Fox, who had been one of my constituents but who now lives in London. She said that she had had a vehicle and help from the Ministry. She had suffered polio. Then her paralysis became too bad and she was unable
810
to drive any longer, and from that moment onwards she got no help at all.
We come back to what we have been campaigning about for so long, the need to recognise the disabled passenger, the person so disabled that he or she cannot drive himself or herself.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is a sincere man. He is going into this matter, and he wants time, but I hope that by, let us say, early or late spring next year he will be able to announce to the House some radical reappraisal of the whole problem of help to disabled drivers. He has the political will. It will be done. He can do it. It is up to him.
10.32 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) will excuse me if I gallop along rather, because I want to cover as much ground as possible in the time remaining to me.
No one who has listened to my hon. Friend speak about the severe disabilities suffered by Mr. Paul Bates, his struggles to come to terms with them, and his eventual triumph over adversity—as the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) pointed out—could fail to be emotionally and personally involved in the case. I add my tribute to this brave young man, and I assure the House that all the officers of the Department of Health and Social Security who have come into contact with Mr. Bates—and there are many of them—have nothing but the greatest admiration for his spirit and sense of determination, which, I may add, has brought him to the very considerable position of, as it were, viability which he enjoys today.
As my hon. Friend explained, Mr. Bates sustained his disability while serving in the Forces in Malaya. He is a disabled war pensioner and as such is eligible for, and receives, help from my Department with his personal transport.
Under existing arrangements, we provide small cars for eligible disabled war pensioners. At present just over 6,500 such cars are being used by war pensioners in Great Britain; that is to say, by war pensioners who have a certain degree of mobility, and disablement of

811
20 per cent. or more, and who are able to enter and leave one of these small cars without difficulty. I should add that the cost of these cars is only about half the figure of £1,000 suggested by my hon. Friend. No Triumph Herald, incidentally, has been supplied by my Department, though it may have been supplied by some other Department.
There are other war pensioners eligible for help with personal transport who prefer to use their own cars rather than have one of the Department's small cars, and there are still others who are eligible for help but who are unable to enter and leave a car within our range. Both these groups provide their own vehicle, the first from choice and the second of necessity, and we pay them an annual allowance towards the maintenance of their own vehicle.
Mr. Bates comes within the second group, and we have for a number of years paid him a maintenance allowance for his specially-adapted, privately-owned van. There are about 150 war pensioners in a similar situation, namely, who cannot use our vehicles but get a maintenance allowance. Most of them are not so severely disabled as Mr. Bates, it is true, but all are in the same position of being unable to use our small cars and, therefore, having to provide—and replace as necessary—their own vehicle in respect of which they are paid an allowance from my Department.
There are, in addition, some 25 or so war pensioners about as severely disabled as Mr. Bates who at the moment do not seek any help from the vehicle service. Had they purchased a special vehicle, they, likewise, would be eligible for our allowance, and, no doubt if a special type of vehicle in which they could be accommodated were to be provided by the Department or a grant of equivalent value had been payable as suggested they would apply for one or the other.
It has been asked why we do not extend the range of vehicles we provide for war pensioners so that all those eligible for help may have their vehicle supplied by the Department. The answer to this is that money for the vehicle service is not unlimited and we must use what we have to the best advantage. If we were to extend the range to provide
812
not only the larger cars which would satisfy the needs of some of the pensioners who at present have to buy their own but also to include special vans, Dormobiles and ambulance type vehicles which the most severely disabled would need, the cost for war pensioners alone would be perhaps an additional £20,000 a year.
In itself, this is not a very large sum of money, but it would be wrong, in my opinion, to limit this extension, if we made it to war pensioners. Although the disabled war pensioner still rightly enjoys a measure of preference in the help he receives with personal transport over his equally disabled National Health Service counterpart, I feel sure that the general feeling is that the amount of preference is just about right and that it would be wrong to upset the present balance.
I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that this is an area of delicate sensitivity. Nobody has any doubt that the war pensioner whose injury was sustained in the pursuit of active service, such as Paul Bates in Malaya in the emergency, is in one category, but there are patients in the National Health Service who feel that a young man of 18 who today loses a big toe when on a short service engagement in the Forces and who becomes a war pensioner, because of the paradox that technically the war is not over, is in a different category. Consequently, there are people who become classified as war pensioners, with all the special advantages of that, who have been rather remote from the hazards and personal suffering of active service.
All I am saying at this point is that this is the nexus of the relationship between the privilege granted to war pensioners and Health Service patients and one must be careful to preserve a balance which is acceptable to public opinion.
Any improvement in the present war pensioner scheme would need to be accompanied by similar concessions for the Health Service patients, of whom there are many more thousands. It should be remembered that the Health Service patient who is unable to use the type of vehicle which we provide does not at the present time have the war pensioner's alternative of an allowance towards the maintenance of his privately-owned vehicle. He is precluded from receiving

813
any help from the Department, and it is, therefore, for consideration whether, if extra money could be found for the vehicle service, it would be proper to give more to those who already receive help rather than to those who at present receive no help at all. The same objections apply to giving a grant equivalent to the cost of supplying a vehicle.
Mr. Carter-Jones: What I ask is: why not supply a van, which would be much better than the car we provide?
Mr. Alison: I will come to that.
I make the point to my hon. Friend, who rightly points out the fantastic anomaly, that there is a whole band of National Health Service patients, thousands of them, more severely disabled than those who qualify for vehicles. We face this frankly, and our logical justification for this is that the National Health Service three-wheeler is in our view basically a kind of artificial limb. It really is applicable only to those who have this special limited limb disability. It is an extension of an artificial limb, and those who have not got this limb disability do not qualify for it. It is the only way we can justify the fact that there are thousands of people extremely disabled, more so than those who have a vehicle, who are automatically debarred.
For this reason we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we cannot accept the suggestions made by my hon. Friend. We could not in fairness provide something for Mr. Bates without being prepared to make a similar provision for a very large number of other war pensioners and patients.
Mr. Bates' own van is almost worn out and he would like us to buy him another. He contends that to buy and modify a van which could accommodate him in his special bed and the other special equipment which he needs to carry with him would cost no more than one of the cars we can provide; but this is not so. A suitable vehicle for Mr. Bates would cost at least twice that of one of our cars.
Although we have made no detailed investigation recently of Mr. Bates' precise vehicle needs, we are well aware of his disabilities and what he will require in the way of a vehicle.
814
Hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), will recall an Adjournment debate we had two weeks ago today. There were very determined suggestions that we should give cars instead of three-wheelers to haemophiliac users, that we should give some sort of outdoor vehicle to quadriplegics who get no help at all, that we should help what was termed the disabled passenger and that we should give cars to disabled mothers with young children.
I mention all these potential improvements to stress that there is no lack of suggestions for bettering the invalid vehicle service. Some want those that are already helped to get improved help; others want those that get no help to be given some. The common theme is that all the suggestions would cost more and would create fresh base lines from which campaigns for still more concessions would be launched.
We are urgently reviewing the invalid vehicle service. I assure my hon. Friend with all the sincerity I can command that there is a problem here with all the anomalies and paradoxes, and we want to see whether we can deal with it within the review. I am sure it would be quite wrong to make piecemeal changes, including increasing the financial assistance to those who run their own vehicle.
I do not want it to be thought that the Department is seeking to discriminate against this gravely disabled young man. Let me say that while we feel we cannot in fairness to others give Mr. Bates more help under the vehicle service at this stage, there is certainly no lack of help forthcoming from the Department in other ways. Indeed, Mr. Bates receives from the Department a very large cash sum free of income tax, in the way of war disability pension, additional comforts allowance, constant attendance allowance, special allowance to pay for him to be cared for in his own home rather than in hospital, and maintenance allowance for his van.
In addition, he is provided with respirators, suction apparatus, special bed and mattresses, a hoist and many items of medical and home nursing equipment. All these are supplied, maintained and replaced as necessary, and we maintain the electronic equipment which enables him to use the telephone and to type.

815
I know my hon. Friend is concerned here with principles and it is to these I have addressed myself. Although it is not relevant as a point of principle, nevertheless as a matter of fact my hon. Friend will to glad to know that considerable financial help towards the cost of a new vehicle has been offered Mr. Bates from non-statutory resources. If Mr. Bates accepts this help and buys a new van, we will continue to pay, in addition to all these other sums, an annual maintenance allowance for his vehicle.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: This is a very important case. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) brought a compelling case for reconsideration by the Department of the problem facing Mr. Paul Bates. The Minister has reminded us of the recent debate on the problems of haemophiliacs. I am very glad that he recalled that debate and the part played by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
The Prime Minister, at a recent confrontation with the Haemophilia Society in Bexley, said that he understood that the society wanted action on the question of replacing the three-wheel vehicle with a four-wheel vehicle. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the problems of disabled people who require help with transport, and I am very pleased to
816
learn that there is now proceeding a review of the whole question of the supply of vehicles for the disabled. I can see no reason why we should have the old division between the war-disabled and the peacetime-disabled. It is utterly wrong that there are people who are more disabled than others whose transport requirements are met much less satisfactorily than they should be. I hope very much that this year and next year will see further steps forward in improving the mobility of disabled people.
Mr. William Molloy: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of the aid to Mr. Bates, but if Mr. Bates were in hospital the cost would inevitably be more, and this could apply to thousands of others. By helping them with vehicles we are helping ourselves economically as well as raising their status as individuals.
Mr. Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is looking into the whole question of cost-effectiveness. There are many disabled people who—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Collective Agreements
  Collective Agreements
  Wrongful Dismissal (Compensation)
  Wrongful Dismissal (Compensation)
  North-Western Region
  North-Western Region
  Wales
  Wales
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Relations (Consultative Document)
  Industrial Relations (Consultative Document)
  Commission for Industrial Relations
  Commission for Industrial Relations
  Employees and Trade Union Membership
  Employees and Trade Union Membership
  Industrial Re-training
  Industrial Re-training
  Wages (Method of Payment)
  Wages (Method of Payment)
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Employees' Removal Allowances
  Employees' Removal Allowances
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Older Salaried Employees and Executives
  Older Salaried Employees and Executives
  Manpower and Productivity Advisory Service
  Manpower and Productivity Advisory Service
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Miners (Redundancy)
  Miners (Redundancy)
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Wages, South-West
  Wages, South-West
  Electricity Supply Industry (Dispute)
  Electricity Supply Industry (Dispute)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
  Registered Disabled, St. Helens
  Registered Disabled, St. Helens
  Incomes
  Incomes
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  St. Helens
  St. Helens
  Immigrants (Classification)
  Immigrants (Classification)
  Medical Research Council (Trade Union Representation)
  Medical Research Council (Trade Union Representation)
  Mr. Will Paynter
  Mr. Will Paynter
  Easington
  Easington
  North-East Scotland
  North-East Scotland
  New Year's Day (Absenteeism)
  New Year's Day (Absenteeism)
  Coloured People
  Coloured People
  Strikers (Remuneration)
  Strikers (Remuneration)
  Small Work Forces
  Small Work Forces
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Relations Court and Industrial Tribunals (Cost)
  Industrial Relations Court and Industrial Tribunals (Cost)
  Trade Unions and Employers' Associations (Royal Commission)
  Trade Unions and Employers' Associations (Royal Commission)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  West Riding (School Books and Equipment)
  West Riding (School Books and Equipment)
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  First-Year Students (Science based Subjects)
  First-Year Students (Science based Subjects)
  University Places, Scotland
  University Places, Scotland
  Nursery Schools, Easington
  Nursery Schools, Easington
  Youth and Community Work (Report)
  Youth and Community Work (Report)
  University of Surrey (Medical School)
  University of Surrey (Medical School)
  Medical School, Leicester
  Medical School, Leicester
  Primary Schools, Derbyshire (Replacement)
  Primary Schools, Derbyshire (Replacement)
  National Library for Science and Invention
  National Library for Science and Invention
  Colleges of Education (Courses)
  Colleges of Education (Courses)
  Primary School Education (Expenditure)
  Primary School Education (Expenditure)
DEFENCE
  Royal Air Force Sealand
  Royal Air Force Sealand
  "Ark Royal"
  "Ark Royal"
  Civilian Employees, Scotland
  Civilian Employees, Scotland
  Royal Navy (Locally Recruited Uniformed Personnel)
  Royal Navy (Locally Recruited Uniformed Personnel)
  Pay
  Pay
  Tower Hamlets (Refuse Clearance Costs)
  Tower Hamlets (Refuse Clearance Costs)
  R.E.M.E. Workshops
  R.E.M.E. Workshops
  Vehicles (Servicing and Maintenance)
  Vehicles (Servicing and Maintenance)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Taxi Cabs
  Taxi Cabs
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  United Kingdom Citizens, East Africa
  United Kingdom Citizens, East Africa
  Guy Fawkes Day (Casualties)
  Guy Fawkes Day (Casualties)
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Motor Vehicles (Road Fund Licences)
  Motor Vehicles (Road Fund Licences)
  Prisoner (Member's Letter)
  Prisoner (Member's Letter)
  Race Relations (Research)
  Race Relations (Research)
  Singette v. Martin (House of Lords' Decision)
  Singette v. Martin (House of Lords' Decision)
  Committee on Privacy
  Committee on Privacy
  Oxford Prison (Young Offenders)
  Oxford Prison (Young Offenders)
  Shops Act, 1950
  Shops Act, 1950
  Shop Assistants (Working Hours)
  Shop Assistants (Working Hours)
  Dangerous Drugs
  Dangerous Drugs
  Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Motorways (Police)
  Motorways (Police)
  Police (Communications with Members)
  Police (Communications with Members)
  Accused Persons in Custody
  Accused Persons in Custody
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board (Meeting)
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board (Meeting)
  Accidents in the Home
  Accidents in the Home
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Illness and Industrial Injury (Lost Days)
  Illness and Industrial Injury (Lost Days)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Old People (Pensions)
  Old People (Pensions)
  Disabled Living Foundation
  Disabled Living Foundation
  Hospitals (Emergency Electricity Supplies)
  Hospitals (Emergency Electricity Supplies)
  Scientology
  Scientology
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Advance Factory, Dinnington-Maltby Area
  Advance Factory, Dinnington-Maltby Area
  Steel (Exports)
  Steel (Exports)
  Former Coal Owners (Compensation)
  Former Coal Owners (Compensation)
  British Steel Corporation (Nickel Imports)
  British Steel Corporation (Nickel Imports)
  South Thamesside (Intermediate Area Status)
  South Thamesside (Intermediate Area Status)
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
  U.N.C.T.A.D. Preference Schemes
  U.N.C.T.A.D. Preference Schemes
  Overseas Package Holidays
  Overseas Package Holidays
  Development Areas (Tourism)
  Development Areas (Tourism)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Art Treasures (Sale)
  Art Treasures (Sale)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Tax Evasion (Construction Industry Self-Employment)
  Tax Evasion (Construction Industry Self-Employment)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  MR. DE ANGELI
  MR. DE ANGELI
  COMPUTERISED DATA BANKS
  COMPUTERISED DATA BANKS
  PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL (IMPORT)
  PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL (IMPORT)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Electricity
  Electricity
  Ministerial Speeches (Questions)
  Ministerial Speeches (Questions)
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
ENVIRONMENT
  Overhead Electric Railway Cables
  Overhead Electric Railway Cables
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Public Health Notices, Hackney
  Public Health Notices, Hackney
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Abdullah Afif Didi
  Mr. Abdullah Afif Didi
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Warsaw Pact Diplomats (Espionage Activities)
  Warsaw Pact Diplomats (Espionage Activities)
SCOTLAND
  Inshore Fishing (Cameron Committee's Report)
  Inshore Fishing (Cameron Committee's Report)
  Hospitals (Emergency Generating Equipment)
  Hospitals (Emergency Generating Equipment)
WALES
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

DELAYED PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESSES
THE VISCOUNT HANWORTH: 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 aware of the effect which the policy of some Ministries, large firms and local authorities in delaying payment for work done is having on small businesses; and whether they can take some action to discourage this practice.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am not aware that Government Departments are delaying payment of accounts; such action would be directly contrary to instructions and there is no evidence of it. I am also not aware that local authorities in general delay payment of their accounts; the importance of prompt payments has been pointed out to them from time to time. I am not in a position to answer for private firms; I do not think that Government intervention in this area would be appropriate.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he would be willing to make some further investigation into the matter, because I can assure him that there is considerable feeling on the subject? I would mention that the Board of Trade have an extremely bad reputation in this respect. Secondly, I would ask him whether he would not agree that the competitiveness of our small firms is a vital thing in the future of our industry, and that, with the credit squeeze, if bills are not paid promptly it inevitably means that many of them will go to the wall?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would entirely agree with what the noble Viscount has said about the importance of small businesses in this country. If he has evidence of any particular delays by Government Departments in discharging their debts and can bring them to my attention, I will gladly have them investigated.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the Minister very much for that reply.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether his Answer implies that he is under the impression that there are no delays in dealing with negotiations and settlements by the Inland Revenue?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the fact—I am sure he is—that this is a frequently expressed complaint; that in recent times it was expressed by the C.B.I, on behalf of industry, that it was examined in full detail and that nothing to support the charges was found?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, curiously enough, I have a brief precisely to that effect.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask the noble Earl whether we are to have the pleasure of the attendance of most of his Party today, whether they have mistaken the date of the Recess, or whether at the moment they are succeeding in putting some of Mr. Barber's ideas right.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I am at a loss to know how his supplementary arises from the Question put to me.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Earl, it does not arise. It is a question to the Leader of the House who, I trust, looks after us all, and I am wondering whether he is losing control of some of his flock.

MOTORWAYS AND LAY-BYS
3.9 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why no lay-bys are provided on motorways.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, lay-bys are not required on motorways. The hard shoulders can be used by vehicles in emergency, and the service areas provide facilities for refreshment and rest on long journeys.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that numerous lay-bys are provided on Continental motorways? Why cannot specific areas he put aside along, say, one of our motorways every 15 or 20 miles on an experimental basis, to see how the accident rate there compares with that of other motorways where no such provision is made?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, service areas are provided about every 25 miles and where necessary intermediate sites will be developed at 12-mile intervals. I know that lay-bys exist on many of the Continental motorways, but interchanges on our motorways are at an average spacing of about live miles. Therefore, if any driver should feel himself getting tired or sleepy, it is his duty to get off the motorway as soon as possible. Furthermore, lay-bys have been recommended on all-purpose roads which are adjacent to motorway interchanges, and there are facilities there where the driver can take his car and rest.

DESECRATION OF CEMETERIES
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what damage has been caused in Highgate and Nunhead Cemeteries by acts of vandalism; and whether any precautions have been taken to prevent further desecration of these cemeteries.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, three incidents at Highgate Cemetery and two at Nunhead Cemetery
1034
have been reported to the police so far this year. The damage caused in one of the incidents was fairly serious. It must be for the owners to protect their property, though the police are ready to do what they reasonably can, having regard to their other commitments, to advise and assist.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both these cemeteries are of great historical and architectural interest, and is it not particularly revolting that outrages of this nature should be allowed to occur within their precincts? Cannot more active steps be taken by the authorities directly concerned to prevent a recurrence?
Loan WINIDLESHAM: My Lords, I much deprecate the fact that vandalism is common, not only in cemeteries but elsewhere. It is for United Cemeteries Limited, who control both of these cemeteries, to take such measures as they can to protect their properties. But, as I have said, the police are also vigilant.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that until recently the Anglican chapels at both of these cemeteries were in a ruinous state, and can he indicate what steps will be taken to have them restored to a proper state of preservation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that Nunhead Cemetery is now closed except to visitors at weekends. Highgate Cemetery is still in use. The future of Nunhead Cemetery is under discussion with the Department of the Environment and the local authority.

EASTER ACT 1928
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now take the necessary steps to bring into force the Easter Act 1928; and, if not, why not.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it would be neither right nor practicable to implement the. Easter Act 1928 except with the approval of the Churches in this country, which is dependent upon that of other major Christian denominations.

1035
Progress continues to be made towards this goal but any final agreement is unlikely before the Pan-Orthodox Holy Synod meets in 1972.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think it a little odd that we, having had a different Easter from the Orthodox Church ever since anybody can remember, must now wait until we get agreement with that Church?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have done my background reading, and I see that this subject has been raised in this House on many occasions by the noble Lord. He will therefore know that the reason why the agreement of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is required is that the agreement of the Roman Catholic Church is conditional on it.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is it not possible for the noble Lord to try to bring some light on this subject before Easter? Can he get the electricity dispute settled, so that we may get some light?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a fixed Easter would be of immense benefit to the tourist industry of this country, which is producing such an immense amount of overseas revenue?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there are advantages in a fixed date for Easter. There are a number of possibilities—there are, in fact, four—which are being discussed with the Churches at the moment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me when I may next put my Question on the same subject?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Easter!
LORD WINDLESHAM: I wondered about that, my Lords. I saw that the noble Lord's practice was usually to put down a Question every two or three years, but the last occasion was in April of this year, and I can therefore only assume that the reason why we have had a second discussion on the subject so quickly is the change of Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that he had done a lot of research on the subject. Has
1036
that not proved to him that it is not the Churches in this country which are creating the difficulty over this issue?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there has been a certain amount of progress in recent years. I know that the noble Lord was himself answering in similar terms on this subject not so long ago. But this year there was a meeting in Geneva in March, when the Faith and Order Secretariat of the World Council prepared a report on the subject; there was a meeting in August of the Faith and Order Working Committee; and there was a meeting of the Executive of the World Council of Churches in September, all on this point.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it would be quite impossible for the Roman Catholic Church in this country to act without agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on the Continent?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that point is very relevant, in the light of one of the earlier supplementaries from the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I ask what the World Council of Churches decided in August?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the August meeting was of the Faith and Order Working Committee, and it decided to send the report which had been produced in March to the Executive of the World Council of Churches which met from September 1 to 7.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I have the greatest possible sympathy with the Question, and may I ask the Minister whether there is anything to stop us, by agreement or convention, from giving a lead in this matter and setting up an Easter for ourselves?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think the objection to it is that we should end up with a different secular public holiday from the dates which were still adhered to by at any rate some major religious denominations.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I ask why that did not prevent us from having a fixed Whitsuntide holiday?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Partly, my Lords, because Good Friday is a weekday and not a weekend.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the European Economic Community at a convenient moment after half-past three. That will be followed, possibly after some little time has elapsed, by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Drumaibyn on the dispute between the industrial trade unions and the Electricity Board.

BUSINESS AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should perhaps inform your Lordships of my understanding of the arrangements for this afternoon and evening, if we have a power cut. I am afraid that I am not in a position to inform your Lordships whether or when the electricity supply could fail in your Lordships' House, but perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that powerful battery lamps have been provided for both Dispatch Boxes, and I gather that there is ten hours' light supply in those rather formidable-looking instruments. Also, there are arrangements to provide adequate lighting in the Division Lobbies, should a Division take place.
If it has the agreement of noble Lords on all sides of the House and suits the general convenience, I should like to suggest that if there is a failure of light and noble Lords wish to avail themselves of their notes they should feel quite free to speak from the Dispatch Boxes, perhaps using the part nearest to the Clerks.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I hope it will not be necessary also to take advantage of freezing fog as an additional reason for curtailing the debate. We are grateful to the noble Earl. Certainly we on this side would welcome anyone coming to speak from the Dispatch Box, or from near the Dispatch Box. I have no doubt the noble Earl will continue to give what warning he can. If definite information becomes available as to the likelihood of a power cut, perhaps it could be announced over the Tannoy
1038
system. There were a number of rumours circulating yesterday. It may not be possible to get definite information, but if some warning can be given then people can ready themselves; they can orientate themselves in relation to the door, and such matters. Perhaps we can continue to be informed in the way that British Railways have now taken to informing us every time there is a breakdown.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lord, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether, in the arrangements which he has made, he has made any for the Press Gallery also to be provided with lights? Secondly, will noble Lords remember that when the electricity goes off so does the microphone system. Therefore, would your Lordships please speak as noble Lords must have done before we had microphones?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have just spoken. I very much like the suggestion which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has made about the Tannoy system, and I will have that looked into. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I am afraid that at the present time no special lighting has been provided in the Press Gallery, but, with the appropriate authorities of the House, I will have that matter looked into forthwith I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is in a very accommodating mood. I am a little nervous about his making appeals for anything, since his appeals for short speeches yesterday were not heard, certainly not on his own Front Bench.
EARL JELLICOE: Nevertheless, my Lords, I repeat my appeal.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 42 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House rises for the recess at Christmas.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.24 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That leave be given to the Marquess of Lothian to move en bloc the first nineteen Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Motion is rather unusual, and I think I should therefore briefly explain its purpose to your Lordships. Your Lordships will have seen from the Order Paper that there are no fewer than 19 separate Motions down to-day relating to Consular Privileges and Immunities Orders. There are also two Orders relating to European Immunities and Privileges. I ought perhaps to add that, as noble Lords will doubtless have seen, to-day's White Order Paper has been printed in a slightly unusual form. The first 19 Motions in the name of my noble friend as printed are in fact the Consular Orders; the last two Orders in my noble friend's name are the European ones I have mentioned.
My Lords, under our normal and accepted procedure this would necessitate no fewer than 21 separate Motions being proposed and Questions being put and determined. As your Lordships know, criticism has been expressed recently—it was expressed last July by my noble friend Lord Alport—about die putting of multiple Questions, and this matter is in fact to be considered by the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House at their next meeting. The purpose of my Motion to-day is to enable us to avoid, and to avoid for this occasion only, pending the advice of the Procedure Committee, 21 Questions, which could of course take up a great deal of your Lordships' time. If your Lordships agree with my Motion, only three Questions will become necessary. I should like to say straight away that if any noble Lord objects to this procedure now I shall not press my Motion, and we will of course proceed to take the 21 Questions in their turn.
My Lords, as I understand it, if my Motion were agreed to we might follow our frequent practice and have a general debate on all 21 Orders on the first Motion. I should, however, like to make it clear that if your Lordships agree to the Motion which I am now moving but in the course of subsequent discussion criticisms
1040
of this course of action arise, my noble friend Lord Lothian will not then avail himself of the power which the House will have given to him but will move each Motion separately. So there is a second option, as it were, available to your Lordships.
I should like to conclude this brief statement by saying that my sole motive for having tabled this Motion, which I do not in any way intend should be regarded as a precedent or should prejudice the consideration of the general question by the Procedure Committee, is that I hope it may prove, in the rather exceptional circumstances in which we may find ourselves this afternoon, to the general convenience of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to the Marquess of Lothian to move en bloc the first nineteen Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper.(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am in general agreement with the noble Earl. I am sure that it does no good to waste a lot of time in formalities, and it does not add to the dignity of the House. It makes us look just like a sausage machine. The sort of arrangements which the noble Earl has proposed are similar to those which we introduced to cut out Committee stages on Bills on which nobody wanted a Committee stage.
I must admit that I think all noble Lords were probably rather mystified by the Order Paper. I am not quite clear whether this is an historic way of arranging the Order Paper, but if this is so then it might be helpful if the pages were numbered on these occasions, because until the noble Earl explained it was not quite obvious which were the special two. I think the noble Earl is quite right to say that this whole matter should go to the Procedure Committee. It is an unusual situation, and there was not time, obviously, to do it before. I think he has taken the right course.
I am not sure whether I understood the noble Earl aright, but I should like to suggest to him that, if any noble Lord wishes a particular Order to be singled out, some way of omitting it or of taking it in advance should be evolved. This

1041
would obviously involve the co-operation of the Lord Chancellor, as to how the Questions are put. I think that if there is just one Order on which somebody wants to have a particular discussion it would be a nuisance if all the other Orders had then to be put singly. It may be that the noble Earl had this in mind. I am not quite clear whether this is so, but there has been consultation through the usual channels and I am quite certain that the noble Earl, like any Leader of the House, is jealous to see that our rights in this matter are not curtailed.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues may I say that, naturally, the motives of the Leader of the House in this as in all matters are above suspicion. I think this is a very good example of how the House can regulate its own business according to the rules of common sense. I think it would be right to take these Orders en bloc. I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said: that, depending on which way you open the Order Paper, you get a remarkable number of choices as to which Orders constitute the first 19 Motions on the Order Paper.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have an interest in this because, with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, I am going to take part in the debate on these Orders. I was party to the agreement to take them in this way, but my understanding was that the Orders would be moved and then put to the House after the debate on them. The difficulty, it seems to me, is that if we accept the Business Motion now before us we shall have the option to take the Orders either separately or en bloc, and I gather that it would be contrary to the Rules of the House for us to take any of these Orders separately, or out of turn.
As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, knows, some Orders may go through relatively easily while others, which may be mingled with those that go easily, may prove more difficult. I wonder if I may ask the help of the noble Earl in inquiring whether, instead of pressing his Business Motion at this moment, we could have the debate on these Orders and then, after that debate, have his Motion put. We shall by then have a pretty good idea whether we can agree or whether we
1042
should reserve our position and take the Orders individually.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, might we not save the time of the House by getting on with these 19 Orders?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to support that very much: that we should get on with these 19 Orders now and save the time of the House.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to both noble Lords who have just spoken, I should remind them that the 19 Orders are not the next business. Unless we proceed with the acceptance of my Motion it will take about 1½ hours of formal business. There is a great deal to be said for taking the Orders en bloc, if this is the general wish. I think that we can give effect to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am wondering whether the noble Earl can do so. I am sure that this is the right way of proceeding. I think there should be a little conversation on this, and it may be that there is some way round the procedure if we want to single out one of the Orders. Obviously the House is strongly in favour of this.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen and from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Water Resources Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2 [Supplemental]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved an Amendment:
Page 3, line 7, after ("Park") insert ("or an area of outstanding natural beauty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it may be to the advantage of the rather full House that we have at present if, before speaking to my Amendment, I remind the House, not many of whom were present at the Second Reading debate, what this Bill is about and why I am making so bold as to bring forward an Amendment at the Third Reading.
This is a Bill (to the general content of which noble Lords on this side of the House readily assent)which has the effect of removing from Parliament and leaving to the Secretary of State for the Environment the decision whether or not a reservoir shall be permitted in a certain place. The procedure that it institutes contains full provision for local inquiries and we are satisfied, as I believe are the Government, that it will be for the convenience and to the advantage of both the promoters of reservoir schemes and their opponents to argue the matter out locally in public; that the Minister should then take his decision; and that this will be better for everybody than going to the great expense and trouble of arguing it out before a Select Committee of Parliament.
So much, my Lords, is agreed between the two sides. During the course of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, "Would it not be better if Parliament were to retain a simple "Yea' or "Nay" control over Reservoir Orders in certain places and in certain places only? "His proposal was that Parliament should retain this negative control over reservoirs proposed in National Parks. This would not be a form of Parliamentary endorsement which involved setting up a Select Committee; it would simply mean that when the Order was provisionally made by the Secretary of State it should be laid before Parliament and it would then be open to any Member of either House to pray against it in the normal period for the Negative Resolution procedure.
1044
The Government agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that this was desirable and at an earlier stage of the Bill introduced an Amendment which noble Lords on this side of the House supported which would make this the case—a negative check on the Minister's provisional decision in the case of reservoirs in National Parks only.
At both earlier stages of the Bill I advanced the proposition that if it was right to do this in the case of National Parks, it would also be right to do it in areas of outstanding natural beauty; that if the one place is worthy of that little extra bit of Parliamentary attention then, I thought, so is the other.
At the earlier stages, the Government had not readily shared this view and it is therefore at the Third Reading that I have put down an actual Amendment to give effect to this. During the course of the Bill through Parliament, an event has happened which to my mind changes the whole lay of the land in this matter. That event was the rejection by a Select Committee of the House of Commons of the Dartmoor National Park Reservoir Bill—Swincombe Reservoir. We have had, in the course of only a few months, a series of three rejections by Parliament of reservoir proposals which have come forward under the old procedure. The conclusion that I draw from this is that Parliament valued a measure of control over these proposals and that the Bill as it is now brought to your Lordships for Third Reading does not contain enough Parliamentary control.
I would therefore urge the House to accept this Amendment and in doing so would remind your Lordships of what effect it will have. Somebody wants a reservoir; the Minister sends an inspector; there is a local inquiry; the Minister is convinced that the reservoir is right. In most cases that is the end of the matter. In the case of a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty that is not the end of the matter. The Order is made provisionally and is laid before Parliament where it may be prayed against—the Negative Resolution procedure—during the standard number of days. I beg to move.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the Government have treated me extremely generously and, as I said the other day, they

1045
have been extremely wise in accepting the principle of retaining Parliamentary control over the location of reservoirs in National Parks. I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I do not despair at all that having gone so far the Government will be prepared to go even a little further. Clearly, areas of outstanding natural beauty do fall—although they are usually quite small in area—into much the same category of precious countryside as National Parks. While I should not be prepared to press matters against the Government, who have already treated me so fairly and generously in this matter, I hope that they may be prepared at this last stage to make one more concession in the same direction.
3.40 p.m.
LORD ILSORD: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a very few moments. So far as I know, there is no substantial objection to what is proposed. The difficulties which water undertakings are experiencing, even with the necessary Parliamentary powers to carry out their tasks, are very substantial and extremely hard to overcome. I sometimes wonder that anyone is able to obtain any wafer at all. I have no doubt that the powers will be used properly and that they will not add appreciably to the difficulties which the water undertakings experience to-day.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, as this Bill refers primarily to river authorities who have to make these applications, perhaps I ought to add that they are very apprehensive of an extension of the concession which the Government made in response to my noble friend Lord Molson. I would not fear Parliamentary procedure by Negative Resolution or indeed an Affirmative Resolution procedure for any of these developments, which are clearly in the public interest. Nevertheless, my Lords, we must have some regard to the public authorities responsible for promoting these schemes; and because my noble friend Lord Sandford has, as I think, been helpful and generous to my noble friend Lord Molson and made the concession over the National Parks—which clearly are in a class by themselves—it would seem to me rather hard to press
1046
him to go further, as I hope your Lordships will agree.
After all, where should he stop? Should he go on being pressed from one point to another to make concessions over this whole field? There is substance in the objection to extending the concession. Indeed, there were many who did not wish to see the concession made at all. But my noble friend thought that he had got the right balance by making a special case for the National Parks. I hope that he will feel that he has met the reality of this point and that he will not agree to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has moved so persuasively.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, this is a marvellous opportunity for the Government to do two things: first, to demonstrate their respect for Parliament; and secondly, to show that their concern for the amenities of our countryside is genuine. I should have thought that both those things were consonant with the philosophy which is held both by the Government and also by the Opposition.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say this about these areas of national beauty, in addition to what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has has said? I was a member of the Committee under Sir Arthur Hobhouse which reported on the whole problem. We found that there were areas of practically the same quality as the National Parks, but they were too small to be made into National Parks; therefore we devised this scheme of areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is quite as important that they should be protected in the same way, because their beauty is of exactly the same kind. They are very small. Therefore, if a large reservoir were put into one of them even more scenery would be destroyed than in the case of a National Park. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will push this Amendment to a Division, if necessary, but I hope that the Government will, as was said by the noble Baroness, see their way to accept it.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment. I think there has been a marked change in public opinion recently. Public opinion

1047
has now got to the stage when it is not prepared to accept the drowning of valleys as being necessary as a means of providing the water that is needed. Public opinion recognises that alternative means must be found, and therefore I think that these Orders are necessary. I would go even further and say that I think that all these Orders that will come before us ought to be subject to Parliamentary control. Therefore I support the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I hope that I have the greatest respect for Parliament and an equal love of the countryside. I have sought to demonstrate that, at ail the stages in which I have been dealing with this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Molson said yesterday, fresh water and clean rivers are for many of us, and particularly for himself, a top priority. In 1963 Parliament took the same view. They constituted the river authorities and gave them powers to get on with their job. However, the 1963 Act under which that was done did not cater properly for discharges. The powers conferred, or which ought to have been conferred, in 1963 could not be effectively used, and since then river authorities have had recourse once more to Private Bills. This was irksome for the river authorities and very expensive for the amenity societies and other objectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet has reminded us, it enabled Parliament to forestall some proposals for reservoirs in National Parks and on National Trust land where recreational and amenity considerations have particular weight.
In this Bill, as we have now amended it so far, we are aiming to get the best of both worlds and to strike a fair balance between the large number of different interests that are involved. We are trying to achieve a reconciliation of the views of amenity and preservation interests on the one hand and of the river authorities and clean water protagonists on the other. We are remedying the defect about discharges and thus freeing river authorities to get on with their urgent and important job by means of public local inquiries; but at the same time introducing a Parliamentary stage where National Parks are involved. The Parliamentary process has always been, and is still, required
1048
when National Trust land and common land is involved.
My Lords, I believe this is the right balance. To have ignored and disregarded what Parliament had agreed that it was necessary to do in the past seven years would indeed have been wrong. But to take away more freedom from the river authorities to get on with their urgent job of cleaning up our rivers and putting our water supplies on a proper basis would also be wrong as it would be to extend the Parliamentary process as a matter of course to all water works in all areas of outstanding natural beauty. If we did that, why should we draw the line outside areas of great landscape value and sites of special scientific interest? That would be a further constraint on the freedom of the river authorities to get on with their job. I fully admit that it would be desirable from some points of view, but on balance I cannot recommend it and I invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, in the brief discussion that we have had several noble Lords have used the word "concession". That sounds as if my Amendment would be a concession by the water undertakings to the amenity bodies. That is not so; it would be a concession, if you like, by the water undertakings to Parliament. The purpose of this Amendment is not to tip the balance in favour of amenity interests and against water interests; it is to tip the balance in favour of Parliamentary control in this matter as opposed to Executive control.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, told us that the river authorities would be apprehensive of such an idea, although he himself would not fear the Negative Resolution procedure. This is the crux of the matter. Anybody who knows Parliament, as Lord Nugent does and as your Lordships do, would not fear the Negative Resolution procedure; whereas those outside might find that it raised all the old spectres which have so bedevilled the working of this Act in the last seven years, as I would be the first to admit. Several noble Lords raised the question: where do we stop? If we include areas of outstanding natural beauty why not go further and include all the country? We stop here. The

1049
Amendment includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and does not include anything else, and the argument that it might include something else seems to me a highly theoretical one.
I want to make one point very clear; that is, that this proposal is not going back to the cumbrous procedure of the Private Bill, which has clogged us for so long. Far from it. It is a simple negative. Yea or Nay, ex post facto, exactly as the Government propose in the case of the National Parks. All things considered, I think it would be right to have this Amendment and I would invite all those who care for the countryside, all those who care for democratic control in the decisions about where we get our water, and especially all those who are not afraid of Parliament, to come with me into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could we have some information about what is meant by "areas of outstanding natural beauty"? Are they
defined? We know what a National Park is, but I am not clear how much your Lordships are informed about the extent of what they are voting about. I do not know how much of the countryside these areas cover, and I think that it would be very helpful if we knew exactly the extent of the areas on which we are about to make a decision.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the acreage proportionate to that of the. National Parks is about seven-ninths.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the areas are statutorily defined. It is quite clear what we are talking about. The areas are proposed by the Countryside Commission to the Minister and confirmed by him. So that the marks on the map are just as statutory in their case as in the case of the National Parks themselves.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Amherst, E.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Audley, Bs.

Glasgow, E.

Reay, L.

Avebury, L.

Gray, L.

Roberthall, L.

Baldwin of Bewley, E.

Greenway, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Balogh, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haddington, E.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hamnett, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bourne, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Brockway, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Burntwood, L.

Howe, E.

Segal, L.

Byers, L.

Howick of Glendale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Caithness, E.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Chorley, L.

Ingleby, V.

Shepherd, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Conesford, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin, L.

Cromartie, E.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Crook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sorensen, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Derwent, L.

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

Strang, L.

Diamond, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Dowding, L.

Loudoun, C.

Swansea, L.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Terrington, L.

Falmouth, V.

Meston, L.

Thurlow, L.

Faringdon, L.

Moyle, L.

Vivian, L.

Fletcher, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

White, Bs.

Fulton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Williamson, L.

Gage, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Winchester, L. Bp.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dudley, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Rathcavan, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Reigate, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Ampthill, L.

Grirnston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Auckland, L.

Hailsharn of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Helens, L.

Barnby, L.

Sandford, L.

Bethell, L. [Teller.]

Hankey, L.

Stamp, L.

Brentford, V.

Hives, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Bridgeman, V.

Ilford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sudeley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Suffield, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McCorquordale, of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Courtown, E.

Merrivale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mills, V.

Windlesham, L.

de Clifford, L.

Milverton, L.

Wolverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Drumalbyn, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to say that the points that were made on the earlier stages in Committee and on Report about certain difficulties which the statutory water undertakers might feel themselves to be in, although they will not be taken into account in this Bill will of course be considered in a more comprehensive review on the Water Resources Act generally which is in hand within our Department. The point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, on Report stage, about the way in which these Orders will be dealt with in Parliament when they come forward, will also be taken into account. Before I sit down, I ought perhaps to say that other representations have been made about compensation for displaced farmers when their land is required for reservoirs, and those aspects will be taken into account in another review concerned with the whole field of compensation generally, which is going on within the Department.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am pleased to hear the noble Lord say that these aspects of compensation will be taken into account. I accept that in effect all this Bill does is to make Section 67 of the Water Resources Act comply with its original intentions. I also accept that there is general agreement about the procedure by Order being cheaper than procedure by Private Bill; and, furthermore, that it is coming to be preferred
1052
that there should be a public inquiry in the locality. In the country there is sometimes a sort of feeling that the Private Bill procedure is a rather hole-in-the-corner performance, and I know that many of us regard it, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, as cumbersome.
Nevertheless there is one small point which ought not to be overlooked, and it is that the Private Bill procedure enables river authorities to offer better terms to dispossessed owners than under a Ministerial Order. It is because the terms are so often inadequate, and are increasingly being recognised to be so, that schemes are held up by every device known to the men who are being dispossessed, at a cost to the river authority in time, and hence money, far greater than if the river authority were able to make a deal direct, offering terms which make for a willing seller rather than for an unhappy and disgruntled one. The river authorities are anxious to offer these better terms. The very expense of Private Bills has its advantages, in a paradoxical way, for those who wish to amend these Bills, because promoters, in order to lessen the expense, are anxious to be accommodating. Indeed, they may so draft the original Bill as to avoid opposition.
In the case of Bills for reservoirs, which is what this Bill is concerned with, the river authorities may, either in the first instance or after the negotiations, offer better compensation, or reinstatement, than would have been possible under the Order procedure. As the cost of land is in most cases, or in average cases, only about 5 per cent. of the total cost of building the reservoir, the reservoir

1053
authorities are only too glad to give these better terms as this means quicker progress at less cost. Representations have been made to the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned, and the river authorities themselves are considering ways in which they can improve the position. I am glad to hear that these important issues have been taken note of by the Government.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to make a plea to the Government on one technical point. If we are going to have comprehensive legislation dealing with water, it would be helpful to Parliament if, before the Bill is introduced, the existing Water Acts could be consolidated. At present it is an extraordinarily difficult task to find out exactly what the, law is. There have been four Water Acts, and a great deal of the original Water Act of 1945 has been either repealed or amended. I am sure that it will be well worth while to have it consolidated before further legislation is introduced. I quite understand that the argument will be advanced that if the Bill is going to be amended still further, there is no need to consolidate it at the present time. It would immensely simplify the task of amending the law if it were easier for legislators in both Houses to know what the law is at the present time.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I say a few words on the Question, That the Bill do now pass? This Bill is the last instalment of the great reform of the water industry which took place in 1963. It is not the beginning of a new water industry; it is the tidying up of a bit that was left over from the last reform. Noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that it will be good to get on as soon as possible to the next major reform which, because of the rapid advance of technology and the increase of the population, we all know is now to be deserved.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord who has contributed at all stages of this Bill. It is a minor matter, but it is quite clearly a matter of major public interest. It has been carefully considered by your Lordships. Everything that your Lordships have said will be taken into account, particularly the last remarks of the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE
4.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"Before coming to the issues which are the concern of my Department I should first like to assure the House, in view of what was said yesterday from all sides, that I have this morning confirmed with the Chairman of the Electricity Council that everything which is humanly possible is being done to ensure that advance warning of cuts is given to hospitals and other consumers for whom interruptions of electricity supply produce immediate and critical difficulties. Sir Norman Elliott also informed me that Electricity Boards are doing everything in their power to warn consumers generally of impending cuts.
"The House will recall from my statement yesterday, that there are at present two disputes in the electricity supply industry: one affecting industrial workers, which has already resulted in the present work to rule; the second, affecting supervisory and technical staffs, who are threatening to work to rule from Monday next.
"As regards the latter, I reported yesterday that I had seen representatives of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association and asked them to reconsider their decision to work to rule and the possibility of returning to negotiations. I can now report that, following that meeting, there have been discussions between the Electricity

1055
Council and the Association, and that this possibility is being further explored between them in discussions this afternoon. The House will, I know, join me in hoping that there will be a successful outcome.
"In my discussions this morning with Sir Norman Elliott to which I have already referred, I also reviewed with him the situation in relation to both disputes. Following this, I decided to invite the unions representing industrial staff to meet me this afternoon, and I am glad to say they have accepted this invitation, and I am meeting them as soon as I can leave the House following this Statement. At the same time, I invited the Electricity Council to have a further meeting with me later this evening, following my talks with the unions.
"Subsequently, Mr. Victor Feather got in touch with me and said that he would like to come and see me and report on the meeting he had had this morning with the unions representing the industrial workers. I have seen Mr. Feather this afternoon, and he reported to me that the four unions concerned had indicated that they would be willing to consider suspending industrial action if negotiations could be resumed and the possibility was not ruled out in principle of improving the current offer. Mr. Feather then said that he wished to communicate this to the Electricity Council, and I said that, of course, I would be happy for him to do so, while stressing, of course, that I could not in any way anticipate what the reaction of the Electricity Council might be.
"I would ask the House in view of the important meetings I am about to have, not to press me further this afternoon."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to thank the noble Lord for having communicated this Statement to us. I am sure, too, that your Lordships would wish to welcome such measure of progress as is indicated by the Statement, and the constructive effort made by Mr. Victor Feather in this connection. I do not think it would be desirable to press questions
1056
unduly which might imperil the making of progress in this exceedingly serious and difficult dispute. But I would ask the noble Lord whether he can take note of the hope that the Government will do all that lies in their power to assist the promotion of a settlement and, in particular, will abstain from any action and any speeches (and there have been speeches made in this connection which have by no means improved the situation) that might in any way impede a settlement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the restraint that he has invited your Lordships to show this afternoon. I take note of what he has said. If he will allow me to say so, I hope that there will be no provocative statements made anywhere on this subject, pending settlement of the dispute.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord about the situation regarding emergency supplies to hospitals. Some ten years ago, under rather similar circumstances, all the hospitals made arrangements for the use of generators. I should like to know how it is that those arrangements have been allowed to fall into disuse, if that is so. And if they have been allowed to fall into disuse, why cannot they be speedily restored? If, years ago, we were able to provide every hospital with emergency generators, I do not see why it cannot be done now.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, arising from that question, I am wondering whether it would not be possible to have some small warning period by putting off the lights for a few seconds and then having a period of several minutes before the electricity supply is switched off entirely. That would help hospitals to get emergency appliances into action, and it would also allow people time to get out of lifts. I believe that the police have spent a great deal of time in getting people out of lifts. Is such a warning period technically possible?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I might reply first to my noble friend Lord Gage. I take note of what he has said: it seems a very constructive suggestion, and I will have it explored to see whether it can be carried out. With

1057
regard to the Lord Stonham's question, the fact is that every hospital that needs a standby generator has one, for it has been provided. The difficulty lies in not always being able to give previous notice of the cuts. The noble Lord will have seen that, so far as London is concerned, indications of where the cuts are going to fall were clearly set out in The Times this morning. My information is that the periods within which those cuts will take place are amply covered by the notice given there. The trouble is, as my right honourable friend pointed out yesterday, that to some extent the cuts are unpredictable—they are not absolutely predictable. I think everybody is trying to see that proper notice is given, but it may sometimes happen that something occurs which means that no notice can be given in a particular case. I should perhaps also add that different circumstances apply in different parts of the country. But, by and large, what I have said I think covers the facts.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord that generators are—and I think he said "were"—available to the hospitals. I hope the noble Lord will find ways and means to get this news put across the media of television and radio, particularly television, because on Monday we had on television, from all one can say now, "scare" stories of doctors involved saying that their patients were gravely at risk, were likely to die; and they were seeking to put the responsibility directly upon those who were involved in an industrial dispute. I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and I hope the widest possible publicity on this matter will be given.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I too am very glad to hear that every hospital has a generator; but certainly that fact had not emerged so far, and it should be generally known so that a great deal of understandable anxiety can be obviated. But the fact of lack of warning, sudden cutting off, is not affected by the arrangements we had before. The arrangements were for generators to be on standby duty all the time. They can be obtained. There are a great many firms who in the winter have no use for their generators and they are perfectly willing to lend them to a hospital. I know that I had a group of five hospitals—
A NOBLE LORD: Question!
LORD STONHAM: —and every one had a generator on standby. That is the kind of arrangement we want now.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot have quite heard me correctly. I said that every hospital that needed one had a standby generator. By that I meant every hospital in which there is a major operating theatre. There may obviously be a slight gap if there is no notice at all before a standby generator is started up; and that is why it is so very important that notice should be given. I can assure the noble Lord that the Electricity Council and Electricity Authorities are doing everything in their power to make certain that adequate notice is given.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that all that is necessary is a telephone call to the hospital group secretary?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; I am obliged to the noble Lord.

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
4.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster concerning the E.E.C. negotiations. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House I should like to make a Statement on the progress of the negotiations for British membership of the European Communities made at the Ministerial Meeting of the Conference which I attended in Brussels on December 8.
"At this meeting agreement was reached that the alternatives listed in the Declaration of Intent made by the Community in 1963 would be open to certain African countries, namely Gambia, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

1059
"I might remind the House that these alternatives comprise association under the Yaoundé. Convention; other association agreements with mutual rights and obligations, particularly in matters of trade; or commercial agreements to facilitate and expand trade between the Community and these countries.
"The Community said that they could only state their position with regard to other Commonwealth developing countries in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, and the Caribbean, for which we proposed that the same options be available, in the light of discussions taking place with respect to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
"The Conference also discussed further the basis of Gibraltar's customs arrangements with the Community following the agreement already reached—and reported to the House on October 29—that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome would apply to Gibraltar under Article 227(4). It has been accepted that as Gibraltar is not a part of the United Kingdom's customs territory there would be no reason to include Gibraltar in the customs territory of the enlarged Community.
"I again expressed the hope that the Community would shortly be able to make known their views on the arrangements to be made for Hong Kong.
"The principles of the United Kingdom admission to the European Investment Bank were agreed.
"In the course of a statement I made dealing with the question of transitional measures I proposed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government a transitional period of five years for adaptation in both the industrial and agricultural fields and for adaptation to the Community's rules regarding capital movements and fiscal harmonisation. I stressed that in putting this proposal forward we thought it essential that, within the common period of five years in the four fields, effective provision should be made for arriving at a mutual balance of advantage between the
1060
United Kingdom and the existing Community.
"In the industrial field we thought this could be done if we could provide for a suitable accelerated rhythm for tariff rates and adaptations. For agriculture and horticulture we should require that the adaptations be made with reasonable flexibility over five full years.
"I said that the five-year period should not in our view apply in the cases of Community finance, New Zealand butter and cheese and sugar from developing Commonwealth countries, nor to the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom.
"The Community noted our proposals upon industry and agriculture with satisfaction and said that they would examine our suggestions of capital movements and fiscal harmonisation in a positive spirit. Deputies were instructed to pursue the discussion of all these questions in preparation for the next ministerial meeting.
"The Community said that they would establish their position on all of these questions within a global frame-work. This is naturally our own position. The agreements reached hitherto must all be regarded as provisional pending the outcome of the negotiations as a whole.
"At the meeting I also outlined certain considerations which we believe the Community should take into account in dealing with the question of the British contribution to Community finance. I pointed out that the United Kingdom would be likely to enjoy only relatively small receipts as a result of Community expenditure in its present form. I recalled also that the existine members of the Community had had an extended transitional period in which to move to the agreed Community system of financing, and that correctives had been provided for governing member countries' contributions during a period of years after the final stage of Community direct income had been started. I noted that the Commission had stated in its observations on our estimates of the effect of Community financing upon the United Kingdom that, should unacceptable situations arise within the present Community or

1061
an enlarged Community, the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find equitable solutions.
"I said that we would be making detailed proposals in this field as soon as possible.
"Finally it was agreed that ministerial meetings should take place next year on February 2, March 16, May 11, and June 22; and that the timetable of meetings could be speeded up if necessary."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement. Clearly there has been some advance in the agreement to the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the transitional stages. The suggestions made by the Government are of course a considerable concession, particularly in the field of agriculture, and we should like to study carefully what the effect will be, not only upon the country as a whole but on agriculture in particular. I agree with the noble Marquess that, whatever the period of transition may be so far as we are concerned, in the case of New Zealand in particular five years would be far too short, and I was glad that the Government took this view, particularly in regard to butter and cheese. Is not lamb in the same category?
On this point, may I ask the noble Marquess whether full discussions are going on with the New Zealand authorities? As the noble Marquess knows, I have pressed on, I think, two occasions (and my noble friend Lord Hoy also has pressed this point) that there is considerable disquiet as to whether Her Majesty's Government fully consulted with the New Zealand authorities prior to their announcement of the import levy.
In regard to sugar and the developing Commonwealth countries, I think this must be treated as a very special category. I hope that there will be no question of! an agreement being arrived at whereby the total amount in cash received by the developing countries remains about the same, but that the total quantity of sugar is reduced. Not only must we consider the economic and financial aspects of these developing countries, but also any effect upon the living standards of the
1062
small farmer. This is a point that we shall have to watch with great care.
My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess what is meant by the reference in the Statement that Gibraltar is not within the United Kingdom's customs territory and therefore will not be included within the customs territory of the enlarged community? Can the noble Marquess say whether the Gibraltar authorities have been consulted and agree with this position?
I am glad to see that the position of Hong Kong is still being looked at, and I hope that the Government will not in any way give up their pressures on the Common Market to see that suitable arrangements are made for Hong Kong. I am not certain what is meant in the second paragraph of the Statement. My understanding is that. Nigeria is already an associate member with the Common Market. I believe one or two of the other territories are also associate members with the Common Market. Does this mean that these countries could retain a new relationship with the Common Market if they so wished?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Statement. Now that the Government have, happily, made what seems to be quite substantial progress in negotiations on British entry into the European Economic Community, will they consider increasing their efforts to explain to the British people that entry would, in the long run, be the only sure way to maintain a reasonable standard of living, and to make our voice heard once again in the councils of the world?
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, could we raise this whole issue above the level on which it is normally discussed? I ask the noble Marquess whether he does not agree with me that the issue with which we are concerned is the future that Britain should have, the future that Europe should have, and the effect that Europe could then have upon the world, and that so many of the other issues pale into insignificance against that remarkable opportunity?
4.35 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he really considers that the Statement which has been reported to your Lordships' House will satisfy the majority of public opinion

1063
in this country? Is he not aware that the Statement merely sidesteps the two fundamental issues; namely, the financial contribution the United Kingdom will be required to make to the Commission, and, in particular, the fundamental issue of the suggested political integration which will lead eventually to complete subordination in foreign affairs and defence and our Parliamentary system? Will he take those factors into account? Also, since the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has asked that the British public should be better informed on the subject, may I ask whether the British public will really be informed? Is not the Statement which has been made so vague and ambiguous and so full of complexities that hardly any person in the country, outside members of the Government and those who are fanatical pro-Marketeers, can understand it?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the Statement this afternoon. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord George-Brown and Lord Shinwell, will not expect me to comment in general terms on what they say, except that I did agree with one and I did not agree with the other. On the more technical matters of the Statement, I should like to pick up one or two points that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me. I know that he is worried about the position of New Zealand, and of course consultations are going on with that country because of the special conditions appertaining there. I also entirely take his point about the sugar countries. It is very important in these negotiations to make absolutely certain that not only does their standard of living not become in any way impaired but that, as he said, the cash and the work flow equally together.
So far as Gibraltar is concerned, my understanding is that as Gibraltar is a free port it is by their own wish that they prefer to remain outside the Customs Union. The noble Lord raised the question of Nigeria, and without notice I can only say that I think his point is correct. I believe that this is an alternative offered to them; but if I find I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that we will do our best
1064
in the months to come to put over our case with the greatest possible vigour, and of course any help that he can give us will be gratefully received.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for his assurance that full consultations are going on with the New Zealand authorities. Could he put my disquiet fully at rest by answering the question I put to him the other day and which I intimated through the usual channels I would put here: were there consultations with the New Zealand authorities prior to the announcement of the import levy scheme?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can answer that question for the noble Lord. The answer is that there were no prior consultations. Advance warning was given and consultations have been going on ever since.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the failure of the noble Marquess to reply to any of my submissions, may I ask him whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has made any progress as regards the proposed political integration which I understand is one of the main objectives of a section only of the Conservative Party and which is only partly accepted by every member of Her Majesty's Government? Has any progress been made in that direction, and, if so, may we know about it? If the noble Marquess is not informed about the subject, can he give any indication when your Lordships' House will be informed?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I certainly will undertake to keep the noble Lord informed on this matter. I cannot, I am afraid, give him any information to-day. I hope he will accept that.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will the noble Marquess understand that the lights went out just at the right moment?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, while net sharing the starry-eyed attitude, the rather religious attitude in some ways, towards the Common Market of my noble friend Lord George-Brown and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, may I ask the noble Marquess to stress, for those of us who do not share that attitude but still want to go in and negotiate and are with the

1065
Government and with the last Labour Government on this matter, that sugar is the test case in this issue? We do not want to beggar our Colonies, who produce sugar cheaply, while going into the Market.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I will bear what she has said very deeply in mind.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he would not agree that if there is going to be any progress towards any kind of political federation, which seems to be so much dreaded by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, such progress can be made only with the full consent and approval of both Houses of Parliament of Great Britain?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I quite agree.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware of what actually happened in another place on the occasion when a Division ensued on a debate? Is he aware of the vote by the so-called—I am not responsible; I have not invented the term—payroll section of the place; and would he forbear from taking too much notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says?

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL
4.43 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, and perhaps I should briefly explain its background. It is, of course, a basic principle of our system of Parliamentary control that Parliament should vote the money for a service before any expenditure on the service is in fact incurred. But it has long been recognised that there must be occasions when this rule cannot be observed. This applies in two main sets of circumstances; in the first place, when expenditure is necessary to meet urgent and unforeseen commitments—for example, the "Torrey Canyons", and the West Country floods of this world; and, secondly, when it is necessary to meet increases during the year in the cost of existing programmes. Against this sort of eventuality there has been in
1066
existence since 1862 a fund, known as the Civil Contingencies Fund, and the Treasury may authorise issues out of this Fund, up to a limit fixed by statute, to meet expenditure in advance of the granting of authority by Parliament.
It is fundamental to this general concept that the Fund can never finally bear any charge. It is purely a Fund from which money may in certain circumstances be borrowed, and it must always be repaid from one source or another. Thus, while its use may enable the Government to anticipate Parliament's voting of a supplementary estimate, it does not obviate the need to secure Parliamentary authority, which is so fundamental to our whole system of Government. At present, the maximum capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund is £125 million, and the purpose of this Bill is twofold; first, to change the title of the Fund to "Contingencies Fund", and, secondly, to increase the maximum capital to £200 million. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the change of title, and your Lordships will see that the word "Civil" is dropped. This is because it is necessary to reflect the changes in the Defence Estimates introduced in the current year following the recommendation contained in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. These changes brought the Defence Estimates into line with the Civil Estimates and involved the abolition of the previous liberal arrangements for virement between Defence Votes. It has to be recognised that greater calls on the Fund in respect of defence will be generated in consequence of these changes.
I now come to Clause 2 of the Bill, which increases the limit on the capital of the Fund from £125 million to £200 million. The reason for this is as follows. The present limit was fixed in 1968 on the basis of Civil Estimates, as presented to Parliament, totalling £8,672 million. Defence Estimates were, of course, then hardly relevant, for the reasons I have just explained in commenting on Clause 1 of the Bill. As from the current year, however, we are faced with a new situation since Defence Estimates of £1,912 million must now be brought into this general reckoning. When this figure is added to the total of Civil Estimates, which has risen to £10,879 million in the current year, the overall total of

1067
Supply expenditure as presented to Parliament becomes £12,791 million. This represents an increase of almost 50 per cent. since the limit of the Fund was fixed at £125 million and, in the Government's view, fully justifies an increase in the size of the Fund to restore the necessary flexibility.
May I say this by way of conclusion? It may be argued that one way of avoiding a need to increase the size of the Fund would be by reducing the size of Supplementary Estimates. But I would remind your Lordships that the Public Accounts Committee, as recently as February of this year, expressed the view that taut estimating is essential to Parliamentary control of expenditure. No doubt, a large number of Supplementaries could be avoided by including in the original Estimates, margins for contingencies but this would not be conducive to financial discipline in Departments and might very well result in Parliament's being asked to authorise expenditure on the basis of inflated and unrealistic Estimates. It could thus be an expensive way of dealing with the matter. It is much more economical to have a central Fund for contingencies rather than allow margins for contingencies over a large number of Votes. I have confidence, in view of that explanation, in commending this Bill to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we all are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the purpose of this Bill in such a careful and concise way. As he says, it has always been agreed that it would be prudent to make provision for contingencies, and as this Government appear to be particularly contingency-prone it is especially necessary to make this provision. I trust that, spurred on by the present emergency, we shall quickly give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (LONDON) (INDEMNITY) BILL
4.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the Bill the purposes of which I outlined in a Statement I made in your Lordships' House on November 11. There are now three alternatives before me. I could explain the purposes of the Bill again and go through it clause by clause—I have the necessary notes to enable me to do that, amounting to 11 pages. On the other hand, I could make a shorter statement virtually repeating the Statement I gave a month ago. Alternatively to that, there is a course which I hope may commend itself to your Lordships; namely, merely formally to move that it be read a second time. That I now do.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUNCTIONS OF TRAFFI WARDENS ORDER 1970
4.51 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, laid before the House on November 12, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order extends and consolidates the functions of traffic wardens. The need for such a measure is shown vividly by the increase in the total number of vehicles on the roads. In 1960, when police authorities were first authorised to appoint people to discharge certain functions connected with road traffic or road vehicles, there were 9,439,196 vehicles on the roads. In 1955, when the functions of traffic wardens were extended, there were 12,937,800. Last year the total rose to 14,751,900. Traffic wardens can make a considerable contribution in helping to relieve the pressure on the police and it is important that they should be as widely employed as possible. The functions they may perform are specified by the Secretary of State by means of an Order

1069
which is subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
As traffic wardens have become an accepted part of the motorist's daily life their functions have been extended: in 1965, and again in the Order before us to-day. It seems to us appropriate at the same time to consolidate these functions in one Order, and accordingly the Schedule represents a comprehensive list of what duties traffic wardens can be called upon to perform. The proposed new functions contained in the draft Order will enable chief officers of police to employ traffic wardens to man police car pounds—they will not be permitted to drive cars away—to enforce the vehicle excise laws; and to obtain the name and the address of owners or drivers of cars where it is thought that a traffic offence, of the type with which traffic wardens are enabled to deal, may have been committed. In addition, it will become an offence to disregard directions given by a traffic warden when directing traffic. The draft Order has been the subject of extensive consultation with the police, the local authorities, appropriate trade unions, the motoring associations; even the Pedestrians' Association. The attention of chief constables has been drawn to the requirement in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to take steps to ensure that only qualified persons are appointed as traffic wardens and that they must be suitably trained before undertaking their duties.
All that it remains for me to say is that the draft Order was originally laid in August when copies were sent to all police authorities. No representations against it were received and the Police Federation have withdrawn their earlier objection to traffic wardens manning car pounds. The draft Order was, however, withdrawn last month to enable a drafting change to be made which was needed as a result of the Secretary of State for the Environment taking over certain responsibilities from the Minister of Transport who was named in the draft Order. The Order was subsequently re-laid and has been considered by the Special Orders Committee in the normal way. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970 laid before
1070
the House on November 12 be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord for a clear exposition of what this Order entails. Although most people believe that traffic wardens play an important function in keeping our traffic moving on the roads, there is in certain quarters some resentment at their activities. It might be helpful if a definition of the powers that are being transferred to the wardens under this Order is given some publicity, so that there is no argument that they exercise those powers. Otherwise, I think that the proposals are completely acceptable.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say a word or two on this Order. I shall be brief and should not like to say anything derogatory of what I am sure is a sound body of people. But in the course of our experience as motorists we have been a little concerned in the past that, as opposed to the police, traffic wardens rarely exercise discretion. It seems to me that there might be a little more elasticity in the way in which they behave towards people, particularly to motorists with whom they mostly have to deal. Because one has this feeling, there is a little doubt as to whether an extension of their powers at this time is right.
I should like to be assured by Lord Windlesham that the training for any added duties which are being placed upon them is sufficient. We know very well that so far as the police themselves are concerned the training is of a very high calibre. It takes place in police colleges and the like, and the police are getting just the right atmosphere, particularly in their relations with the general public. I wander whether that applies to the same extent to traffic wardens. I am quite sure that what I say would be echoed by many people who have come into contact with them. I feel certain that traffic wardens are of great value to the country today in the great growth of road traffic, but there is just this little doubt that exists in one's mind, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can appease me in this matter and give me a greater sense of satisfaction.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, without wishing to quarrel with anything that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has just said, I should like to lend my support to this Order, for a reason which I think has perhaps not arisen sufficiently in this brief debate—that is, that we simply must take all reasonable opportunities of relieving the police of duties which are not essential to the police service. There is no way in which we shall effectively counter crime unless we press on by every possible means in enabling police to concentrate on what is their main job, which can be done by nobody else than policemen. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that we should be careful about this other matter, but I am sure he would not wish anything that he has said to be taken as opposition to the general purpose that I have just mentioned.
4.59 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said. There is very grave pressure on the police. The calls that are made on them and the duties that only they can perform increase all the time, and although recruiting is looking up the police are under very grave pressure indeed. I personally think that the increase in road traffic which I have mentioned is a significant indicator here. It has increased so sharply after the last decade that the work of simply ensuring that the parking regulations, for example, are observed, is falling increasingly on traffic wardens. We have developed rather slowly, in that the powers of the traffic wardens have been extended very gradually because of exactly the sort of disquiet of which the noble Lord, Lord Royle, spoke. We have had a 10-year period in which traffic wardens have begun, bit by bit, to get the confidence of the motorist and the public generally. Having said that, I think I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that we take his point about the need for publicity, and we will certainly consider the issue of a suitable Press notice. As I say, this is no news to the many organisations who are directly involved, because a rather extensive process of consultation has gone on for some months.
On the training point, I did just refer to it briefly in my opening remarks. I
1072
would agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said: there is a need for training in this field, and we are very aware of it and have been in touch with the chief constables to re-emphasise that there must be a form of training for the traffic warden, and the greater the powers the traffic warden has, I would agree, the greater the need for training. I think that nothing that has been said in this short debate would cause me to dissent from the opinions expressed, and I hope that, with the general welcome that this Order has been given, we can agree to its going through.
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (FRENCH REPUBLIC) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (ITALIAN REPUBLIC) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (JAPAN) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF BELGIUM) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF DENMARK) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF GREECE) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF NORWAY) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OE SWEDEN) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (SPANISH STATE) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (UNITED STATES OF MEXICO) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS) ORDER 1970
5.1 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, having been given the leave of the House, I now rise to move the first 19 Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to make it perfectly clear again that if, in the course of the debate, it becomes clear that there is a demand for a separate Question on any particular Order or Orders, I shall of course not avail myself of that leave. It will, I am afraid, be necessary for us then to take 19 separate Motions and Questions.
The purpose of the draft Orders, which it is proposed to make under the Consular Relations Act 1968, is to accord in respect of the consular posts in this country of 19 foreign States certain privileges and immunities above the scale which will be generally accorded under that Act. The Act, the relevant provisions of which will come into force on January 1, 1971, will accord to all foreign consular posts in the United Kingdom the scale of privileges and immunities provided in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This will not however enable us to give full effect to our obligations under bilateral Consular Conventions and other Agreements which we have signed with the foreign States concerned.
The Agreements, and consequently the Orders which are based on them, fall into two distinct groups which I shall explain separately. First, there is a group of 15 Orders which for convenience I will describe as the "Western European" group. These Orders relate to countries which with three exceptions, the United States, Mexico and Japan, are in Western Europe. We have extensive consular relations with those countries, and their consuls account for about three-quarters of the total number in the United Kingdom. The international agreements with those 15 countries were all in force before 1968. Effect was given to them in part under the common law, in part by various Orders in Council, and in part administratively. The Consular Relations Act, however, will place on a statutory

1075
basis the privileges and immunities accorded to consular posts in the United Kingdom, and we propose by the Orders in this group to give effect to the continuing obligations under these bilateral Agreements in so far as they exceed the Vienna Convention scale. These Orders accord privileges only and not immunities from jurisdiction. The immunities contained in the relevant Agreements can be given effect by the ordinary provisions of the Consular Relations Act. The Orders before your Lordships vary in detail, because of variations in the terms of the Agreements on which they are based. But the privileges accorded all relate to rating relief for residences of certain members of consular posts, exemptions from customs duty and taxation, and additional protection for consular bags.
The second group of Orders I will describe as the "Eastern European" group. The countries covered by this group are the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania. Under these Orders immunities from jurisdiction on a diplomatic scale are extended to certain members of consular posts in the United Kingdom. We have already ratified the Consular Conventions with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. It was in our interest to do so as soon as possible in order to gain the benefit of provisions in those Conventions giving us better facilities to exercise consular functions and to protect our nationals. Neither country maintains any separate Consulate in this country at present, apart from the consular section of its Embassy, and neither country is entitled to open a Consulate without our consent. There is no immediate prospect of a Soviet or Bulgarian Consulate being opened in this country. Nevertheless, it is unusual to ratify a Convention without first obtaining the necessary legislation to enable effect to be given to it. It is therefore right that we should take the present opportunity to put our legislative house in order.
The Conventions with Poland and Romania have not yet been ratified, but we are anxious to ratify them as soon as possible in order to secure for our consular posts in those countries the benefit of the additional facilities which they contain. Poland at present has two consular posts apart from the consular section of the Embassy, but Romania has
1076
none. The establishment of additional posts in both cases requires our consent.
As the Special Orders Committee have pointed out in their Report, the Conventions with Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Russia accord immunities which are more extensive than those accorded by the other 15 Orders which give no immunities in excess of the Vienna Convention. It is important to emphasise that these immunities are accorded on a basis of reciprocity. It was thought right in the negotiation of these Conventions to seek the highest degree of immunity and inviolability for our Consulates in those countries and for our consular officers and staff working there.
The report of the Special Orders Committee also called the attention of the House to a doubt which they felt as to whether the Orders are intra vires. I have considered this matter most carefully and consulted my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I am satisfied that in laying and making these Orders so that they will come into operation simultaneously with the remaining provisions of the Consular Relations Act we are acting correctly. We rely in so doing on Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889, which provides that after an Act becomes law a power to make Orders under it may be exercised at any time
"so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof."
May I emphasise the words "necessary or expedient"? The House will note that Section 37 does not require that the Orders should be necessary to bring the Act into operation at the commencement thereof. The test is one of expediency only.
So far as the 15 Orders of the "Western European" group are concerned, the expediency derives from the need to give effect under our law to continuing obligations under our bilateral Agreements. Hitherto the privileges set out in these 15 Orders have been accorded administratively. But the entry into force of a Statute intended to place these privileges on a legislative basis will give rise to a doubt as to whether it is proper to continue to rely on administrative cover. We believe that it is expedient to avoid this doubt and therefore to bring the Orders into operation on January 1, 1971, simultaneously with the relevant provisions of

1077
the Act. To put the point another way, Section 3(1) of the Act under which these Orders will be made is an integral part of the Act, and it is impossible for it to operate as it should from the commencement of the Act unless the Orders, which were anticipated when the Consular Relations Bill was before Parliament, are made in advance.
The Orders relating to the Soviet Union and Bulgaria accord immunities as well as privileges, and there is no doubt that effect cannot be given to these immunities by our courts until the Orders come into force. As I have explained to the House, the Conventions with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria have already been ratified and, although these countries do not yet have Consulates in this country, the Orders are required to put our legislative house in order. It is expedient that we should regularise the position at the earliest possible moment. We do not intend to ratify the Conventions with Poland and Romania without first obtaining statutory authority. But we are anxious to ratify as soon as possible, in order to secure the benefits of provisions in the Conventions relating to protection of our nationals in those countries. It is expedient, we feel, to make those Orders now, so that the provisions of the Act will be effective in regard to those countries at the earliest possible date, and enable us to proceed with ratification. If the Orders were not laid until after the commencement of the relevant provision of the Act, there would inevitably be a delay of several weeks before the ratification process could be put in hand.
It has seemed to us that all these Orders should be presented and considered by Parliament as a single coherent package, thus providing an opportunity to compare their provisions and saving the time of the House. The Consular Relations Act will come into operation more smoothly and effectively if it is accompanied by these 19 Orders. The Orders are part of the machinery of the Act, and we are therefore satisfied that it is expedient that they should be made so as to come into operation with the relevant provisions of the Act on January 1, 1971.
The other matter raised by the Report of the Special Orders Committee is the possible difficulties that may be caused
1078
by the fact that the 19 Orders confer in each case different privileges and immunities. I have already explained to the House that each Order is based on provisions in an international Agreement to which we must give effect if we are to enjoy reciprocal benefits. The discrepancies between the various Conventions are not the result of our deliberate choice but are the inevitable result of bilateral negotiations with another sovereign State in which we must take account of that State's special wishes and difficulties and must strike the best bargain we can obtain.
I hope that I have satisfied your Lordships that the unusually large number of these Orders does not in fact imply any alarming or indiscriminate extension of privileges or immunities to foreign consuls in this country. We believe that our bilateral Conventions are of great importance to the functioning of our consular posts abroad. I hope that the House will accept this and approve these draft Orders accordingly. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved—
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (French Republic) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, he approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Italian Republic) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Japan) Order, 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Belgium) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Denmark) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Greece) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of the Netherlands) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Norway) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;

1079
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Sweden, Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Republic of Austria) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Spanish State) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (United States of America) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (United States of Mexico) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (People's Republic of Bulgaria) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Polish People's Republic) Order 1570, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Socialist Republic of Romania) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
5.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should first of all express, on behalf of your Lordships' House, our gratitude to the Special Orders Committee for the exhaustive inquiry and attention which they have given to these Orders. I also express appreciation to the noble Marquess for the manner in which he has explained them. May I also add a particular word of thanks to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for having made himself available to the House this afternoon, because I believe that we shall need special guidance from him.
I am not certain on this occasion whether I appear as a gamekeeper turned poacher, or a poacher turned gamekeeper. I well remember supporting my noble friend Lord Silkin, many years ago, in raising serious objection to the enlargement of diplomatic immunities, and immunities and privileges
1080
that went well beyond the diplomatic circle. Our case then was, first, that, by and large, we in this country object to a privileged society; and, secondly, that there was, and there still remains, serious concern at the way in which some of the immunities and privileges are abused, not only in this country but in countries overseas, by those who enjoy them. It is clear that the Orders before us do not extend privileges or immunities which have not in the past been available by administrative action, except perhaps in the case of those relating to the Eastern European group.
We on this side welcome the Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order and the European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order—which come next on the Order Paper—but I wonder whether the noble Marquess can deal with a point which was raised in another place about the immunity of some 15 days which will be available to a witness. It may be that a case could go on for longer than 15 days, or that a witness might not be able to leave this country in that period. I should be grateful if we can be told whether the Government intend to take a flexible attitude on the 15 days' immunity, and whether the noble Marquess can say anything about the administrative arrangements for warning a witness as to the length of his immunity and as to the steps he can take about having such immunity extended.
As to the general content of the Orders, I would not raise any serious objection, but I am surprised that it appears that persons of United Kingdom citizenship will, as a consequence of these Orders, be able to receive special exemption from dues and taxation. That is quite clear in the Order relating to the United States of America, which provides for this in Articles 3, 4 and 5. So it seems quite clear that United Kingdom citizens who are in the employment of the United States Government will enjoy special privileges.
The same can be said of the Federal Republic of Germany Order. Under Article 3 of that Order, British citizens receive special privileges in regard to dues and taxation. There are quite a number of others, such as the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Austria Orders,

1081
and I have no doubt that I could find other Orders under which British citizens are given these special exemptions. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but we should like to have an explanation about why these British employees of foreign countries should be in this special position.
The main concern of the Special Orders Comittee was whether the 19 Orders were intra vires. As I understand it, Sections 7 to 11 of the Act came into force with its passing, and the remaining sections will come into force on January 1 as a consequence of an Order which I believe was laid and passed on November 11. I can understand the difficulties with which the Government are confronted in terms of the Western European Orders. At the moment these privileges are available and the individuals are protected as a consequence of the Royal Prerogative. There could be doubt as to what would be the position if these Orders were not passed and these matters rested on the Royal Prerogative after the Act came into force. I should be very grateful if we could hear from the noble and learned Lord how serious are these doubts as to whether there will be a loss as a consequence of these resting on the Royal Prerogative once the Act of Parliament has come into force.
In regard to the Eastern European Orders, it seems to me that there is considerable doubt. As I understand it, the Government rest their case on Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889. That section provides that Orders in Council and other instruments made in certain circumstances shall be valid where power to make them is exercised before the Act under which they have been made comes into operation. I think the House will agree that the use of this particular section must be limited. My initial understanding was that in the past this section had been used when it was necessary to set up the machinery under which an Act of Parliament, when it came into force, could operate from the due date. I understand (and I have read very carefully the speech that was made in another place by the Attorney General in which he stated it) that Section 37 could be used in a different situation. My Lords, it seems to me, as one who is not a lawyer, that the whole question is whether these Orders are necessary and
1082
expedient. They may be necessary, but whether they are expedient I am not myself sure.
The noble Marquess set out the reasons why it would be convenient—that is, convenient in terms of the operation of the Act—for the House to pass these Orders to-day. Speaking in another place on December 8, the Under-Secretary said there were four considerations; and he went on:
"The first is that the Orders form part of a single coherent package and it is therefore desirable that the House should have the chance to consider them at the same time as the others. The second, that to do so would be a saving in parliamentary time".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/12/70, col. 332.]
My Lords, that may be so, but I should not have thought, so far as the 1889 Act is concerned, that that was a question of expediency. The Under-Secretary continued:
"Third, that it is expedient because until the Order is made we are not in a position to give full effect to the provisions of the Conventions with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, which have … already been ratified. And fourth that we wish to ratify the Polish and Romanian Conventions in order to obtain our reciprocal rights and if these Orders had not been laid until the 1st of January next our ratification would have been delayed by two months…".
I am not certain in my own mind whether this makes it expedient to use the 1889 Act for passing these Orders, which relate to a section of a Bill that has not yet come into force and will not come into force until January 1.
My Lords, this is not a Party matter. Clearly, there should be no doubt that these Orders are intra vires, not only for the sake of our relations with the foreign countries concerned but also for the sake of those who may be involved in claims or disputes with Consular officials. If at any time it were to be questioned whether these Orders were intra vires, or if they were found by the courts to be ultra vires, then, clearly, our own people would be at loss, and so might be the officials who represent the countries attached to us. I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could explain to your Lordships the view of Her Majesty's Government, and particularly if the noble and learned Lord himself, speaking as the highest legal authority in the land, could tell us whether or not, in his view, these Orders are intro vires.
5.26 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think it is right that a Back-Bencher should express his great gratitude to our Orders Committee for the skill and diligence with which they examined these Orders, and, in this case, for bringing to our attention the important question whether the Orders before us are or will be intra vires. I say "will be" because, of course, all we have before us at the moment are the draft Orders. The question whether or not they are intra vires will, of course, apply to the Order in Council when it is made; but the point that is substantially before us is whether these Orders will be intra vires. I thought that the clear statement by our Orders Committee—and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also paid tribute to them—placed upon any legal Member of this House who had any leisure to look into the matter a duty to do his best to find out how much substance there was in this point that they raised.
My Lords, admittedly the validity of these Orders under the Order in Council when it comes to be made depends on the construction of Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889. That section has been the subject of two important decisions of the Court of Appeal: Rex v. The Minister of Town and Country Planning, reported in [1951] 1 King's Bench at page 1; and Usher v. Barlow, reported in [1952] 1 Chancery at page 255. When I read those cases and some of the Orders now before us—I will not pretend that I read them all—I felt great doubt on the point raised by our Orders Committee. I therefore wrote to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack explaining the doubts that I felt. He sent me a prompt, full and considered reply, and for that I am most grateful to him. The points that he raised have since been reinforced and amplified by the speech of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General when the matter was fully debated in another place last Tuesday.
In the circumstances, I should not think it proper to trouble the House with the nature of my doubts, some of which, I admit, if I were to consider only my own impressions, still persist. I am particularly doubtful about the Polish and Romanian Orders, to give examples. The reason I think it improper to express any further doubt is that we have now had
1084
the benefit—at least, I have had the benefit—of the view of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and we have all had the benefit of the views of the Attorney General, on what is a pure point of law. It would be wrong to put my doubts against the strong views on points of law that have been expressed. I therefore agree with the requests that have been made that we should have at the end of this debate, or in the course of it, a speech by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack; but, subject to that, I should be quite content to pass these Orders without further objection.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, from the dark recesses of these Benches I beg leave to say a word upon the matter of these Orders. I do so with some trepidation, because I must delve back into 45 years of my own personal history. I am concerned mainly with the privileges that are granted to a very large and expanding number of people on what we might call the periphery, strictly interpreted, of the Diplomatic Corps. I have regard to No. 8 of the proposals that are before us, and I have regard in particular to the Soviet trade delegation.
I remember 45 years ago when I was working as a Lobby correspondent in the other place, where I was on the payroll of one of the major political Parties of this country and was in daily communication with Ministers of the Cabinet, that at that time there used to wander about the corridors of the other place a gentleman who was in close contact with the Soviet authorities in this country. On one occasion he invited me to have tea at Highgate with an officer of the Soviet trade delegation. During the course of that tea we had a general discussion about the political affairs of his country and of this country. The officer knew well that I had no knowledge whatsoever of British-Soviet trade and he also knew quite well that I was closely in touch with matters being discussed in the British Cabinet at that time and that I was in daily contact with members of that Cabinet.
He put to me—not particularly in a direct form but in a very clever form, such as you would expect from a Soviet chess player—various questions which obviously were designed to draw from me information about certain matters

1085
that were then under discussion. I ought to say that the raid on the Soviet trade delegation took place a fortnight later. In those days I was rather quick witted and very loyal to the Party that employed me; and I can say that I saw what he was getting at and they got nothing from me. But it was clear to me that there were members of that organisation enjoying some kind of peripheral diplomatic privileges who were here not in order to further the interests of British-Soviet trade but in order to act as Intelligence agents for the Soviet Government and the Soviet Communist Party.
I feel that there are hundreds of these people on the payroll of Soviet organisations in this country to-day who may be engaged either whole time or part time genuinely on the furtherance of Anglo-Russian trade, but that there are others who are here for very much more sinister purposes. It grieves me to think that by these Orders we are proposing to extend to some of these people privileges which they certainly ought not to enjoy. I have made my point and I do not desire to detain your Lordships further.
5.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I have been asked to intervene in this debate simply on the question of the vires of these Orders which is a highly technical matter. Whether these Orders are expedient from the point of view of policy is for this House to decide; and the other place has already approved them. I do not myself feel that a court of law could question the wisdom or the unwisdom of either House of Parliament in deciding upon Orders of this kind at all on questions of policy.
I confine myself to two quite separate basic issues, both of which may depend, but in a different way, upon the construction to be placed upon Acts of Parliament. The first is this. Could these Orders be successfully challenged in a court of law on the basis that they exceeded the powers conferred upon Her Majesty in Council when backed by two resolutions of the Houses of Parliament? The second is whether, in any event, these Orders could properly be made because, even if they could not be successfully challenged in court, neither House of Parliament would wish to exceed their powers—
1086
for we are a constitutional body and neither House would wish to exceed powers conferred by Parliament.
My Lords, Sections 7 to 11 of the Consular Relations Act came into force on enactment and the remaining provisions will come into force on January 1 next. These Orders have been laid in advance of that date and are framed so as to come into force at the same time. The doubt consists of the proposition that, being laid under Section 3—before Section 3 has come into force—can the two Houses of Parliament by resolution effectively back draft Orders in Council laid before the effective date of the operation of that Act, notwithstanding that it has not yet come into force? That is the point which has to be considered.
As a matter of general law, I think it would be accepted that you have to justify the making of Orders in such circumstances unless the Act contains a contrary intention. I would not claim that the Consular Relations Act 1968 contains such a contrary intention. Unless the Act contains a contrary intention, you cannot normally do this; you must justify it if you want to do it. The justification, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested, is to be found in Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889, which provides, in words more complicated than those that I am going to use (though I think I am going to bring out the relevant parts of the section) that:
"Where an Act … is not to come into operation immediately on the passing there of"—
and that is the present case—
"and confers power to make … any Order in Council …"—
again the present case—
"or to do anything for the purposes of the Act,"—
the section applies to a wide range of different activities. We are dealing with a draft Order in Council to be approved by Affirmative Resolution.
"That power may, unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof."
That means that the presumption against an action of this kind is reversed. Provided that the conditions are fulfilled,

1087
the power may, unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof.
"Subject to this restriction that any instrument made under the power shall not — come into operation until the Act comes into operation."
That again is the case here. Therefore the test is to be found in the words:
"So far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof."
The Special Orders Committee, quite rightly in my opinion, drew attention to the point of vires because wherever a point of vires lies, it is obviously desirable that the attention of the House should be especially drawn to it. They set out the terms of the section as I have read it, but they added these words:
"that the Act will give the force of law to certain provisions of the Vienna Convention. The doubt is whether Orders in Council … are expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation."
With respect, they left out from that second citation words which are important, and possibly decisive in coming to a conclusion on this point; because the question is not whether the Orders are necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation, as the second citation might suggest, but whether they are necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation
"at the date of the commencement thereof;"
and these last words in that section are obviously at least as important, and it may be more important, in construing the section as the earlier words.
My noble friend Lord Conesford rightly stated that this section had been the subject of comment and decision in two decisions of the Court of Appeal. Perhaps it is worth citing them. They are the case of Rex v. The Minister of Town and Country Planning, [1951] 1 King's Bench at page 1; a decision of a strong Court of Appeal consisting of Lord Justice Tucker, Lord Justice Asquith and Lord Justice Jenkins. The other is Usher v. Barlow, [1952] 1 Chancery, at page 255, when Lord Justice Jenkins, who had
1088
been a party to the earlier decision, gave the full judgment to which I shall be referring.
The question which the House would wish to consider is the significance of the words, "necessary or expedient". Perhaps it is not too much to summarise the first decision by saying that the ingenious person who sought to invalidate the direction of the Minister in the Town and Country Planning case tried to give a narrow construction to the words and to say that the only thing you had to look at was whether it was necessary or expedient to bring the relevant portion of the Act into operation at all. The Court of Appeal in the former case really destroyed that rather narrow construction and said that it meant a great deal more than that. But in the second case Lord Justice Jenkins used a passage that I should like to quote to the House indicating that an even more flexible and wider construction was appropriate. In that case the persons who were trying to restrict this action were, in effect, ignoring the word "expedient", so Lord Justice Jenkins said, and insisting on the word "necessary" to the exclusion of the word "expedient".
Lord Justice Jenkins said:
"If the section had been confined to matters without which the Act could not come into operation at all, the words 'or expedient' would, so far as I can see, have been not only otiose but wholly inappropriate. A matter without which an Act cannot come into operation at all is necessary for the purpose of bringing it into operation and cannot be anything less than that. A matter which is merely expedient for the purpose of bringing an Act into operation is, by definition, not necessary for that purpose. It is a matter without which the Act can come into operation but with which the Act will come into operation more conveniently and effectively."
And that is the question on which I really have to advise the House.
He said that these Orders are Orders with which the Act will come into operation more conveniently or effectively. Once one has accepted that as the case, and nothing else, I would humbly submit to the House that the answer really suggests itself. I do not want to go unduly over the ground already opened by my noble friend Lord Lothian, because he has given the House the position: that the 19 Orders that we are discussing divide themselves into three groups. There is the group which he calls, for

1089
convenience, the Western European group, which contains 15 Orders. There is the group which consists only of the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, two of the Eastern European countries; and lastly, there is the group which consists of Romania and Poland, where the conventions have not been ratified. I would respectfully suggest to the House that the basic situation is really the same for them all and the relevant portions of the Act conveniently and effectively into operation these Orders are expedient. I do not say that they are necessary, but I say that they are expedient, and some of them are necessary. The only difference between one group and the other is that manifestly in some cases it can be argued that they are necessary and in other cases that they are really only expedient, but either will do.
I think the convenient thing is to take the strongest case first, which is the 15 Orders. This illustrates the point I want to make rather more clearly. The situation now is that Her Majesty gives these privileges under common law by virtue of the Royal Prerogative—that is to say, they do not require any statutory authority at all. The effect of having passed tile Act of 1968 (of course these are very fine technical matters and though I may sound dogmatic on this point it is not necessarily because I feel dogmatic but in order to shorten the argument) is to merge the Prerogative in the Statute, and when the Prerogative is merged in the Statute it means that it should not be exercised independently.
The position therefore is that in the absence of Orders in the case of these 15 countries it may be in doubt whether the privileges continue to exist at all after the coming into operation of Section 3 of the Act. I submit that in order to bring that part of the Act effectively into operation on January 1, 1971, it is necessary that these additional privileges come into effect the moment the Act comes into effect in order to avoid a legal interregnum in which someone might challenge the additional privileges and say that because the Prerogative under which they had been granted up to that time had been merged they were no longer effective. I submit that this is a fairly clear case of the operation of the 1889
1090
Statute in relation to these 15 conventions.
A rather similar situation probably exists in relation to the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. These two Orders relate to Conventions by which we have entered into obligations in excess of those laid down in the Vienna Convention. I am told, though this is a field of law in which I should not like to set myself up as an independent arbiter, that the Vienna Convention might have altered customary international law. If privileges and immunities are sought to be accorded in excess of what the Vienna Convention allows, it might well be said that in the absence of statutory authority there was no power to grant them. At all events, my submission would be that these Orders are entirely convenient and therefore expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into effect on the due date as regards obligations which we have undertaken and ratified.
As my noble friend Lord Lothian pointed out, the difference between the previous Conventions and the two last Conventions is that they have been ratified, whereas those with Poland and Romania have not been. But I submit that it is clearly convenient and expedient for bringing the Act into effect conveniently and effectively to ensure that we have the powers given by these Orders rather than to proceed to ratify these Conventions and then find ourselves without the statutory power to give them effect. The two Orders for Poland and Romania relate to Conventions which are not yet ratified. But Her Majesty's Government wish to ratify them urgently, and I would suspect, too, that this would be the wish of Parliament. We cannot do so unless the Orders are made for the purpose of bringing the new machinery into effect. This cannot be done under the old machinery, because the old machinery will not be available; therefore we must use the new machinery and the new machinery can only be operated by means of these Orders.
I am not prepared to advise the House that even administrative convenience does not or cannot come within the definition of expedience; I think it probably does. What is clear is that the Act cannot come into operation conveniently or effectively on January 1,

1091
1971 (which is the date of the commencement of the relevant portions of the Act) unless these Orders are made now. Otherwise we should be in the position as regards some of these countries that we would be in breach of our international obligations, and as regards the remaining two countries we should wish to take the normal diplomatic step and be without legal machinery to do it.
It follows, at least in my opinion, that the words used by Lord Justice Jenkins in the case of Usher v. Barlow apply and there ought not to be any real question as to the vires of these Orders. I hope that what I have said is helpful. This is a highly technical question and I have applied my mind to it as well as I possibly could. The House must now decide on the matter.
5.56 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care with which he has addressed himself to the point raised by the Special Orders Committee. I have listened with the greatest attention to everything he has said, but I very much regret to say that I do not find myself altogether in agreement. It is not my purpose to submit the House to a long legal argument. I am not saying that these Orders are ultra vires; I am not saying that they are probably ultra vires. If the noble and learned Lord had said that in his view they were probably intra vires, I should not have disagreed with him.
The question is whether there is a doubt. This is really all that the Special Orders Committee were saying. And if there is a doubt, what is the wise course to take? Naturally we do not propose to divide the House on this matter. The responsibility is the Government's, and they must decide. I think there is a strong probability that the Orders are intra vires, but I also feel that there is doubt. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, I have read the cases and feel the same difficulties that he felt when he read them.
If the Orders are ultra vires, obviously the consequences are serious. We cannot by resolution determine the law. Only the courts can say whether these Orders,
1092
if made, are intra vires or ultra vires. Such a question might not arise before the court for quite a long time. Meanwhile, many consuls, their staffs and families, would have believed in good faith that they were given the privileges which these Orders set out—and they are considerable: freedom from taxation and rates, from having to appear in court, from having one's goods destrained on, and so on. The serious position which would then arise would be that the people concerned had been led into a trap. They would have accepted these privileges in faith of these Orders, though in fact they never had these privileges at all. Moreover, the other countries concerned would, on the faith of these Orders, have accorded our consuls, their staffs and families, the same privileges, and we should find ourselves in breach of our Agreements with the United States of America, the Soviet Union and 17 other countries.
We appreciate that it is for the Government to decide what course they wish to take. But it is for us to point out the difficulties and the serious situation which would arise if (which we hope will not happen, and we believe will not happen) the courts did one day decide, and particularly perhaps in the case of Poland and Romania, where the Conventions have not yet been ratified, that they are not covered by Section 37 of the Interpretation Act.
The House will of course appreciate that these are Orders purporting to be made under a section of the Act which is not yet in force, and if it stopped there they would without doubt be ultra vires. The sole question is whether they are covered by Section 37 of the Interpretation Act. That is not a section which is altogether easy to construe, and particularly to apply to many different circumstances, especially, as I have said, in the case of the Polish and Romanian Orders. I do not desire to add anything further tonight.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that it is up to me to say anything further on this highly technical matter which we have been discussing, except to thank my noble and learned friend for his intervention, which I am sure your Lordships found extremely helpful and I hope convincing.

1093
I should like to the thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and other noble Lords who have spoken, for their general welcome to these Orders. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised a point about the 15 days immunity, which I think actually comes into the two Orders that we are not discussing at the moment; and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, drew our attention to what I am sure we all realise is an important point. I know that there is a lot of business before the House, and I do not propose to say anything more.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Marquess help me in regard to Article 3, where we appear to be giving special privileges to British citizens?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes. I think the noble Lord is referring to rating relief accorded to nationals in this country. The position is that the provisions in the Orders each give effect to a provision in the relevant Convention and therefore exclude nationals of the United Kingdom only where this is in accordance with the terms of that Convention. Most of the Conventions do not exclude British nationals from the provisions according rating relief in respect of residences, because relief is never accorded unless the sending State itself is the owner or lessee of the residence. The privilege is therefore accorded to the Government rather than to the individual. It is in fact unlikely that United Kingdom nationals acting as Consuls or consular employees of foreign States will actually be living in Government-held accommodation.

EUROCONTROL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1970
6.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN rose to move, That the Draft Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I shall be brief, and perhaps I may speak to both these Orders together. They are made under the International Organisations Act 1968 and confer immunities and privileges in respect of the Council of Europe's Human Rights institutions and the European Organisation for the Safety of Air
1094
Navigation, known as "Eurocontrol". The work of the Council of Europe's Human Rights institutions is well known to the House. The privileges and immunities to be conferred by this Order will assure the better functioning of the European Commission and Court, and I trust that this will commend the Order to this House. The Eurocontrol Order will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Additional Protocol to the 1960 Eurocontrol Convention. It is estimated that the tax exemptions accorded under this Protocol will save the United Kingdom £300,000 a year. I am sure that, for this reason alone, the Order will commend itself to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised one point earlier about the 15-day limitation on immunity. It is considered that 15 days should be enough for people who have to leave the country after proceedings have been terminated and their presence is no longer required by the Tribunal. My understanding is that there is not at the moment any administrative procedure for warning people of the 15-day limit, although I am told that anybody who is worried about it can discover the position from a lawyer or the police or—I am given to understand—from the Council of Europe. I beg to move the first of the two Orders.
Moved, That the Draft Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1970
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
6.7 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope, now that the lights have gone on, that I shall be less obscure than I might otherwise have been. Your Lordships may remember that some two years ago a Sunday Trading Bill was passed through this House, but it fell by the wayside because it was the end of the Session when it went to the other place. That Bill was based on the Crathorne Report, as is this Bill. I think it is just as well that the other Bill did fall, because although it would have cleared up many of the anomalies which exist to-day under the Shops Act 1950, on looking back I think it would have created some new ones.
This is a much simpler Bill, and by and large it just tries to do away with anomalies, nearly all on the sale of food. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind—I have you will agree with me, but you may not—that I do not believe that this Bill will lead to any increase of Sunday trading in so far as shops that are not now open on Sundays will, as a result of the Bill, open. As I say, it is intended mostly to deal with the sale of food. To hear some people talk one would think that you could not sell food on Sunday now. You can sell food now, and it is sold all over the country. The difficulty arises on the extraordinary anomalies that have arisen under the 1950 Act as to what food you can sell, when you can sell it, and whether you are or are not obeying the law.
In case any of your Lordships should think that I am exaggerating the anomalies, I should like to read what is pointed out in the Crathorne Report; namely, what some of the judges who have had to try cases under this Act think about it. The principal trouble in the Act is Schedule 5, paragraph 1 (b). This is what the judges have had to say about the extraordinary nonsense that goes on now. Mr. Justice Humphreys in the case of the L.C.C. v. Linda Davies said:
"There is almost no nonsensical proposition which may not seriously be put forward as a result of looking at these innumerable exceptions".
1096
They were the exceptions in the Schedules. Lord Hewitt in the case of L.C.C. v. Lees said:
"… not often in the course of half a century of experience of the law, have I had the opportunity of endeavouring to come to close quarters with such a piece of legislation".
In the same case, Sir William Jowitt (as he then was), who appeared for the respondents, said:
"… the provisions of Schedules 5 and 6 taken together, and compared and contrasted with each other …"
were, to his mind, unintelligible. I say that there are anomalies—that is what the judges think about it.
The principal trouble is in the fifth and sixth Schedules to the Act, and it is that which this Bill is trying to rectify. Particular trouble arises in paragraph 1 of Schedule 5, sub-paragraph (b). First of all it says that you may sell intoxicating liquor on a Sunday. Then it goes on to say that you may sell meals of refreshments, whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold, but not including the sale of fried fish and chips at a fried fish and chip shop. That is a small point. May I just deal with fried fish and chips briefly? You can buy fried fish and chips at a restaurant; you can buy fried fish and chips at a shop that is not a fried fish and chip shop. If you like to have the same shop, with two doors and a partition so that you can go into one half of the shop and buy your chips, and then run into the other half and buy your fish, you can do so. But, my Lords, is that sensible? If this Bill becomes law you will be able to sell fish and chips on a Sunday from a fish and chip shop.
The real trouble has arisen over the question of meals or refreshments. Of course it will be legal to buy food for consumption on the premises. This is the question of a meal or refreshment which you buy to take way. What is a meal or refreshment? The definition of a meal or refreshment has never been satisfactorily decided. The courts (poor devils!) have had to try to operate this law, and, as a result of various judgments, the present situation is really this. As a result of various judgments, whatever the Act meant, the way it operates is this. You can buy food or refreshment in a shop provided you can consume it without further processing.

1097
So you can buy a tin of fruit, open it in the shop and eat it. And you are entitled to buy it and take it away, because it is a meal or refreshment.
That sounds fairly simple, but is it? It stops your going into a shop on a Sunday to buy a packet of flour and a packet of sugar. The question is what you can eat in the shop. There is the famous case, which is always quoted, of the uncooked kipper. A shop was prosecuted for selling an uncooked kipper, and when the matter came into court there was an abundance of evidence to prove that some people liked their kippers uncooked. So it was said that this was a meal or refreshment, and the court agreed. There is an even odder case, the case of the inspector, Sidney Smolar v. Eric George Pritchard. This was a case of a man who bought a packet of caster sugar. The case about coffee sugar has never been settled, because if some people are anything like my grandchildren they eat coffee sugar as a meal or refreshment. But this was caster sugar, and the magistrate found that it was silly to suppose that anyone would go in and buy a packet of caster sugar and eat it in the shop; therefore it was not a meal or refreshment.
There was an appeal and the recorder found in this particular case that it was a meal or refreshment, because the purchaser had also bought bread, butter and something else. Together they formed a meal or refreshment. The inspector then appealed to the Divisional Court, and the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe all agreed in their judgments that no evidence had been produced before the recorder whether those other substances were bought at the same time as the packet of sugar in the same shop. If so, it could reasonably be argued that they were refreshments or a meal, but unless there was that evidence it was not refreshment or a meal. So the case was sent back to the recorder, and presumably he took further evidence, but I do not know. That is the position of the law at the moment. It really is idiocy.
This Bill says that if you are entitled to sell food on a Sunday—and I come to that point in a moment—then you may sell on a Sunday any food for consumption, on or off the premises. I
1098
does not sound very difficult. Some people think that all the supermarkets will open on a Sunday. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is going to speak later. There is nothing to stop their opening on a Sunday now, and if they do not open now it is because, with the high cost of staff working on Sundays and so on, it does not pay them to do so. There is also great difficulty in knowing exactly what can and what cannot be sold. Provided the goods are part of a meal or refreshment, and they are bought altogether as such, you can sell any food you like now, except butcher's meat—a point to which I will come in a minute. If you want to buy things which have to be processed, such as a packet of tea, which has to be processed for it must have boiling water poured on it and you cannot open it and consume it in tile shop, then you cannot buy it. That is the situation at the moment.
May I now come to the Bill I will go quickly through it, because the whole meat of the alterations is in the Schedules. Clause 1 puts a new Schedule into the Act, instead of Schedule 5, and I hope it puts it in simpler language. I will deal with the details of that when we come to the Schedule, but, roughly speaking, it enables a shopkeeper to sell all kinds of food on a Sunday if he is open for the selling of food. In order to see that food shops may be inspected to make sure that they are not selling things they are not allowed to sell, Clause 2 provides that a food shop must be registered with the local authority as such, and, if it is, then the Inspectorate knows that although the food shop may be selling other things, they will not be allowed to sell them on a Sunday. So it enables the Inspectorate to see that the shop sells only food or drink; and that puts some teeth into the Bill. At the present time, the fines are ludicrous: I think it is £5 for the first offence and £20 for the second offence. This clause enables the local authority to close the food shop, to refuse to give it a licence to open on a Sunday, and thereby gives the Bill some teeth.
Clause 3 enables any local authority to allow shops within their area to open on Sunday for the sale of the articles listed in Schedule 2. I will deal with

1099
this point in more detail when I come to the schedules. Schedule 2 deals with:
"Articles which may be sold on Sunday pursuant to orders of local authorities."
This is the law at the moment for holiday resorts. Nobody has ever been able to describe what a "holiday resort" is. This Schedule gives local authorities power to grant permission to open on a Sunday, not for necessarily the whole town, but in certain areas which have a lot of visitors. There has been great ill feeling between different local authorities. Sometimes places which perhaps are not technically holiday resorts in fact have more visitors than places which are. This provision tries to bring them all into line.
Clause 4 modifies the existing arrangements for compensatory time off for Sunday working. Without going into detail at this stage—there may be matters to be raised at the Committee stage—the two principal considerations are these. At the moment Sunday time off is given by Statute to an employee only if the shop is open for the serving of customers. That seems to be entirely wrong. Nowadays work is very often done in a shop on a Sunday behind the scenes: there is labelling of goods for sale the next day, and so on. Under this new clause it will count as Sunday working although the shop is not open for the serving of customers. This is fair.
The other main alteration here concerns the fact that at present Sunday workers must work only two Sundays in every month. The new provision allows them, if they so wish, to work every Sunday. The reason for bringing in this change is this. There are quite a lot of workers, mostly women, who virtually work only on a Sunday because they have to look after other members of the family at home during the week. If they want to, I cannot see any reason why they should not work every Sunday. In the old days that would possibly have been dangerous, because an employer could put pressure on a staff, when it was easy to get staff, to work every Sunday whether they wanted to or not. Now an employer goes down on bended knees to get Sunday workers, and there is no danger of forcing any employee to work on a Sunday if he or she does not want to. This provision merely says: if a person wants to, he or she can.
1100
Clause 5 amends the Shops (Airports) Act 1962. Under that Act, the Secretary of State can, within certain geographically restricted limits, allow shops in an airport to open out of hours. This clause gives the Secretary of State power to make an Order at any particular airport so that airport shops may open on a Sunday. In these days when tourist traffic is so important, and Sunday is very often the busiest day, and the day on which travellers most want to buy things, this provision is desirable. In most airports abroad one can buy goods on a Sunday now, but not here, and this has been adversely criticised by our tourist trade. But it will be possible to do so under this Bill only if the Secretary of State orders it. In other words, in the case of a small, twopenny-halfpenny airport he will not order it; but in the case of an airport such as Heathrow he probably will within a certain area give permission.
I shall be as quick as I can, but I must go into the Schedules. They have been reworded and I shall point out where there is an alteration in the law. Although it is differently worded, the first paragraph deals with sale of food for consumption on the premises. This is legal now, and with slightly clearer wording it will remain legal if this Bill becomes an Act. Then we come to the important part dealing with the sale for human consumption of food at shops registered with the local authority. This registration is something new and it gives the administration of this matter some "teeth". Your Lordships will see the things that can be bought for consumption off the premises.
There is no variation from the existing law (although the wording may be different to some extent) until we come down to paragraph 3(iv). This paragraph deals with:
"Toilet requisites including perfume, cosmetics, and dentifrices, for external use"
and so on. At the moment there are considerable difficulties in respect of chemists' shops which are open on a Sunday. One can buy razor blades if one tells the chemist they are to cut corns, but if they are wanted for shaving they cannot be bought on a Sunday. Similarly, one cannot buy lipstick or a suitable preparation if one is blistered by the sun. What this paragraph says, in effect, is that a chemist may sell make-up and

1101
items such as suntan oil, as well as medicines, on a Sunday if he is open, but he may not sell goods such as cameras. That would create very unfair competition. This paragraph deals merely with preparations which are applied to the body externally; a chemist may sell all those. Your Lordships can read the items for yourselves.
There is a slight alteration in paragraph 3(v). The present Act allows certain supplies for cars and cycles and so on to be bought on a Sunday. But there has been some doubt, apparently, as to whether, for instance, a windscreen wiper is a "part" or an "accessory." The paragraph in this Bill says:
"Parts of, accessories to, or fuel or lubricants for".
One additional item concerns aircraft—this is for local flying clubs. Parts can be sold under the Bill. Caravans or trailers are also covered. The latter have been covered by the Bill because at present if you are motoring along with a caravan and something goes wrong with the car you can buy accessories; but if anything goes wrong with the caravan then technically you cannot. I suppose one has to leave the caravan where it is and motor on. This seems silly, and so caravans have been included in this paragraph.
The next alteration concerns item (x), domestic fuels. Coal merchants do not normally deliver fuel on a Sunday now. It is too expensive; one has to pay the men too much. But there are circumstances in prolonged cold weather when somebody such as a coal merchant, if he has any coal to sell, cannot deliver to all his customers in the week owing to bad weather, snow and so on. This provision enables him, if necessary, to deliver the odd sack of coal on Sunday quite legally. I do not think it will be of much use, but until now some merchants have disobeyed the law in order to deliver coal to old people, and this provision will enable Sunday deliveries to be made legally. The other alteration in paragraph 3 concerns food for animals. The present legislation specifies which animals food may be bought for; it does not specify the food one may buy. It is illegal to buy food for your dog, but if you go into a shop and say "I want some biscuits for my pony" the shopkeeper can
1102
sell them to you. The new provision says that food for animals may be bought on a Sunday. Most animal foods can be bought now on a Sunday, but for some reason dogs and cows were left out, while donkeys and ponies were included. The present legislation is just a mess. It is much easier, and more certain, to allow food for all animals to be bought.
Paragraph 5 covers:
"The sale by fishermen of freshly caught fish (including shell fish) at or adjacent to the point where it is landed".
At the moment fishermen can legally sell fish at the landing place; but they very often have a small kiosk down the quay. This provision enables them legally to open and sell fish at such a kiosk. The fish can be taken to the kiosk and sold from there. There is some doubt as to whether that is legal now, hence the introduction of the word "adjacent".
Paragraph 8 is an important one. This enables launderettes to be open on a Sunday. The Crathorne Committee had much to say about this. They are very necessary. To begin with, they employ the minimum of labour, and sometimes virtually no labour. They are particularly necessary in poorer areas where mothers work during the week. This provision enables launderettes to open on a Sunday. The Crathorne Report pointed out, when there were not as many launderettes as there are now, that they were very much wanted by the public and served a most useful purpose. So much for Schedule 1. The rest of the law remains virtually the same.
Schedule 2 deals with articles relating to places which used to be called "holiday resorts" but which now one might term as "places which crowds frequent on certain occasions". The Schedule includes the list of articles which a local authority may authorise to be sold, if they wish, in certain areas of a town—what is in effect a holiday resort—but it will be easier to administer if it is left to the local authority in this case. In Schedule 7 the Act at present refers to:
"articles required for the purpose of bathing or fishing".
We have added "sunbathing" here, because people break their sunglasses, for instance; and we have included sunbathing in order to cover that sort of thing.

1103
I do not think there is any other alteration. I hope that I have not rushed the Bill too much for your Lordships, but there may be points in Committee which we can deal with then. May I repeat that I do not think this will lead to virtually any extension of Sunday trading? I believe that it is necessary, in the interests of administering the law, that people should know what they can buy and what they cannot buy. The present law is something of a nonsense in this respect, and therefore I hope that in due course your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
6.31 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I shall be brief, but I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the Bill and, if I may say so, his amusing side comments which enlivened his dissertation on the Schedule. The noble Lord will be glad to know that on behalf of the Opposition I am not directed to give any particular suggestions to the noble Lords who are seated behind me.
As a shopper, I would say to the noble Lord that one is always aware of the curious anomalies of the present situation. One finds it amusing in the newsagents, for instance, to see the unfortunate shopkeeper having to refuse the sale of a ballpoint pen and a postcard while being able to sell a Sunday newspaper. I sometimes think that we are at our most hypocritical when dealing with the question of Sunday. Those of us who have the misfortune to travel on a Sunday, as I often have to do, get the feeling that this is where we see the puritanical side; that we should not really be travelling on a Sunday but should be at home or on our knees, praying, and therefore everything is made as difficult and as uncomfortable as possible—though other reasons are advanced.
My Lords, naturally one would immediately take the point about the airports. On many occasions I have had foreign visitors complain bitterly, not only about our curious shop laws but also about our curious licensing laws, which I believe we are also now to tackle. Thus I speak as a shopper. Shops do open on Sundays—in fact, I am amazed to see that some of the shops I frequent on my way home
1104
from church have apparently been breaking the law. I had no idea that some of them should not have been selling articles which they were selling quite freely. As more women work full-time, undoubtedly more shops will need to open on Sunday, and I think the noble Lord was quite correct in saying that since staff are at a premium there is little likelihood of pressure being brought to bear on them, though no doubt some of the noble Lords who follow me will put a different point of view.
There is no doubt that the workers must be protected, though in the main it will be the small shopkeepers who will probably be the most interested in this Bill. I imagine that the multiples and the chain stores will have their own special attractions to the shopper and will not need to consider Sunday opening as an additional one. This is something on which we should like to hear both points of view—perhaps it would be relevant to say "all the arguments on both sides of the counter"—and I hope that, having listened to all the noble Lords who are to take part in this debate, the evidence will be fully weighed up and the Bill will be given a Second Reading by your Lordships.
6.35 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I certainly hope that this Bill will get a Second Reading, based as it is on the recommendations of a Departmental Committee which spent three years studying the subject. And if I spend the rest of what I hope will be a brief speech making some criticisms which I hope will be constructive, I promise to end by saying that I nevertheless hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading.
My Lords, what I want to criticise are the provisions in Clause 4 which deal with Sunday employment in shops. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has endorsed: that if we are simply considering the present time there is no question of any shop assistant being exploited in the matter of Sunday working. The noble Lord said that one has to go down on one's knees to get staff to man shops in these days. All I would say is that on past form we are not legislating just for the present time; we are probably legislating for a very long time to come. When

1105
I refer to "past form" I am not thinking of the 1968 Bill, which fell by the wayside after passing through this House; I am thinking of the fact that this Bill amends the Shops Act 1950, which was itself a consolidating measure of consolidated shops Acts going back to 1912. On that basis we are, as I say, probably legislating for a very long time, which may be much longer than the time within which employers will be going down on their knees to get staffs to man their shops.
My Lords, Clause 4 is a piece of legislation by reference. Legislation by reference is all right in its way, but it has this disadvantage: that when one reads such a piece of legislation it is not readily apparent on the face of it to the ordinary reader what it means; and I suggest to your Lordships that Clause 4 is a pretty fair example of this. Unless one has the Act of 1950 beside one it is not much good reading Clause 4, because it does not tell one very much. In my submission, this is where the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill ought to come into its own. I should have thought that here was a chance for the Explanatory Memorandum to make itself useful merely by explaining what Clause 4 does. However, if we look at the Explanatory Memorandum on this Bill we do not get very much further, because all it says on this point is that:
"Clause 4 modifies the existing arrangements for compensatory time off for shop assistants …. employed on Sunday."
Let us be clear as to the main purpose of Clause 4. I do not, of course, seek to blame the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for not having pointed this out—he could not bring out every point—but I do not think he brought out the main point and purpose of Clause 4. What it seeks to do is to repeal the provision in the 1950 Act which provides 26 whole holidays on Sunday in every year so distributed that at least one out of every three consecutive Sundays shall be a whole holiday. In place of that the Bill provides 26 whole holidays on Sundays or a weekday. Whatever one may say, that is removing a considerable amount of protection for shop assistants against having to work on a Sunday.
I have to admit that the Crathorne Committee agreed with this change.
1106
Paragraph 27 of their summary of recommendations says:
"The restriction on the number of Sundays on which certain shop workers may be employed should be abolished".
They refer to paragraph 223 in the main body of their Report, but the position is rather curious, because in paragraph 223 the Committee seem to be arguing exactly in the opposite direction. This is how they begin:
"We have recognised in Part 1 of our Report that Sunday has a special character and is not an interchangeable day. A condition that ensures that employees have at least some Sundays free to spend as they choose "—
and here I would have inserted "with their families"—
"is consistent with this principle. To this extent, therefore, a condition which limits the number of Sundays on which a person may be employed has obvious merit. Our evidence shows, however, that this type of condition is too inflexible and imposes unreasonable restraints. We came to the conclusion that it should be abolished."
I admit this criticism about inflexibility. I quite accept that there are a number of lonely people who are not blessed with a happy family circle in which to spend their Sundays who probably regard Sunday as the dullest day of the week, and who probably consider themselves just as good Christians as anybody else if they spend their Sundays contributing to the enjoyment of other people who are having Sunday outings by providing refreshments for those people. The problem here is really how are we to legislate to give this freedom to these (as I call them) lonely people, without opening the floodgates in a way that will enable an unscrupulous employer to bring pressure to bear on other shop assistants—people who ought certainly not to be working on Sunday, but ought to be spending Sunday with their families—by saying: "Come along; here are these statutory provisions. You ought therefore to be working on a Sunday".
I find this a perplexing problem, my Lords, and I was wondering how one could possibly try to legislate to deal with it. Then I chanced, fortunately, upon the last report published last June by the Consumer Council and called, The First Seven Years. I suppose this is the swan song of the Consumer Council; I suppose it could equally well have been called The Last Seven Years. At page 14, tinder the

1107
heading "Shopping hours", the report says this:
"The Council emphasises that the hours of work of shop assistants can be protected by statutory regulations and need not be related to the opening hours of shops."
Lower down in the paragraph it says:
"The Council, with two dissentients, has also taken the view that the anachronisms in the Sunday trading laws are so ludicrous that they should be swept away, allowing all shops that want to do so to trade on Sundays"—
thereby, of course, going much further than the Crathorne Committee. Finally the Council says:
"Once again the hours shop assistants work should be protected by regulations."
My Lords, with some Bills on Second Reading we know fairly early on what the Government line is, but this evening we do not know; we shall not hear until the end. I do not know what it is going to be. It may be that the Government are going to keep their options open and see what are the views of the House. If that is so, the suggestion that I put forward is this. Will the Government quickly consult the Consumer Council, before it is too late—because there is not much time left—about the details they had in mind as to the form these proposed statutory regulations might take in order to protect both the rights of shop assistants who ought to have freedom to work on Sundays and also the rights of the other sort of shop assistants who ought not to be encouraged to work on Sundays? If there is this consultation with the Consumer Council, who have given this matter a good deal of study, then if, eventually, the Government decide to support this Bill they will be in a stronger position to draft their regulations. That was all I intended to say, but I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord appreciates, I hope, that he was talking about Section 21. That deals with the catering trade, cafés and so on, and the occupier can elect, if he likes, to come under Section 22, which relates to shops. The section the noble Lord was quoting deals with the catering trade.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I do know that. I ought to have said, "where the section applies". That would have
1108
made it clear beyond a peradventure. But, as I said at the beginning, I certainly hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.
6.48 p.m.
LORD HAMNETT: My Lords, referring to the noble Lord's last sentence, I hope that the Bill will not get a Second Reading, for a wide range of reasons that I hope to give to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, dealt, as one can so easily, with anomalies and contradictions, sometimes very humorous ones. One can deal with these in any particular Act of Parliament, the Shops Act in particular. But the Bill itself, as projected, would provide equally great anomalies in other directions. Perhaps I may cite one or two, although it is not my purpose to deal with this aspect at any length. Let us take the case of the registration of a shop. After the first offence a shop can, or may, be removed from the schedule. On the second offence it shall be removed. In neither case is there any suggestion of the time limits that may be imposed, so that you can have the legal anomaly of a shop that for the first offence may be removed—if the local authority does not particularly like the shop—and for a second offence they can remove a shop for 12 months, two months or three weeks. These anomalies will still exist under the Bill.
To deal with one or two of the points that have been raised, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who recognised the fact that this Bill is not for this week; it is for the coming months and years. In such circumstances, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who says that there will be no force on employees to work on Sundays, that this is the range of trades which has been subject to the most unregulated exploitation so far. That is why the Wages Councils Act 1944 was extended to a wide range of these trades, because it was not expected that they would be organisable in relation to trade union agreements. At this moment only about 10 per cent. are organised.
It is said, of course, that the Bill removes the anomalies of the shops that are open now, and it is not expected that other shops will be open. That is an assumption with which I could not agree. You substitute for Schedule 5

1109
of the Shops Act a list which includes all kinds of food in this highly competitive industry, and in which part of the claim in support of this Bill is that there is a great desire on the part of people to go shopping on a Sunday.
In such circumstances I want to deal largely and mainly with the economic, industrial and the social aspects of the Bill. First, the economic side. In the larger supermarkets which, under the Bill, will be permitted to, and undoubtedly will, open once they get permission it means that in order to ensure a day off you must adopt a rota system of some kind, particularly to deal with the provisions of the Wages Council Order which already limit hours to 44 and restrict Sunday working in certain respects. In such circumstances you must increase the working force in the supermarkets and in large or any other shops. You must increase the labour force by roughly one-seventh, which means that you increase labour costs by one-seventh. It is now an arguable point as to whether, having increased the labour costs by one-seventh you can so increase the sales that you reduce the wages costs by that figure.
If you increase the costs by one-seventh you have one other factor. It is historically true, particularly among those who are organising the trade unions, that there will be a demand, as there is under the provisions of the Wages Councils Orders as they at present exist, for double or even treble time on Sunday. This problem has been raised with regard to the milkman on his rota-day off. In such circumstances, again you raise the wages costs of the shop. Wages costs can only be covered in the one way in which they ought not to be covered at this present time; that is, by increasing prices to the consumer. But the prices will be increased not to those consumers who consume on Sunday. The prices will be increased throughout the shop, to all the consumers, because of the extra wages costs bill.
It is true that 10 per cent. of the shops in this country do 90 per cent. of the trade. But 75 per cent. of the shops have staffs of four or less, including the proprietor or manager. In such circumstances, again, because it will be impossible to find a suitable rota system, and because in their own protection, forced by competition, they will open on Sundays,
1110
the wages costs must increase. I speak here purely in relation to the economic and industrial aspects.
There is a further point. I assume that the supermarkets will open on Sundays if this Bill is carried into law. At the present time supermarkets are staffed largely by women employees, with one man who is usually the manager of the shop. He is heavily responsible for stock, for purchases, for sales, for linkage, for profit and loss on the shop. It is a very heavy responsibility. He is paid more for that responsibility, and he accepts it quite seriously. If, as you must, you adopt a rota system for a day off, what happens to the manager. How do you find an extra one-seventh in managerial staff to work a rota system in an occupation in regard to which we have already been told by my noble friend Baroness Phillips that it is difficult to recruit staff at all, particularly male staff, for a wide variety of other reasons? If you do not do that, you cannot expect the manager of a supermarket to leave the control of the shop for which he is responsible in the hands of junior staff or of an inexperienced manager of the staff. So he is faced with the prospect of either appealing to his employer for an extra man for the shop or he will have to work seven days a week. This problem will also apply to the self-owned shops.
If I may put this point, I would rather deal with the social aspects to which my noble friend Lord Airedale referred. He reminded me of those remarkable words of Browning in this connotation:
"Because a man has shop to mind,
In time and place since flesh must live
Needs spirit lack all life behind, …
All loves except what trade can give."
And shop assistants in that sense are human beings, strange as it may seem. They have only one common day of leisure.
In most other occupations there is an alternative of two common days of leisure, Saturday and Sunday. This is true even of wide-ranging rota and shift work occupations. Even journalists working on a Sunday for a Monday morning newspaper usually have the Saturday as well as one other day of leisure. This is very common. In other words, you get one day of leisure, when everybody else is at home. It is the fact that 75 per cent. of the labour in food shops is female

1111
labour. The vast bulk of that female labour is married. In such circumstances they are deprived of the common day of leisure with their family, the common day of leisure with their people around them. In those circumstances, with a lack of protection, with the possible further exploitation of workers in a fiercely competitive industry, I would ask noble Lords to reject the Second Reading of this Bill.
6.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I should like in general to welcome this second attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to give effect to some of the proposals of the Crathorne Report. Altogether, that Report has not been particularly fortunate. I do not think that any of its proposals, either on the entertainments side or on the trading side, have yet been passed into law, unless there is any point that I have omitted to notice. One certainly gets the feeling in this debate that we have been here before—that we have been all through this in many of its details already.
On the whole, I think that this Bill is an improvement on the previous one. If I may venture my own opinion, it is simpler and clearer. I do not think we should underrate the effect that it is likely to have. There is, for instance, the withdrawal of the phrase that we previously had in legislation about
"shops carried on principally for the sale of food."
We now have in Clause 2 the phrase:
"Shops in which is carried on the sale for human consumption of food".
—in other words under this Bill any shop that has any food can aspire to open on Sunday. In my own estimation we shall have the large stores and supermarkets opened before very long, and in course of time Schedule I is more likely to be extended than reduced. In spite of that, I think we must make our Sunday legislation more or less harmonious with the spirit of the times, and once the mobility of large sections of the population on Sunday is accepted, the necessity for a good deal of trading has to be admitted.
When I looked down paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 I had to ask myself, in honesty, whether there were not times
1112
when I had either purchased or wanted to purchase some of those objects on a Sunday, and I found myself guilty under most of the items. But, if anything, I would have avoided some of the restrictions that are here put in. There is a prohibition on the sale of artificial flowers. I have no desire to buy artificial flowers, either on a Sunday or on any other day of the week, but if people want to do so I really do not see why they should be prohibited from buying them as opposed to real flowers.
There are other items upon which one could comment if one wanted to, hut, for the most part, they are what one might call personal accessories—things you want either for yourself or for your car or your friends. One must face the fact that once people are moving about on Sunday it must be possible for them to meet their fundamental needs. I think the allowance of the so-called "holiday goods" under Schedule 2 is easily justifiable. We have now ceased to attempt to define "holiday areas" in this Bill, but we still have a kind of holiday atmosphere, particularly in Schedule 2, with articles for bathing, sunbathing or fishing, and souvenirs. Then there is something slightly more exalted: Works of art or reproductions of works of art." They are all the sort of things that people who go out to the seaside, or to London, or somewhere else, on a Sunday may want to buy, and I certainly should not wish to put many obstacles in their way.
Having said that, I want to follow, if I may, only too closely, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and say that I still hold, as I held during the last debate, that the failure to provide proper protection for shop assistants on Sundays is a backward step from the point of view of the social effects of our legislation. The particular provisions that I object to are Clause 4(1)(b) and Clause 4(2)(b). I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the Explanatory Memorandum might certainly have been more frank and open. It says on the front page:
"Clause 4 modifies the existing arrangements for compensatory time off for shop assistants and certain catering workers employed on Sunday …".
It certainly does; and in a very serious way. What it really does is to remove from shop assistants any right to compensatory time off on Sundays. I think

1113
that a little more frankness would have been desirable. But those of us who have done the necessary research on the Shops Act 1950 have no doubt as to what is intended, Clause 4(1)(b) of the new Bill modifies the Shops Act 1950, Section 21(3)(b)(ii), which, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, gives employees in refreshment shops 26 guaranteed Sundays, and a maximum of two consecutive Sundays at work, throughout the whole year. The whole of that is wiped away at a stroke in the new Bill by the insertion of the words "Sunday or a week day", instead of "Sunday".
In the new Bill, Clause 4(2)(b) modifies Section 22(1) of the Shops Act by omitting paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection. This gave all Sunday shop workers—it was no longer confined to refreshment workers—a guaranteed top limit of three Sunday's work in any one month. The actual section says that if the worker worked for one Sunday, he must not work for mole than two other Sundays in that month. That meant that even in the most busy period he could not be expected to work more than three Sundays in the month. He always had one off; and he might occasionally have two off when there were five Sundays in the month. It is almost like the Church arranging the services for the month. I think that the omission of that sub-paragraph is a very objectionable element in this Bill. Sunday has its special claims. We have already heard examples, and we can all imagine the sort of thing that arises. Families want to go out together, and some of these shop assistants will be young enough still to want to go out with their own families. If not, they will probably want to go out with their boy friends, who will want to go out on Sunday, and not on Thursday or some totally different day of the week which is probably quite inconvenient for courting purposes.
Then there is the claim of religious observance. I put this forward only with great trepidation, because one fully realises that the number of people involved in this kind of commitment is limited. However, I would remind the House that even these days 50 per cent. of the babies born in England are baptised. They are baptised on Sundays, and their sisters, aunts and uncles, and other people, will often be required to
1114
join in, and will wish to join in, those little domestic ceremonies. Are we not going to give any kind of guarantee that there is a single Sunday on which these people can actually rely, and claim as of right, for the exercise of any of these duties?
I put all these points, equally strongly, when I moved an Amendment to the last Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on this matter, and I was defeated by the joint efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, himself, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who at that time was speaking for the Government. Of course I was crushed beneath the upper and nether millstones, and one accepted that. I do not think I want to fight that particular battle all over again, probably for the same result. I have reflected upon the arguments that were adduced by the noble Lords against my Amendment, and they were two.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, took the point that we were not removing the total number of holidays, and that as the total number of holidays was bound to include a certain number of Sundays we were not really doing anything very serious. That argument did not stand up to a careful examination. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made the point that he has made to-day—and I see the force of it: that there are quite a number of people who positively want to work on Sundays. If they want to work on Sundays, of course it does seem rather stupid that Parliament should go to enormous lengths to prevent them from doing so. I tried hard to find a way round that difficulty.
If it were a perfect world, I think that what I should want to say is that all have the right to some freedom from work on Sunday and that any legislation should say that no person should be forced to work for more than three Sundays in any one month, or something of that kind. But if they were willing, so to speak, to sign a statutory declaration that, in spite of having that right, they still wanted to work, then I would let them sign and let them work. But this is not the situation. The kind of mature person who wants to work, who has thought it all out and is ready to work, is only one class. There are also all the young and the weak, the rather naïve and simple people who get caught up into this work of assisting

1115
in shops on Sundays; and one knows that many of them would be quite incapable of standing up to any strong pressure from the owner, or manager, if he had the full right to make them work as much as possible.
The Crathorne Committee said that the present sections were too restricting. Well, my Lords, if they are too restricting, let us make them less restrictive, but without necessarily going as far as the Crathorne Committee did—rather against their own evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has pointed out—by abolishing the rights altogether. My experience last time and the very great difficulty that a Bishop has in getting drawn fully into the legislative work of this House make me hesitate to propose another Amendment myself, but I will conclude by saying that if someone is cleverer or more energetic than I am, and is able to move an Amendment on this one point of giving some protection for Sunday working shop assistants, I shall be very pleased.
7.10 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, I wish to say something about the people on the service side of the counter, although I must admit that my personal experience of shop-keeping is limited and peculiar. I was conscripted into the grocery trade, and during my school holidays went into the Co-operative store which my father managed. There was a unanimous view in the family that my juvenile delinquencies could better be kept under restraint if I remained within sight of the stern paternal eye and, I may add, within range of the strong paternal hand.
At this time I gained a very good idea of the vicissitudes of retailing. The store had acquired a sack of black peas which proved to be totally unsaleable. Somebody had the bright idea of mixing them with a sack of green peas, and the black and green peas made a wonderful display—with a farthing off. But there was no sale for the black and green peas, so they set me to work to sort out the black from the green. At that point I struck, and there was a court of inquiry or an arbitration of some kind at home, when it was decided that I had been visited with a cruel and unusual punishment and that I need not go back to the grocery trade. So, like many people here and in the other
1116
place, my knowledge of harsh, social conditions is derived less from personal experience than from a strong family tradition. My father was one of the founders of the Shop Assistants' Union—which the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, graced for so many years—and served it for 50 years, while my people in two large families, on both paternal and maternal sides, were all engaged in retail trade in their own little businesses. The whole family lived and breathed the retail trade.
I think that to-day we are in danger of forgetting an important chapter in our social history. We are only a generation away from the time when shop assistants and the family shopkeeper worked under the most appalling conditions. It is true that they kept the Sabbath holy and that the shops closed promptly at midnight on Saturday. Not only were the hours long, but in their younger days a lot of people were victims of the living-in system. That time is not very far away to-day, but it seems so remote that a book like Kipps, which was a book of social protest, has now become a jolly musical.
What brought relief to the shop workers and shopkeepers was not trade union organisation so much as the legislation passed in World War I. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, has pointed out, in this largely unorganised trade it is on Government and Parliament that shop workers and shopkeepers must depend if the decencies of life are to be preserved. Left free, they become the victims of their own inescapable competition. I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his belief that there will be no increase in Sunday trading. I think there will be a vast increase if this Bill goes through.
We live in an age when the consumer is flexing his muscles. He asks, "Why should the hours when the customer wishes to do his buying or his drinking be limited by law?" He regards current restrictions as one more bureaucratic interference with his liberties. It would be nice for him and for us all if the shops were always open, day and night, weekdays and Sundays, so that we could all shop when the mood drove us; but that is a quite impossible proposition. As citizens, as distinct from consumers, we must accept that there must be a limitation and a balance of interest between

1117
shop workers or shopkeepers and the customers.
It is wrong to believe that the shopkeeper has a choice of when he should stay open. His hours are usually governed by those of his nearest competitor. The basic problem of the small shopkeeper is not whether he is going to make more or less profit, but whether he can stay in business. If there is one supermarket in a district open all day on Sunday, every small shopkeeper will be compelled to follow its example. If this Bill is passed it will create a revolution in shopping habits and make the small man's shop into a prison. I want the small shopkeeper to be able to continue to live.
It is very easy to argue, as many argue nowadays, that he is an uneconomic factor in our society, that the economy would be richer if he disappeared and we had nothing but very large units in which we all served ourselves. But I think it is a mark of a good civilisation if, in these days of giant organisations, we deliberately leave—and indeed create—outlets for people who want to earn their living in small enterprises. I am a lifelong organisation man and I should feel naked and bereft if I were to venture out on my own, but there are many people who find the embrace of the modern corporation, benevolent though it usually is to-day, stifling and confining. They feel that the best way of expressing their skill in organisation and their gift for personal relations is in a business which they themselves own, and shop-keeping, especially food shop-keeping, is one of the few outlets left for the energetic person who has managed to save a little money.
The small shopkeeper is one of the people who today wish to stand on their own feet—but not for seven days a week. Even now, life is pretty restrictive. It is not often that a husband and wife can go on holiday together. The Sunday outing is the only real holiday that they can enjoy together, and even then not every Sunday can be free: it is the one day when the husband can look over the stocks and do the books. The small man has been battered, and not only by the supermarkets. A Conservative Government clipped his margins by the abolition of resale price maintenance, and by S.E.T.
1118
the Labour Government made it less economic for him to employ help. I should like him to be left alone. I admit that the customer has his needs and that they are changing needs, but I see no reason why in every district one or two shops should not be licensed to open at irregular hours, including Sundays. To make Sunday trading general, however, is both unnecessary and socially retrograde, and I hope that we shall hear nothing more about this well-intentioned but unfortunate Bill after to-day.
7.18 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise briefly to give wholehearted support to this Bill. It is generally recognised that the patterns of leisure and internal tourism are rapidly changing. Unlike a hundred years ago, Sunday is now not only a day of leisure but also a day of travel, and a day out sometimes involves people in going a long way from where they normally live. Part of the day out is the joy of bringing something back in the form of a souvenir or gift, or buying necessities when people are a long way from home.
I want to refer very briefly to Schedule 1. I welcome the fact that sales at museums and art galleries of reproductions of works of art are going to be allowed. However, I suggest that a very important group has been left out of this Schedule; and here I should declare my interest. I refer to the 800 historic houses and castles which are open to the public in this country. They attract some 23 million visitors a year and have a tremendous effect in drawing overseas visitors. I hope that an Amendment will be accepted during the Committee stage to add to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, after the words, "museum or art gallery", something like,
"and also at historic houses or places normally open to the public."
We owners of stately homes do not like our residences to be called "museum pieces". In fact, one of the great attractions is the fact that they are lived in. Nor are we art galleries. When you think of other places, like Stonehenge or perhaps a beautiful garden, which would also require to sell postcards and other such objects, I feel that they ought perhaps to be covered in this clause.

1119
Finally, my Lords, I should like to say just one word to the right reverend Prelate. I employ a great many people on Sundays, and we always adopt the practice of giving them off other days in the week. I have not noticed that courting has decreased—in fact, it has, if anything, increased. I also find that many of my staff prefer to go off on days other than Sundays, because they find that the places they want to go to are less crowded. In fact, it is a very common practice, where Sunday is the big day in a resort, for people to close on either Saturday or Monday, which are less important days. Having made those very brief remarks, and having given warning that I should like to put this Amendment down on Committee stage, I should like to say once again how very much I support this Bill.
7.21 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, as one who has spent all his working life in the retail trade, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, even at this late hour, about the Bill which is before your Lordships' House. Before doing so, I should like to make it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity and that my views do not necessarily reflect those of any trade association or of the firm with which I am associated. Let me say at the outset that I am in full agreement with those who criticise our present regulations relating to Sunday trading. As the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Law of Sunday Observance has pointed out, they are antiquated, complicated and full of anomalies. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has listed, amusingly, some of those anomalies. May I add one that he did not mention? While it is perfectly legal to sell frozen vegetables on a Sunday, it is illegal to sell the same vegetables in a tin.
Not only do these requirements attempt to draw an illogical and arbitrary distinction between the foods that can and cannot be sold on a Sunday: they are extremely vague and subject to various interpretations. The result of this is that not infrequently the only way to discover what the law means is to go to court and obtain a ruling. Another serious drawback of the present regulations is that they are impossible to enforce. Anybody
1120
with even a superficial knowledge of the situation knows that shopkeepers frequently sell articles which are not covered by the current exemptions. Local authorities simply have not the staff or the enthusiasm to prosecute them. Set against these considerations, and ignoring all the others, the Bill before your Lordships' House could be regarded as a long-overdue, common-sense measure. However, it is also necessary to consider its likely effects on the volume of Sunday trading.
Opponents of the Bill seem to be firmly convinced that if the proposed measure is passed into law the result will be widespread Sunday opening by food shops and supermarkets. In my opinion, the situation is not quite as clear-cut. On the one hand, it can be argued that there is no real need for widespread Sunday opening and that many supermarkets will find that demand will be too small to make full or even partial Sunday opening economic. Secondly—and this is a very important point—I believe that they will find it extremely difficult to obtain staff except at very high rates. On the other hand, there is a real possibility that some food stores will take advantage of the proposed alterations in the regulations and open on Sunday with a view to increasing their business at the expense of their competitors.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: What is wrong with that?
LORD SAINSBURY: If that happens, it will not stop there. Other retailers, no matter how reluctant, will find it necessary to counter this by opening their stores; and we may in time arrive at a situation in which Sunday opening by food shops will be the rule rather than the exception. This I would regard as wholly and highly undesirable. It is undesirable, first, because no matter what arrangements are made with regard to shift working, it will have the effect of increasing the number of people in food retailing who will work on Sunday. A large number of shop workers are married women with children, and such a development would have a particularly adverse effect on their social and family life.
We must also think of the small, family-owned shops, to which my noble friend has already referred. Many of

1121
those would lose trade unless their owners sacrificed part of their Sunday. Quite frankly, my Lords, I do not believe that the community has the right to expect more shop workers and more shop owners to forgo their Sunday rest. Secondly, it is undesirable because it is bound to put up the cost of distribution. Experience has shown that widespread Sunday trading does not increase turnover; it merely spreads it over seven days instead of six. This has been shown in North America, where some shops are open seven days a week from early morning until late at night. As a result, the trade is spread so thinly that it is quite possible to go into a large supermarket early in the week and see no customers at all.
So, my Lords, although there are arguments for and against the Bill, since there is a fair chance that its acceptance would lead to a significant extension of Sunday trading I hope that it will be withdrawn; but if the House is divided I shall vote against the Second Reading. I believe that the present regulations provide adequate exemptions to ensure that most consumers do not suffer serious inconvenience. In view of this, widespread Sunday opening by food shops and supermarkets is too high a price to pay for doing away with the undoubted anomalies and confusions in the law relating to Sunday trading.
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I must start by apologising to my noble friend Lord Derwent, for I am afraid that I must disagree with him on this point. I hope he will not take it personally but I look forward to co-operating with him on other occasions. I should like to start by asking your Lordships to remember the sign that one used to see in the war-time railway carriages: "Is your journey really necessary?" I should like to ask the question: Is this Bill really necessary? I ask it seriously, because I have never found any evidence of any hardship resulting from the present Sunday trading laws. I should like to ask, "Who really wants this Bill? What organisations are supporting it?", so that we can weigh them in the balance with those organisations who are opposed to it.
I am sure we shall all agree that as few people as possible should be forced to work on Sundays. If supermarkets
1122
open on that day then, as other noble Lords have said, the small shopkeepers will be forced to do so in order that they do not lose their trade. This Bill is being strongly opposed by the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations and the Grocers' Federation. As has been said, many of the people who will have to work on Sunday will be women, many of them married women, so that there will be an interference with family life. Surely in this permissive age, this is not something that we want to encourage. Furthermore, people will be hindered from worshipping if they wish to do so.
Other noble Lords have said that under the present economic conditions it will not be easy to get people to work on Sundays if they do not wish to do so. But there is no guarantee that these conditions will continue, and I feel it wrong that people should have to choose between continuing in their job, and working on Sundays, or not. It is true that alternative time off will be given, but, as other speakers have pointed out, this is not entirely satisfactory because a shop assistant may not be off work at the same time as members of his or her family—his girl friend or her boy friend.
My Lords, I wonder whether there is a public demand for this opening. Even supposing that there is, is this something that ought to be satisfied? For example, if our debates in this House were televised, it might be said that Sunday would be much the best viewing day. But how would your Lordships feel at having to turn up here every Sunday? The noble Lord made much of the present anomalies; but it is a question of where the anomalies are. It may be said that when the Government are trying to discourage smoking, it is an anomaly that cigarettes should be able to be sold on Sundays. I feel that on this general question of anomalies we must be rather careful. There may be some who would suggest that this House, or some parts of it, is an anomaly. I hope that the noble Lord is not thinking of abolishing himself; for in that event we should then not have the pleasure of hearing him. My fear about this Bill is that if we abolish some anomalies we may find that others are created. For the reasons I have given, and particularly because of the Bill's

1123
effect on family life, I must oppose the Motion for Second Reading.
7.36 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Bill in its present form. May I first try to identify the principal areas of disagreement? When people are enjoying their leisure on Sundays they take meals and refreshments on premises and they buy chocolate, ice cream, petrol and other things. They can do that under the present law and will be able to do so under this Bill. There is no disagreement there. Similarly our chemists' shops are open, on a rota system, for two hours on a Sunday. The customers who are handed urgent prescriptions often want to buy toilet goods and it is right that they should be able to buy them. There is no disagreement there. But at the present time we have very severe restrictions on the range of food which may be sold on a Sunday. Those severe restrictions are effective in allowing the small, convenient shop to remain open but to discourage the supermarket. I strongly believe that either these limitations should remain or that other limitations should be put in their place; otherwise there will be a decisive change of policy.
I have read with interest the Crathorne Report, and I suggest that there is not popular consumer demand for this Bill; that the workers are opposed to it and that the vast majority of employers do not want it. In support of that I will indicate the paragraphs concerned. May I first refer your Lordships to page 37. Here, under the heading, "Evidence given on behalf of consumers" we read:
"We received little evidence from individual members of the public or from bodies representing consumers."
The Committee then goes on to deal with two minor surveys. One of these surveys was by the Federation of Consumer Groups. They issued, before giving their evidence, 3,000 questionnaires—not to the public in general or to consumers in general, but to members of consumer groups; that is to say, to people who were sufficiently aware in consumer affairs to take an interest in this kind of thing. Of the 3,000 questionnaires circulated, only 1,338 were returned—less than one-half of those interested consumers took the trouble to
1124
send back the questionnaires. That is the measure of the public demand. The other survey was made by the Institute of Shops Act Administration. They issued a questionnaire to 37 of their members in local authorities.
In the same paragraph the Crathorne Committee sum up these surveys very neatly. They say:
"Both surveys indicated that the chief demand was for the sale of groceries for the part of Sunday."
This Bill is not dealing with groceries only: it deals with the whole range of foodstuffs. It does not deal with part of Sunday: it authorises trading during the whole of Sunday. So it is not supported by the consumers' evidence given to the Crathorne Committee.
My Lords, may I turn to page 38, where is given the evidence of the trade unions? Here you have the interesting fact that the evidence given by the trade unions was supported by a number of employer federations. I think it would be worthwhile to read the whole paragraph. It says:
"… we found no general support among our witnesses for the abolition of all Sunday trading restrictions. The Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers and the Co-operative Union were strongly opposed to the suggestion and did not agree that Sunday rates of pay would, in themselves, prevent unnecessary Sunday employment. They said that the highly competitive conditions in the retail trade would force many shops to open and working proprietors of small businesses would be obliged to work seven days a week. Similar views were expressed in the evidence submitted by the National Federation of Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association, which represents many small businesses, and also by other organisations of traders. They emphasised that most shop workers worked on Saturday and that Sunday provided the only opportunity for a day of rest and recreation with their families and with friends in other occupations."
The workers in the service industries recognise that they cannot have hours which coincide with the workers in offices and factories and they are prepared, within reason, to be available to give their services on occasions when factories and offices are closed. Had this Bill been introduced when the staffs of factories and offices were working a six day week, or a five and a half day week, there would have been a much stronger case for it than there is to-day. Most people who work in offices and factories work a five day week and there is ample

1125
opportunity for management and workers to do their shopping on a Saturday, which is the sixth day. The shop worker accepts that he should go to work on a Saturday to meet that need, but he regards working on a Sunday as completely unnecessary.
This Bill, as has been said, considerably weakens the position of the workers. Those who do not like working on Sunday can at present be forced to work only two Sundays out of four. If this Bill becomes law, it could be insisted that they work every Sunday. It is suggested that they would get a day off. The implication is that time during the week is of equal value to time on Sunday, but everybody knows that it is the practice to pay double for Sunday work. One hour on a Sunday is equal to two hours worked during the week.
I turn now, my Lords, to the evidence of the employers, which may be referred to quite briefly. On page 44 of the Report, paragraph 158, it states that the grocers did not want the law extended as is proposed by this Bill; they merely wanted it clarified. It goes on:
"… the Federation of Grocers said that the exemptions for the sale of 'meals and refreshments' and 'newly cooked provisions' should be restated in clear terms to give effect to the original intention of the statute."
They wanted the law clarified; they did not want it extended. On the same page the meat traders said:
"… the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations did not consider that there was any demand for this or that it was desirable."
Let us see what the fishmongers had to say. On page 43, paragraph 155 it states:
"The National Federation of Fish Fryers Limited told us that 'they had no desire to see fish and chips carried through the streets on Sunday'."
That is just what this Bill would allow. The consumers have not made any demand for this; the workers are opposed to it, and the vast majority of employers are opposed to it. I came to the conclusion that the only body that wanted it was the Institute of Shops Act Administration, the local government officers. Indeed, they have left a strong fingerprint on Clause 2 of the Bill where you have an extraordinary position. Normally it is a local authority which takes to court any alleged offenders under the Shops Acts. Under Clause 2 of this Bill it is laid down that if a trader is tried by a
1126
magistrates' court and is convicted by that court, the court shall not proceed to decide the sentence; the trader shall be referred to the local authority who brought the prosecution and they shall decide the sentence. I hope that that kind of law will never reach our Statute Book.
This Bill makes a decisive change in policy. It is clear beyond all doubt that if we remove all limitations on the sale of food for the whole of Sunday we shall encourage supermarkets to open rather than discourage them; and once the supermarkets have opened there will be a clamour for the sale of other commodities than foods to be permitted. We shall end up with the High Street being exactly the same on a Sunday afternoon as it is on a Saturday afternoon. We live in a fast-moving society in which there are great frustrations. It is a society in which there are tensions and where there is a high degree of mental illness. There is more drug-taking now than we have ever known before in our history. This is not a time when we can afford to sacrifice our day of rest; we need to keep it. If we lose that day of rest we shall make these problems all the more difficult.
Up to the present, my Lords, we have steered a middle course on the question of shop closing. We have avoided the extremes; on the one hand, the extreme to be found in Australia where in the majority of towns shops in the High Street close at 11 o'clock on Saturday morning and the High Street is dead until the following Monday morning, and on the other hand in many States in America the Sunday afternoon trading in the shopping centres is equal to that on Saturday afternoon. I have seen this at first-hand. Earlier this year I spent four successive Sundays in American shopping centres. Some of them were busier on Sunday afternoon than on Saturday afternoon because the shopkeepers had put out special offers in order to attract the customers. We have avoided those two extremes up to now; let us continue to do so.
My Lords, this Bill is only part of the story. There is also before Parliament a companion Bill, the Shops (Weekday Trading) Bill which is being debated in the other place to-morrow. That Bill seeks to remove all restrictions on closing

1127
so that anybody and everybody can open 24 hours a day if they wish. Such extreme measures as that invite extreme reactions. I believe it would be possible to alter our Shops Acts by a large measure of agreement. I am not against change. I believe that two changes are needed. First, the majority of the food shops dealt with in this Bill cannot open for all the six working days. Does it make sense to allow them to open on Sunday when they cannot open for all the six working days? I believe that any trader who sends a written declaration to the local authority saying that his workers have a five-day week but that he wishes to open for six days should immediately receive back from the local authority a notice acknowledging receipt of his declaration and authorising him to open for six days a week, so long as that notice is kept hung in his staff room. That is one change we could make which I think would be a substantial improvement.
The other change which we could make is one relating to Sunday. It is true, as the noble Lord who introduced this Bill said, that the courts have thrown great doubt on the present limitations. There is a choice of the kind of limitations that can be made. One can try, as was tried in 1950, to have limitations on the commodities that can be sold. The alternative is to have a limitation on time. I suggest that a big improvement could be made so far as Sunday is concerned if the whole range of food for consumption off the premises—and we must remember that food that is bought for consumption off the premises is largely bought for consumption in the home and not by people out enjoying themselves—were allowed to be sold up to 12 noon. That would be fair to the consumer. People would be able to buy anything they had forgotten up to 12 noon. It would be fair to the small trader, who could open until 12 o'clock and could happily close then, knowing that everybody else was closed and he would not be forced to stay open. But I suggest that the worker should have the same protection as he has now and should not be forced to work more than two Sundays in a month. Those are two changes which would be a vast improvement on our Shops' Acts. But that is not, of course, the purpose of the present Bill.
1128
Only a week ago this House was considering the Courts Bill, in particular the responsibility of the City of London for some of our courts. Nobody denied that the law was outdated; nobody denied that it was illogical; but your Lordships decided to keep the law because it maintained tradition and did no harm. I am asking your Lordships to maintain the tradition of limited trading on a Sunday, not because it does no harm but because it does a great deal of good.
7.53 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, at this late hour I will be very brief. I am afraid that I feel isolated from my noble friends on my side of the House. I feel sympathy only with one noble Lord—she is a Lady—and I cannot join in the refrain from the male noble Lords on this side, "Never on Sunday!" I welcome this Bill. I welcome it because it introduces greater flexibility into shopping hours, which I think is the way the world is going to-day. I do not share all the gloomy predictions about having High Street department stores open every Sunday. I do not know where my noble friends have seen this. There are no High Streets in New York, where I was for four years, which had most department stores oven on Sundays.
I believe that this Bill helps the consumer, the housewife, and women who work. I do not think that it will necessarily open the floodgates to the exploitation of the workers in food shops; nor do I see why it should necessarily lead to high prices. After all, shops are not compelled to stay open on a Sunday. I notice that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury seems to be slightly abashed by a little competition from the big supermarkets. I do not think he need be. After all, his stores decide when they are going to close. They close fairly early on Saturday and do not open again until Tuesday. This happens to be a hardship for many poorer people. If stores like these have the freedom to close when they like, I do not see why other shops should not have this freedom to stay open on a Sunday.
I think that things have a way of levelling themselves out. If Sunday opening really becomes a problem for shopworkers—and here I may say that I learned a great deal from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—I do not see why they should not be organised.

1129
Surely it is not beyond the wit of trade union leaders to organise them. Already in Britain there are many large department stores which open all day on Saturday. No one would have believed a year or so ago that this was possible. I think that it would be a valuable piece of research by the Consumer Council to find out whether those department stores which remain closed do in fact lose custom. I am not sure that they do. The question of consumer choice is a very peculiar thing.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I do know something about retail trade. I think that we cannot convert the position in Oxford Street into the position in country towns. If you go to any country town big enough to have a department store, you will see that it opens all day on Saturday.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I was talking about department stores in London that are open on Saturdays. A year ago stores like Liberty's, Harrod's or Marshall and Snelgrove were not open on Saturday: to-day they are. I do not see why they should not open on a Saturday, if people want to shop on that day. In modern society more and more women work either whole-time or part-time. They amount to one-third of the working population in the country. My Lords, I have little more to say. I still think that Sunday opening of food shops is a boon to housewives and women who work. But I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said about conditions for the people who do work, and also what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who emphasised that workers have to be protected.
7.59 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I will not detain the House for very long. This is a complicated Bill and it would not be constructive at this stage to go in detail into the considerable changes which the Bill recommends. I thought that the debate we have listened to successfully disentangled the issues of principle which lie behind the proposal from the detailed changes which are contained in the Bill. I intervene at this stage simply to give some idea of the Government's attitude towards the Bill which my noble friend Lord Derwent has
1130
introduced. I am sure that we should all like to thank my noble friend for giving the House another opportunity to debate the subject. It has come before the House on a number of previous occasions, and most recently in 1968 when the noble Lord introduced a Bill fairly similar to the one which is before us this evening.
Sunday trading is a subject which naturally arouses some controversy, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has just said, not of a Party political kind. Opinions that are provoked run across the Parties, and a number of opposing views and interests are involved. So, in short, this is very much the sort of subject on which attitudes are likely to vary and change with the times. Therefore the noble Lord's Bill is welcome in that it represents a useful opportunity to gauge to what extent opinion may have changed on this matter.
My noble friend reminded us, in introducing the Bill, of the background to his proposals. He explained that the present law on Sunday trading is set out in Part IV of the Shops Act 1950. But it is the case, as he remarked, that the Shops Act 1950 reflects the wording of Statutes going back to 1936, and embodies a number of assumptions—social assumptions and religious assumptions—about the nature of Sunday which go back a great deal beyond that: indeed, I believe that the general law restricting trading on Sundays can be traced back as far as 1448. More recently, the noble Lord who was present in the chamber a little earlier, Lord Crathorne, presided over a Committee of Inquiry on the Law of Sunday Observance, which reported in 1964. The Committee examined the existing law on Sunday trading in great detail and endorsed many of the criticisms that have been made of it. These included the opinion that the law is out of date, unduly restrictive, confusing in its effect and impossible to enforce. The present law, as my noble friend Lord Derwent explained, has also been criticised in the courts.
I think it is right to say that the criticisms have been directed mainly at the provisions dealing with the sale of food and drink, and also medicines or medical or surgical appliances. Each of these has given rise to difficulties of definition

1131
and to resultant anomalies. There is no need for me at this stage to add anything to what my noble friend Lord Derwent said on this point. It is Schedule 5, paragraph 1(b) of the Shops Act 1950, dealing with the complicated question of what constitutes meals or refreshments which can be sold for consumption on or off the premises, which has given rise to most of the difficulties of interpretation.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, from his considerable experience, criticised the present position before going on to explain the reasons why he did not feel able to support the Bill. I hope I shall not be going too far from the subject of to-day's debate if I take this opportunity to say what an enormous debt thousands of shoppers up and down the country owe to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and to his family and his former associates. The retail food shops that carry his name have always set a standard of cleanliness, quality and courtesy that has been in advance of what public taste has demanded that the shopkeeper shall provide, and society has greatly benefited. I speak, I hasten to add, in an entirely personal capacity, but I did not think that a contribution to a debate of this sort by somebody who has a fair claim to be Britain's greatest grocer should go entirely unmarked.
What the Crathorne Committee recommended went rather beyond a relaxation and a clarification of the existing position set out in the Shops Act 1950. While proposing that shops generally should still be closed on Sundays, the Committee recommended also that the law should be clarified and that its exemptions should be extended. Thus, recommendations Nos. 10 to 30 of the Committee's Report represented an attempt not only to provide a clearer basis for the law on Sunday trading, but also to bring it into line with modern trading practice and to allow transactions on Sundays which are not permitted at the moment. But probably the most important of the Committee's recommendations was that the sale of all food and drink for consumption on the premises should be permitted on Sundays. The Committee also proposed that any shop dealing mainly with food and drink, if it was registered with a local authority, should be able to sell all the articles in its stock; and this recommendation was to take account of the
1132
increase in mixed businesses in different types of commodities and the emergence of food shops dealing with different types of food.
The Crathorne Committee's other recommendations would have removed a good number of other anomalies, including many of the difficulties referred to by my noble friend Lord Derwent. At the same time, the Committee recommended that the existing safeguards for shop workers should be retained. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with some support from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, spoke about the importance of maintaining safeguards for people who work in shops, and was arguing that the days off which the shop-worker took should include a large number of Sundays or be entirely Sundays.
I do not want at this stage to be drawn into a discussion on the Consumer Council's recommendations. If the Council wish to let the Government know what they have in mind, we shall of course welcome any information that they care to put to us, but I should point out that the context in which the Consumer Council made their proposals was a different one from that contained in the present Bill. It was in the context of proposals which would remove completely all controls on Sunday trading, whereas Lord Derwent's Bill maintains a number of controls on Sunday trading. The most important of these controls is that food and drink shops would not be permitted to sell other articles in their stock. The Bill also departs from Crathorne in the sense that it would retain some control over what can be sold in chemists' shops. Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not deal with all the items which, under the Bill, shopkeepers will be permitted to sell on Sundays. A lot can be said for and against the inclusion of any particular items, and the method that my noble friend has proposed of setting out in a Schedule the permitted transactions seems to us necessarily to be the best way of proceeding.
The opposition to the Bill has been mainly on the lines that an extension of the type envisaged by the Report would lead to a substantial increase in Sunday trading. This was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and by other speakers. Another line of criticism which developed in the debate was about

1133
the position of the people who work in the shops, both from the point of view of the hours worked and time off. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester referred to the fact that some rather young, impressionable people might drift along into something without particularly wanting to work on Sundays. They might find themselves in that situation without having the ability to resist it. We have heard those arguments developed very strongly this afternoon.
It will not surprise any noble Lord to learn that the Government are in principle in favour of a clearer and more rational system of law, or that they are in favour of wider consumer choice. We are not at present convinced in the particular case of Sundays that these considerations should outweigh all others. The Bill raises a number of conflicting issues, and the Government are not yet ready to take a view on their relative importance. Thus, while welcoming Lord Derwent's initiative in introducing this Bill, the position of the Government at this stage must be one of neutrality.
If the Bill obtains a Second Reading, we shall follow with considerable interest its progress, and pay close attention to the reactions to the Bill, both inside and outside Parliament. So it follows from what I have said that the Government certainly would not wish to obstruct this Bill in any way whatever, but nor can I offer anything in the way of drafting assistance, or Government Amendments, if the Bill receives a Second Reading. We are aware of the noble Lord's interest in this matter; we are grateful to him for bringing this Bill before Parliament again, and we believe this to be a most useful way of providing an opportunity to test opinion once more, both in this House and outside.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as this Bill is based on three years' study by a Departmental Committee set up by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and largely follows a Bill of 1968 which was passed by this House, are not Her Majesty's Government now urging this House at least to give this Bill a Second Reading?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be for me to do that.
1134
The other day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made some very interesting and profound remarks about the position that the Government should take on Private Members' Bills. He urged the Government not to leap in at the beginning of debates; not to say, "We must take this position" or, "We must take that position". He reminded us once again that the essence of a Private Member's Bill is that the Private Member should be able to deploy his argument; that other noble Lords should be enabled to say what they wished to say, and that it would probably be helpful for the Government to say how they saw things at some stage in the debate. That is exactly what we are doing to-day. I think it is the position adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in her remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. That seems to me an admirable position: the Government situation is one of neutrality, and I think that is the position of the official Opposition spokesman as well.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, speaking about Bills on which the Government had themselves called for advice from their own Departmental Committee?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that alters the situation. I have been thinking about this in the past few weeks and the important point is that it is a subject on which public opinion is extremely relevant. It is necessary to gauge public opinion, which shifts. There are various interests; the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to some, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who referred to trade union interests. At the same time, there is a consumer interest; there are various other bodies which are in favour of greater relaxation. These are all legitimate. It was 2½ years ago that the previous Bill was introduced, and it was a good long time before that that the Crathorne Committee reported. It was six years ago. Opinion changes and it is useful to gauge it from time to time.
8.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships more than a few minutes, but I must answer some questions. May I thank those who have, in principle, supported the Bill, particularly

1135
the noble Baronesses? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we might have had a little more help from the Government. I quite see why the Government are neutral. I agree that that should be so on a Private Member's Bill, but we might have had more help as regards their thinking. In 1968, when noble Lords now sitting opposite were over here, the then Government were also neutral, but they gave the House their views. That was of considerable help in the first stages of that Bill—and it was not such a good Bill as this one. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, and the right reverend Prelate, that I listened to what they said about Clause 4. I will have another look at it, if the Bill gets a Second Reading (as I hope it will), and perhaps they will have a shot at drafting some Amendments. I thought that the arguments they put forward were sound ones.
I cannot answer every question because the hour is getting late, but may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, I did not understand his argument at all about the increase of prices. He said that shops would be forced to be open on Sundays; that it would be very expensive and they would not make a profit unless they put up their prices. That may be true, but surely the contrary argument also applies. The shop that does not open on Sundays need not charge as much in the rest of the week, and in that way it will get more business. One would think one was forcing shops to be open when they were not going to make a profit. But of course no one is going to be forced to be open. So I do not think that is a valid argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and my noble friend Lord Ingleby asked, in different terms, why there was a demand for additional shopping. There was as far back as 1964 a demand, and the Committee definitely found that point. People move about more; they are apt to need food for moving about; or they diet. More women work full-time, and therefore they like to do some of their shopping on a Sunday. There is a public demand, and although we have heard a great deal about the shop-worker I agree with what has been said about the public demand. So far as I know, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, was the only person who mentioned the consumer. And the public are to be considered in
1136
this matter: there is a demand. Where there is not a demand, these shops will not open. In those circumstances, a shopkeeper would be mad to open.
Various noble Lords who were opposed to the Bill, including the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, stated categorically, and in strong terms, that this would cause all the supermarkets to open all over the place and thereby force the other smaller shops to open. My Lords, it is the smaller shops that open now, and not the bigger ones. What happens in France and on the Continent of Europe? The small shops open when they want to, and when there is enough business, but the big shops do not. Why should it be different here? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, more or less killed his own argument because he said that it was very expensive to open on a Sunday. In that case, he would not open, so do not let us pretend that he would. These arguments do not seem to me to be very satisfactory.
If my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu puts down an Amendment, I shall be most interested to look at it. It seems to me that it might well be sensible. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made a great many points, but I do not think I can answer them all now. He kept on quoting the Grocers' Federation, the Butchers' Federation, and so on. I quite understand that. But, of course, they do not represent the whole of the trade that sells their products. Before the Second World War a grocer was a grocer, a butcher was a butcher and a fishmonger was a fishmonger. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that nowadays a fishmonger often sells vegetables; a butcher very often sells groceries of various kinds; grocers sell tinned meat and frozen meat. Except as regards membership of a federation, the actual separation as between different kinds of shops is not clear nowadays.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the butcher who sells vegetables and other goods is still a member of the Meat Traders' Association.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, some butchers are; some are not. But a grocer who sells meat is not a member of that Association.
There is one point that I would bring to the notice of your Lordships. Many

1137
Sunday shopworkers work at other jobs during the week, and they work on Sunday in a shop because the pay is good, they like the company concerned, and for a variety of reasons. Some Sunday workers work only on Sundays. But I really do not believe that, with things as they are, it will be possible, now or in the future, to coerce people to work on Sundays if they do not want to do so, or that they will be sent away from their weekday job because they will not work on Sunday. I just do not believe a word of it.
I quite appreciate that if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, as I hope you will, there may be a good many points that you will wish to alter on Committee. I think that the clause which probably needs altering is Clause 4. But, having said that, I close by expressing the hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD JESSEL): My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RURAL COMMUNICATIONS
8.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the growing concern in the decline of services in rural communications. The noble Earl said: My Lords, following that exciting result on the Second Reading of my noble friend's Bill on Sunday trading, I should like now to raise a different issue which has in fact been on the Order Paper no fewer than five times. The issue I should like to raise is the serious subject of the decline over the last ten years of the country's rural public transport services and communications. I mention that this Question has been on and off the Order Paper since before the last Election only to explain my determination to persevere to-night. It is, as I have already said,
1138
an important issue, and I have every confidence in my noble friend Lord Sandford to deal with it, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, with encouragement and with a clear guidance as to the plans the Government have to ensure that those who live in rural areas, those who work in rural areas and those who rely on rural communications can look forward to a better to-morrow. Perhaps I could add at this stage that, despite the lateness of the hour, I personally very much regret that the Opposition Front Bench appear to regard rural communication with such a singular lack of interest that they are unable to field even a twelfth man to give their views on this subject.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will realise that there is at least a thirteenth mart.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, perhaps I was being unkind; maybe they have not quite the stamina of those on this side of the House. May I say immediately how glad I am for the support of other speakers, and I am sure everyone looks forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, on this subject. My purpose is to demonstrate what I believe to be now an unacceptable decline in the standard of rural communications. I hope by the end of the debate my noble friend will be convinced, as I am and I think many others are, that there is now an urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to review this whole subject.
When we take the past ten years and examine what has happened in general terms of rural communication—and here I include both public transport and the Post Office services—we find, I suggest, that there are five major points to consider. The first is that all Governments over the past ten years have agreed that rural communication should be protected by an adequate standard of services and that a policy against depopulation of the rural areas should be actively pursued for the good of the country. My second point is that public transport in rural areas is in a state of transition, where more and more people have their own cars, which makes the rural transport services perhaps that much more uneconomic. My third point is that British Rail have reduced their services in rural

1139
areas by the closure of branch lines by some 85 per cent. of their services, closing over 2,200 passenger stations and leaving some 15 million people living in rural areas without accessible rail services. I should like the information that I have gathered to be confirmed, if possible, by my noble friend, and if he could give us the trend—and the future trend—of the rail closures I should be much obliged.
My fourth point is that the rural bus services, including those which were introduced as an alternative service following the rail closures, are being withdrawn or their frequency of service drastically cut, to the great concern of users and such responsible bodies as the Rural District Councils Association and the Parish Councils Association. I have no specific figures on these withdrawals but perhaps again my noble friend could give us some information on this subject. My final point is that the sub-post offices or the village post offices are gradually being withdrawn. My figures here—and I draw them from the Post Office Half-Year Report, the first half-year of their operations—shows that some 150 sub-post offices have been closed in the last six months.
All in all, I believe that the rural dweller to-day faces a gloomy future if the present trend of decline is allowed to continue. No rail services, decreasing bus services and fewer and fewer post offices in villages, all, I suggest, amount to a decline in the standards of rural communications. It is, I know, all too easy to criticise from the Back-Benches the standard of rural services when for the Front Bench the issue is largely one of finance. One appreciates that it is the duty of any Government to weigh up both the standards of service that are necessary, against, to some extent, the cost of central grant for running those services. Most of us know that at the present time the Government are actively concerned with grants under Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968. Those grants enable the cost of rural services to be shared by both central and local government. The purpose of my drawing attention to the rural services does not involve the grant system as to whether or not it is working satisfactorily—although I hope that when my noble friend replies he
1140
will be able to give us some information as to the co-operation between central and local government in regard to the grants.
My Lords, the purpose of my question is really to draw attention to the many areas which are now suffering, and also to the fact that no adequate machinery appears to be available, either to protect the users' interests or to advise the Government of the current standard of service. It is not difficult to discover numerous examples of rural areas where public transport services are grossly inadequate, particularly, of course, the more thinly populated areas, such as Scotland, Wales, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, to name but a few, and I am sure my noble friends who are to take part in this short debate will produce a number of other examples.
Perhaps I may be permitted to quote two short examples that have come to me. The first came from a clerk of a council in Pembrokeshire and it emphasises the effect that a rail closure has had on passenger and freight services. He says:
"For a considerable period of time my Council and other Councils in the Pembroke County have made numerous representations to the Ministry of Transport, British Railways, the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of the retention and improvement of railway services in the area. The policies of British Rail have resulted in the fact that inadequate facilities exist at various railway stations throughout the area and because of reductions in services the community have become dependent upon other forms of public transport.
In the Narberth area two Bus Companies operate … It is considered by my Council that services operating in the south of the district area and coming into the town of Narberth are inadequate to meet the requirements of the public, whilst in the north of the area, no such public transport facilities exist and people are solely dependent upon the use of private motor cars."
The second example I should like to quote is a case from Honiton in Devon, and again from a member of a local council. He says that in the last few years there are a number of villages in that area which have lost their school, their policeman, their pub, their post office, their local railway service, and now have only a very indifferent bus service as communication. I think this example clearly emphasises the consequences of the decline of rural communications and the damaging effect it has on the community.

1141
May I now turn to the present machinery of consultation between the user, the operator and the Government when bus services or rail services are being either withdrawn or reduced? I believe it is this that the Government should reconsider and indeed strengthen. These closures, one may add, are continuing still at a great pace, and the situation is not helped by the very temporary grants, often for only two or three years, that are given for the so-called unremunerative service. There is a system by which the T.U.C.C. call a public inquiry and report to the Minister, and they report on the fairly narrow issue of the local hardship that will be caused to the users. For a number of years this body in their annual report have stated that they feel that their existing powers are so narrowly drawn that their value as an effective body is very limited. Nevertheless, the procedure for a closure allows users to voice their opinion. This privilege is not extended to bus services, nor for that matter to air services. Both of these services can be withdrawn at fairly short notice should the operator wish, with no public inquiry and with no reference to the Minister.
The system of withdrawal of bus services was, I believe, particularly aggravated by a total change of policy by the last Administration to those services which were operated and treated as an alternative service following the rail closure. In 1965 the previous Government's policy for alternative bus services following a rail closure was summarised by a Statement on May 13, 1965 which said:
"The additional and revised bus services are a condition of the closure being effected. If, for any reason—for example, operators being unable or unwilling to provide them, or the traffic commissioners not licensing them—they are not provided, the closure cannot take place, unless or until my right hon. Friend varies the conditions. Let that be perfectly plain. The conditions are laid down and they must be satisfied according to these terms."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 13/5/65, col. 871.]
In 1969 this clear undertaking and policy was reversed, when it was announced that the bus operators could withdraw their alternative services without reference to the Minister so long as that service had operated for at least two years. Why the magic period of two years was put in has never been properly explained.
1142
If my noble friend accepts that the Government have a responsibility to see that the rural areas have adequate services and communications, I would suggest to him that one of the ways to secure this would be to amalgamate the present T.U.C.C.—the Transport Users' Consultative Committee—and the Traffic Commissioners into one body, as is being done in the civil air transport field, and to give this body adequate powers to act as a protector for the retention of adequate standards of service for rural communities.
May I now turn briefly to the withdrawal of post offices in rural areas? I should be grateful if my noble friend could advise us as to the intentions and policy of the Post Office towards the future of the rural post offices. And would he also inform us how the Government themselves view the need for the continuation of village post offices in the interests of village life? I was particularly disturbed in one case of a recent closure of a country post office in Aberdeenshire: this was in the small village of Auchmacoy. Before it closed earlier this year, this post office had a gross turnover of over £10,000, and when it was announced that the Post Office were to withdraw the service and close the post office there was a united objection from practically all the residents. Yet the Post Office shut down this post office on the ground that there was not sufficient business turnover, and not, as I should have expected, on the ground of social interest; nor, surprisingly, on the ground that they were not able to find a new postmaster. I should like my noble friend who is to reply to comment particularly on the criteria that the Post Office will use when closing down country post offices.
As my noble friend will be aware, the Jack Committee examined rural bus services, and reviewed the standard of services in 1959. In their Report the Committee made a number of conclusions and recommendations. Perhaps I may quote four of them—they are all fairly short. The first was that:
"The rural bus problem is the product of a number of factors, the chief of which is the increase in private transport."
The second was:
"Some rural bus services must therefore be regarded as inadequate "—

1143
this followed on from the information they had disclosed. The third point was that:
"Steps should be taken forthwith to improve these services and to ensure the continuity of other services so long as these may be required."
Then the fourth point was:
"The cost of financial assistance should fall partly on the Exchequer and partly on the County Councils."
My Lords, I feel that all these points are very relevant to-day, and if the Jack Committee were sitting at the moment I believe they would find a considerable further decline in the standards of services since ten years ago. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be able to say what steps the Government intend to take to review the situation of the decline of rural communications.
Finally, may I say, as I shall not have a chance later, how much I look forward to listening to my noble friend Lady Berkeley, and how pleased I am that she should have chosen the subject of this short debate to break the veils of silence to make her maiden speech.
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for initiating the debate on this Unstarred Question because, as he well knows, I live in a part of the world, in the Highlands of Scotland, where the deterioration in public transport is painfully obvious and is getting steadily worse. There are a good many reasons for this, but I will not go into them at any length because I have said all this before in numerous other debates that we have had dealing with the Highlands, and particularly with roads, transport and railways.
When the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, started what I considered to be this wholesale destruction of the railways we were at least promised an efficient alternative form of transport. I know of no case where the transport provided has been anything like efficient, and in many cases in my own part of the world the local transport has ceased to exist altogether. Again there are many reasons for this. Local contractors cannot afford it, as my noble friend said, because of the widespread use of the motor car. But a number of people who live in far-flung
1144
places have no car. There are also old people who travel. There are people with children, and with luggage, who find it difficult when they come off a train, if they are coming from the South with luggage, even to find where the bus starts from. It is supposed to connect with the train, but it does not. I could go on at some length about this matter, but time is short.
However, I should like my noble friend the Minister to ask his right honourable friend to think most carefully before we lose another railway—I refer of course to the West Coast line, from Inverness to Kyle, the only railway we have in the North, which connects the East Coast with Kyle and Skye. The reason for this suggested loss sounds wonderful. It is that we now have a bypass—an unheard of thing in my part of the world. The new bypass, by the side of Loch Carron, avoids using the old ferry. But I hasten to add that this bypass is only 11 ft. in width and has a single track with passing places. And not only that: it has steep gradients. The bypass was opened only a few months ago, and already it has been closed for a considerable time by land falls. These, I may say, will continue: I know that part of the world. There you get frost and heavy rains, and land falls will be a typical hazard in bad weather periods. There is another hazard. Every year we get an increasing number of caravans going over these roads. Can your Lordships imagine a caravan, probably heavy, hauled by a car without sufficient horsepower, and getting stuck? Can your Lordships imagine half a dozen of them together? There is another reason for opposing the closure of the Inverness-Kyle line. It would mean that we should have no route whatever in the whole of the North of Scotland down the South-West of Ross and Skye.
One may use the argument that the line does not pay. I have always been most suspicious of any accounts produced by British Railways. I admit that I do not understand accounts—I am not very good at them. But such extraordinary figures have been produced by British Railways on occasion, and then, for some other reason, they will produce other figures that contradict the first lot. I am perfectly certain that this railway, if properly run, could be a wonderful tourist attraction.

1145
The line to which I refer is probably one of the most beautiful scenic railways in Scotland. Up to a few years ago we had an observation car on the train, which started from Inverness, came round to Dingwall and right through to Kyle. It was absolutely packed with people. People waited for it but could not get on it. This happened right through she summer months. The observation car was an old car, dating back, I suppose, to somewhere about the end of Queen Victoria's reign. The railway authorities thought it was getting a bit dangerous, so they took it off; whereupon they lost considerable income. Yet they have never thought of replacing it. Surely, at least in the summer months, three or four such coaches would Pack that train with passengers; and the rest of the train could be used for freight.
British Railways are adopting a shortsighted policy. I have a great suspicion that this line is desperately neglected. There are various ways in which we could make this railway pay. One reason for the neglect is that it is run from London. I know that there is what is called a Scottish Region, which has its headquarters in Glasgow; but I also happen to know that its orders come from Euston Station. That is quite wrong. This is most important, and I hope that the Minister will consider suggesting to British Rail (I know that they are a national Corporation) that if they cannot run this line they should give it to somebody who can. The people who know this railway best are those who work on it; and I know most of them. I will not say more on this most important matter, except that I think it would be a terrible mistake, from the point of view of those who live there, to close this line; and also a very great mistake from the point of view of the tourist industry.
My Lords, the only other suggestion I have concerns places where there are no railways—and that means the majority of places. I suggest that we go back to the old system whereby the Post Office ran a vehicle which carried goods and passengers, as well as mail. They were serving a useful purpose, but they seem to have given up that sort of thing. It was always done 30 or 40 years ago all over the West Coast, and I cannot see why it should not be done again. I will not say any more, because the hour is
1146
late. But I would ask the Minister to have a jolly good look at the preservation of our last line to the West Highlands.
8.56 p.m.
BARONESS BERKELEY: My Lords, it is with very great diffidence that I rise to address your Lordships this evening, as I am not accustomed to making speeches at all. Therefore I would crave your indulgence for my shortcomings, but I will not detain you for long. First, may I say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for initiating this debate. I wish to speak on rural bus services, as the unsatisfactory nature of these is causing grave concern to country dwellers. This form of transport is more necessary than ever, now that so many local cross-country rail services have ceased and stations are closed in many parts of the country. I know that there are other aspects, such as that of workers travelling to work by bus; but in many cases they have their own cars, and some factories run private coaches to collect their employees. Some even bicycle to work. So many are not dependent on a bus service.
But I wish to put the point of view of two types of the community who depend on buses; namely, the village housewife and the elderly—not so much the very old and frail, who are well looked after by relatives or by kindly neighbours who have cars. These, too, if in need, can call on the Social Services for home helps or meals-on-wheels—that splendid service which solves many problems for the aged. But I have in mind the elderly who are able to get about and who wish to be independent, and quite rightly so, but who are not able to walk long distances. If they live in the country they must be able to get to the nearest post office to collect their pensions, and to the shops, and to visit friends and relations and possibly those in hospital. Some companies run extra buses on hospital visiting afternoons. In many towns, too, there are clubs for the elderly, for recreation and companionship, run by voluntary organisations. All these would be impossible for the elderly to attend without public transport.
Then there is the village housewife. Her husband may own a car but will probably have gone to work in it. She will be stranded without a bus service.

1147
If she has small children she may have to take them to the doctor or to the welfare clinic at the nearest centre, unless there happens to be a mobile clinic which visits her village. She may have old parents at a distance, to visit and to look after. Above all, the housewife must be able to reach the nearest town or city to shop in order to feed and clothe her family. My Lords, delivery of goods by shops, with a few exceptions such as of dairy produce, is a service which, alas! has almost vanished during these last few years. So the housewife has to carry all her purchases, which places a very heavy burden on her, and transport becomes more necessary than ever.
I have no car, and have used the local bus service for about twenty years, so I understand and share the feelings of dismay of other travellers when there is talk of the number of buses being cut on a certain route. Or, worse still, the removal of an entire service, as this would cause real hardship and distress to those who use it. In the area where I live there used to be quite a good and fairly reliable bus service. Since last spring conditions have greatly deteriorated—the buses run at longer intervals and are far less reliable. At times a bus may not run at all, and without any notice. Passengers are stranded by the roadside, sometimes in pouring rain without any shelter, waiting in the hope that the next bus due will not fail to run. I am told that this occurs also in many other parts of the country.
Despite increases in fares—and these have risen considerably lately—the companies appear to have difficulty in maintaining enough staff to run the buses efficiently, partly due, I believe, to provisions in the recent Transport Act 1968. In order to keep down costs, would the answer be much smaller buses for rural areas staffed by only one person? Or could we follow the example of the Swiss, with their excellent post-bus service. I was unaware that this had ever run on the West Coast of Scotland. I know that it runs in various parts of the Continent. This combines delivery of mails with passenger service. Has this been considered? It might prove more economical and suitable for sparsely populated areas, where passengers are few.
My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government realise how essential good
1148
and dependable transport services are to the rural community, and that they will treat this as a matter of great urgency. If nothing is done soon, the situation will worsen and break down altogether. So may I beg Her Majesty's Minister to do his utmost to see what remedy can be found to put rural transport on a sound and firm basis, and so keep the buses moving; moving down the winding roads and up the broad highways.
9.3 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have a very pleasant duty to perform in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, on a very warm and sensible maiden speech. My noble friend Lord Grenfell had to wait for thirty years to perform a similar honour, but I have had to wait barely three. I congratulate the noble Baroness, who, as I say, has made a very warm and sincere speech on rural transport. The next person I must congratulate is my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has brought forward this subject. I consider this to be equally as important a subject as, if not more important than, pollution, as it affects the dereliction of the rural areas and their ways of communication. I am pleased to see that although at the beginning of the discussion on this short Unstarred Question there was only the one noble Baroness, there are now five members of the Opposition, which is a welcome improvement.
I will now come quickly to the present situation, in order not to keep your Lordships waiting. Many villages are now being cut off and licences are being surrendered. Furthermore, through staff shortages, buses simply are not turning up, which means that many people in the country going to work or shopping, and especially going to work, have to wait and look along the road for the bus to arrive, and no bus arrives. I put that forward merely as an introduction. That is what has happened, and it has produced general frustration for people living in country areas.
My noble friend has extended this debate from rural transport to post offices, and I want to make a short comment on that subject which has not been made yet. It is a subject I know little about, but I am sure a very important one. If country post offices are closed, I the shops will go too, because it is only

1149
the salaries which the Post Office provides for the small post offices in the country which have enabled those places to carry on. I know that there are general buying groups, and grocery groups, which help to alleviate the position in remote rural areas, but eventually there will be nobody to buy anything at all. I am glad the noble Lord opposite is agreeing with me.
Now I go to another question, and that is, what should we do? I am going to ask my noble friend Lord Sandford what the situation is regarding fuel tax, but I gather the tax on stage services is now 2s. 6d. If it were taken away altogether, it would mean a relief of 2½d. per passenger mile, and that would mean a very great deal to the rural transport industry. The National Bus Company, which has grown up in the last thirty years, has done an excellent job, which one would not like to see taken away from the rural areas, but I am afraid the time has now come when perhaps it would be opportune for the services to go back to independents. I do not say that because I am speaking from this side of the House, but because small, independent corn-panics can run more cheaply; therefore it would be much better.
That brings me to the subject of rural bus grants. I must congratulate the Labour Government for the part the Transport Act 1968 has played. I was in hot disagreement about drivers' hours, a matter about which I shall say a little later, but the Transport Act gave grants for rural bus services. Unfortunately we had to wait a very long time for an explanatory memorandum from the honourable member the Minister of Transport, Mr. Fred Mulley, but it finally came. Here I must congratulate the County of Devonshire, who appointed an information officer, or the equivalent, to deal with the problem. They were far ahead of anyone else in the country in trying to reach a solution in this field. Rural bus grants are a necessary evil. We do not like to have grants, but even if the National Bus Company were relieved by independents of some of its services, which I believe it wants to be, grants would still be necessary.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister about season tickets, because they might afford a solution. I have talked oil this matter to one or two people
1150
in authority and they feel that it is a road which they might follow. If a village could produce a sufficient number of people and a certain amount of money to supply a viable, service, people could buy monthly, quarterly or, preferably, yearly season tickets. Probably most people could afford only monthly or quarterly tickets. But a bus service would then be able to run and could make a profit on any chance trade which came along, and that money could help keep down the cost of the season tickets in the following year—always provided that we did not get too much inflation, which I very much doubt.
My noble friend Lady Berkeley, in her excellent maiden speech, mentioned minibuses. I agree with her only partly here, because independent operators generally like a vehicle in which to take out parties in the evening. However, there are one or two companies in various parts of the country which run mini-buses, especially in the thinly-populated areas of Scotland and Wales. In practically every county in England there are thinly-populated areas. In Surrey, Suffolk and Essex there are thinly-populated areas which have to be served, just as much as the desert areas of mid-Wales and parts of Scotland.
I am going to wind up this rather incoherent speech by saying that I hope that this Government in the next five years will solve the problem of drivers' hours. I was hotly against the Transport Act 1968, which cut drivers' hours. It was done in the best interests of the Party opposite, who thought it was the best way of keeping down accidents, but there is no evidence whatsoever that driving for long hours causes accidents. Indeed, it has been proved that one becomes safer after the first four hours' driving. I did an experiment in the Summer Recess of 1968 which I have mentioned previously. I should like the Government to look at this problem.
During the Second Reading of the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill, we heard a good deal about people working weekends. Weekend work is very unpleasant, but one sometimes has to do it for the good of the community. Sunday early turn on the buses was not too bad, because there were the Sunday papers and the crosswords and one was going to be off by lunch time; but the late turn was perfectly hideous, because the whole day

1151
was absolutely ruined. One realised that instead of going for a walk or seeing a friend one had to have a sandwich, walk down to the end of the road, get into the bus and chug it away, perhaps for only a few sweet old ladies. There were very few people about and it was a perfectly miserable day. One does not wish that on anybody. But I hope that in the next five years, by some means or other, perhaps by some method of payment, the Government will solve the problem of shift work, which disrupts family life. If shift work did not do that, I might still be driving a bus now. Once again, I thank the noble Earl for raising this most important Question.
9.12 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intervening. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this issue, but I make profound apologies for not being here at the beginning. As a countryman who for many years lived in the wilds of Wales, and for thirty or more years has lived in the most rural parts of Staffordshire, I am grateful for this opportunity to trespass on your Lordships' hospitality and kindness for two minutes in order to say something about this subject.
I had the privilege of knowing my late right honourable friend Stephen Swingler, who was Minister of State for Transport and did a magnificent job of work on this issue. I nodded my head in agreement with practically everything which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said about transport in rural areas. It was Kipling who uttered the axiom that transport is civilisation. One of the most steadying influences on this country's phrenetic life to-day, the steadiness which is necessary for a balanced view of life, comes very often from the countryman in the remotest parts of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
I wish people would realise that in the rural areas to-day probably nine people out of every ten still cannot afford, and in some cases would not want to afford, the luxury of a motor car. When you have a county hospital some 30-odd miles away and the old gentleman or the old lady cannot visit their life partner after years of helping to build the countryside because there is no country bus, but must depend on the local vicar or somebody
1152
who has a car for their kindness in transport, you realise that the time has come to look at rural transport. I shall not trespass on your Lordships' time to make a lengthy and deep argument, but I sincerely hope that, wherever the authority may be, and whatever Government are in power, this little debate to-night is given the attention of which it is really worthy, inasmuch as there is still a fundamental necessity to get cheap and good transport between rural areas and the focal points of our cities.
I do not want to go into the economics of this question. The aridity of the economists sometimes breaks my heart, but there are more things in life than economics. It is the joy of living and the radiance of the human being which matters. This our country folks are sometimes missing in the very simple way that even to get to market once a week is often more difficult than the city dweller believes. Therefore, though I may not have listened to what must have been constructive, cogent and pungent arguments about this, may I add my voice in support of this little debate that has taken place to-night?
9.16 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. The noble Lord who has just sat down has really said, basically, what I wanted to say. Sitting here in your Lordships' House it is very difficult to realise that, stuck out in the middle of nowhere on a dark night, there are people who have literally no means of transport other than their legs or the kindness and goodness of heart of their neighbours. They are dependent on one bus a week to be able to do their shopping. If they want to go to visit anybody in hospital, they may have to walk anything from three to five miles to get a bus to take them to a hospital 17 miles away, and then walk the same distance back to their homes. The only alternative is to get a kindly neighbour to take them to the bus and fetch them back, or to get a taxi—and the expense of that is quite beyond some elderly people living in these country districts at the moment.
Due to economies which have been going on, the state of the rural roads is now getting appalling. In areas where I live grass is growing up in the middle of the roads; ditches are cleaned out only

1153
once a year; and verges encroach on the roads. These verges are not cut back, and this makes it practically impossible for any bus of a normal size to get down the road. In any event, I am not of the opinion that in these country districts what is required is a 35-seater bus. I am very much with the noble Baroness when she says that what is required is a minibus. I am also of the opinion—and I trust that this point will be considered—that the people who run these minibuses should not be the bus companies situated in Birmingham, Nottingham and similar places. I believe that power should be given to some local person in the centre of the rural district to organise these minibuses to connect with the main bus services.
We need to work from within the rural districts to the outside, and not have the outside coming in; because if you do that the chap who is coming in on a snowy day says, "To hell with this! I am not going down that hill to collect the poor vicar who is waiting to go to see his wife in Kidderminster: I am off home. The road is dangerous". Who is to say that it is not, except the poor vicar who is standing at the bottom and can see cars going up and down? It is entirely a matter for the rural life of the country to be allowed to organise itself. The present Government are all for making people organise themselves. There are people within country districts who, I am convinced, given the opportunity, would run a very reasonable bus service to connect up with the main bus services. All I can hope is that this question of mini-buses will be given very serious consideration.
The Question deals with rural communications, but as the hour is late I will not go on to the second point which I think comes under communications, the subject of telephones. But certainly it is my view that the telephones in rural districts of this country are an appalling disgrace. There is barely a house in the area in which I live where the nearest public telephone is not at least a mile and a half away. On rainy, dark, snowy nights how can one expect some poor, unhappy, elderly pensioner to leave her home and walk a mile and a half to telephone? Or she may have to go half a mile over dirty fields to a farmer's
1154
house to do so. I feel very strongly for these elderly pensioners, and people in the country generally, on the subject of telephones. They should be enabled to have telephones to call for help if necessary. They are people; they need help. If you drive down a motorway you may see every few yards a sign "S.O.S. Telephone". We put out hundreds of telephones to save the motor car; but not for people, not for the elderly person who needs an S.O.S. telephone—a telephone which could be treated solely as an S.O.S. telephone. I think that the telephone is a vital part of the communication. Communications are between people; so that people in trouble can call for help to other people. I think it needs a great deal of consideration. My Lords, I apologise for going on for so long at this hour; but I feel that this is a matter which needs far more consideration and far more debate than we are able to give it at this hour and at short notice.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE; My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I should not like this debate to pass without a word of very warm congratulation from this Bench to the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, on her maiden speech. She spoke with such deep, personal knowledge of local problems, and with such tremendous clarity; and above all—and this is what pleased the House—she spoke with such deep sincerity that I hope she will not keep us waiting for quite so long before she speaks again. We shall all look forward to hearing her more often.
9.23 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, from this position on her maiden speech. She said that she was not in the habit of making speeches; one would not have guessed that. I hope that she will now get into the habit of making speeches and that we shall hear her many times again from to-day onwards. May I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on his stamina and persistence. If there were a tendency to allow this subject to become a Cinderella—which there is not—his persistence and advocacy on rural communications would ensure that this did not happen. We have not spent a lot of time—at least, with the exception of

1155
my noble friend Lord Cromartie, to whose points I will come later—talking about railway closures; but Lord Kinnoull asked me some specific questions.
In answer to those, I can say that since the effect of Lord Beeching's plan came into operation in 1964 there have been 85 railway closures in rural areas out of a total of 315 over the country at large. Set against that, in 1970 there were 235 rural services being grant-aided, of which 150 were serving rural areas, at a cost to the Exchequer of £30 million. On the particular case of the Kyle line raised by my noble friend Lord Cromartie, all I can say is that I hope that his eloquence will be deployed at the inquiry which, I believe, is yet to be held into the closure itself. As the subject is a matter of inquiry, he will understand if I do not comment on it further now.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked a question about the possibilities of extending the role of the transport users' consultative committees. Their statutory role is a fairly narrow one, and legislation would be needed to extend it. But that is not to say that it might not sometimes be a considerable help in particular areas if those people who serve on transport users consultative committees were to bring their special knowledge and experience to bear in a private capacity, or in a collective private capacity, in making representations about local road transport needs to the Traffic Commissioners. I hope that the suggestion my noble friend has made will commend itself in appropriate places, but I cannot give any promises to him about legislative action to give statutory power to what he was proposing.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked me about fuel tax. All I can say is that that is primarily a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in due course. On the other hand, there was considerable interest regarding rural buses and bus services, and I will deal with them at rather greater length. The fact of the matter is, as we all know, that the rural bus services are supported by profits made on the urban routes; but the urban profits are being eroded and have been in many cases, by mounting costs and the continued loss of passengers. The bus companies are in the situation where they
1156
must find alternative sources of revenue to finance these rural services. The National Bus Company in particular ran many of the rural services. It has a statutory duty to break even financially, and therefore the subsidiary companies have approached the local authorities about the services which they propose to withdraw unless assistance can be given.
The local authorities have power to assist operators in providing rural bus services. The Secretary of State reimburses them to the extent of 50 per cent. of their expenditure on grants for this purpose. The remainder of their expenditure qualifies for rate support grant in the usual way. The local authorities can give assistance to many buses—a number of noble Lords were interested in this—and cars and taxis, or vehicles designed to carry passengers and goods, as well as buses, depending on where the best value for money lies.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I can say that over 50 services are now being assisted with grants, and many others are under consideration, particularly in view of the National Bus Company's need to withdraw its most uneconomic rural services unless they are grant-aided. Services in the South-West, especially in Devon and Dorset—the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned this—are receiving support; and in parts of the North as well, such as those in the North Riding. In addition to this we have set up two pilot studies in Devon and West Suffolk, because we believe that it is necessary to take a new and urgent look at the problems facing people in the rural areas—this debate will have helped to focus attention on that point—to learn more about the diverse transport needs of people in rural areas such as those which have been mentioned.
For example, we shall be able, through the studies, to see what scope there really is for fare-paying passengers being carried on school buses, for locally organised car pooling arrangements and for other local services. The proposal made by Lord Teviot about season tickets could be tested and considered. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, suggested that postal mini-buses could be an answer. They are certainly one of the number of possibilities we are looking into. Four

1157
mini-bus services are already being operated by the Post Office in Montgomeryshire, Devon, Westmorland and East Lothian. As noble Lords will understand, the Post Office's first responsibility is to the carriage of mail and there is a problem of reconciling the postal requirements with the needs of the travelling public. That does not mean to say that it is not a possibility. I am pleased to say that the Post Office has agreed to co-operate with the Department in the two studies which I have just mentioned.
That brings me to the other question of the rural services of the Post Office, which the noble Earl introduced and other noble Lords followed up. As your Lordships will know, under the 1969 Act the Post Office has the duty to ensure that post offices are sufficient in number and are so placed as to give the best possible service to the community as a whole. They provide nearly 25,000 post offices altogether, of which 23,000—a very large proportion—are sub-post offices, often set up in a village shop. It is true that there has been a reduction in the number of sub-post offices, amounting to 200 over the past two years, but I think your Lordships will agree that in relation to the total of 23,000, this number, though significant, is not enormous. This is not the result of any deliberate policy or review aimed at reducing the number of post offices in rural areas. Post offices are closed either where the volume of business transacted indicates that there is no longer a public demand or where the sub-postmaster retires and no replacement can be found.
I am assured that the Post Office tries very hard to fill vacancies for sub-postmasters in rural areas and closes the office only as a last resort. If this does happen, they do all they can in other ways to alleviate possible hardship, by sending staff from the nearest head post office to a local hall for one or two days a week or occasionally by making a mobile post office available. Of course, these are costly ways of providing a service, but the Post Office shoulders this burden when the need arises. In rural areas, too, the delivery postman will sell stamps and postal orders on request, accept letters and parcels and help in other ways as he goes on his rounds.
1158
I hope that this brief but, I trust, comprehensive reply to this debate will assure your Lordships that although the problems in the rural areas are difficult and not susceptible of any easy solution, they are being attended to by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and by those of us who are his colleagues.
9.33 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if it were not that I consider this an important matter, as obviously did the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, in her most acceptable maiden speech, and my noble friend Lord de Clifford, I should not impose myself upon your Lordships at this late hour. But there is one point that I should like to re-emphasise. This is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Teviot about fuel tax. The noble Lord who spoke from the Box said that it was not a matter for him; and I agree that that may be the case. But nobody has mentioned the cost of the fares and the way they have gone up.
For some twenty years, until recently. I lived in a rural neighbourhood, and when my children were young it cost 4d. to go the three miles into the shopping centre, 7d. return. To-day the fare is 1s. 2d. each way. I know, as my noble friend Lord de Clifford said, from the number of lifts one gives to poor people, old-age pensioners and the like, that 2s. 4d. is a big sum for a three-mile trip on week-end shopping. I urge the Minister to bear this point in mind, and that the possibility of a reduction in fuel tax might enable small bus people to operate from centres, such as my noble friend mentioned, and make the service pay. The reason they have not done it is that they cannot make it pay. I will not weary your Lordships with the economic problems of running a small bus—the question of wages and the possibility of full loads.
There is one other point that has not been emphasised, and it is that on single-man buses there is inadequate provision for luggage, prams and the like. If somebody comes back from Australia, there is only one man on the bus and there is insufficient luggage room for a trunk. I think this is an important matter in relation to rural transport, and great suffering is being imposed on a great many good-hearted country people. My noble

1159
friend has had to wait to put down this Question, but I hope that this short debate will do something to alleviate the situation.

  IMMIGRATION: IRISH CITIZENS IN UNITED KINGDOM
  IMMIGRATION: IRISH CITIZENS IN UNITED KINGDOM
  IMMIGRATION: COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS in UNITED KINGDOM
  IMMIGRATION: COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS in UNITED KINGDOM
  IMMIGRATION: ADMISSION OF ALIEN WORKERS
  IMMIGRATION: ADMISSION OF ALIEN WORKERS