Sitting of 9 July 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NORTH RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  As amended by the Chairman of Ways and Means, considered; to be read the Third time.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time upon Thursday next.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday next.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  LAKE OF MENTEITH FISHERIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Lake of Menteith Fisheries: And the same was ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

SELECTION
Ordered,
That Mr. Ronald Brown, Captain Walter Elliot, Mr. Nicholas Scott, and Mr. Frederick Willey be members of the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Zambia
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will increase aid to Zambia.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood)rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the House would wish the Minister either to remain seated or to remain standing, as he chooses.
    Mr. Wood: Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.
    The answer to the Question is: No, Sir. I cannot promise that aid to Zambia will be increased above the level of our present commitment.
    Mr. Hamilton: I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Is he aware that the best kind of aid which could be given to Zambia would be to stop the sell-out to Rhodesia and the sale of arms to South Africa, both of which policies are disturbing Zambia very greatly?
    Mr. Wood: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his kind remarks. The question which he asked in the last part of his supplementary question must be put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when aid is sent to Zambia or to any of our other overseas territories which require aid, the conditions of receiving it—that goods should come from British sources—are underlined?
    Mr. Wood: I will consider that.
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has for aid to Zambia in the coming financial year.
    Mr. Wood: Aid to Zambia in this financial year is expected to be about £3·2 million. Most of this will go towards

    817
    the cost of the Overseas Service Aid Scheme.
    Mr. King: Has my right hon. Friend studied recent Zambian legislation under which British subjects, including my constituent Mr. Riley, are being robbed of their land with derisory compensation? Will he either take this into account or, if that is difficult, as it may well be, consider setting up a British-administered fund which will deal with this problem?
    Mr. Wood: I ought to explain to my hon. Friend that any question concerning the Zambia Lands Acquisition Act should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, following his visit to opencast mining in Mamba and copper in the North, that what Zambia needs at the moment is large numbers of English-speaking technical assistants, particularly mining engineers? What is he able to do in this direction? Can he help?
    Mr. Wood: I have explained that most of the £3·2 million which we are giving to Zambia will go towards the cost of the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. I realise, as does the hon. Member, that there is a great need in Zambia for technical knowledge and know-how.

    Malta
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the restoration of aid to Malta.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement about aid to Malta.
    Mr. Wood: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) on 6th July, I hope soon to be able to renew negotiations with the Government of Malta. The British High Commissioner in Valletta is coming to London next week for discussions on this matter.—[Vol. 803, c. 9.]
    Mr. Wall: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new and most suitable appointment. Will he remember, when the negotiations start, that all aid to the George Cross Island has been suspended for over 1¼ years, which is
    818
    endangering the future of N.A.T.O. in the Mediterranean at a time when the Soviet Union is increasing its threat?
    Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his supplementary question. I agree entirely with what he said in the second part. That is why we are anxious to see this dispute settled on reasonable terms so that the flow of aid can be resumed.
    Mr. Fisher: While not wishing to advocate instant government, may I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need for an early decision in this matter, even if it is only of a compromise and interim character, in order to get aid flowing again, because the very long delay under the previous Administration was prejudicial to our good relations with Malta and very prejudicial to her interests?
    Mr. Wood: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we are losing no time, because the High Commissioner is coming here next week to begin these discussions.
    Mrs. Hart: May I offer my very best wishes to the right hon. Gentleman on taking office in what I am sure he will find to be a most rewarding Department? As the income per head in Malta is very high compared with that in other countries to which we give aid, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are no specific aid criteria which would justify any further concessions to Malta?
    Mr. Wood: I thank the right hon. Lady for her good wishes. I agree with her assessment, in view of the very authoritative position from which she gives it, that the aid terms which we are offering, and may offer, Malta are likely to be more generous than those followed in the usual aid criteria.

    Lesotho
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the restoration of aid to Lesotho.
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement on the Government's aid policy towards Lesotho.
    Mr. Wood: A small team of my officials recently visited Lesotho. In the

    819
    light of their report, I am now considering the resumption of our aid programme. In view of the grave drought situation, I have meanwhile authorised immediate expenditure on the purchase and erection of a number of food storage sheds, food distribution, and the resumption of "food for work" schemes to the full extent requested.
    Mr. Wall: While welcoming the restoration of our normal relations with Lesotho and the drought relief, may I ask my right hon. Friend also to confirm that the next three-year programme of aid, which was announced to the House some time ago, will now be implemented?
    Mr. Wood: This is a matter which, as I have explained to my hon. Friend, we are considering, and I shall certainly take into account what he said.
    Mr. Judd: In welcoming the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that budgetary assistance to countries such as Lesotho indicates a degree of political commitment to particular political régimes about which some Members of the House will have a degree of caution? Would he also agree, particularly in relation to refugees from the Republic of South Africa, that it is important that if we give budgetary assistance, we must make our views on the position of such refugees well known?
    Mr. Wood: I will take into account the second part of the hon. Member's question. In reply to the first part, as he knows our aid to Lesotho has consisted of budgetary and development aid. I do not make the very clear distinction to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.

    Pearson and Jackson Reports
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to the Pearson and Jackson Reports.
    Mr. Wood: The Government consider that the Pearson Report is an extremely important policy document in the field of international development and intend to take full account of its recommendations in deciding their own policies. The Government also welcome, in general, the findings of the Jackson Capacity Study
    820
    and are seeking international agreement on giving effect to them.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming that Answer as far as it goes, and welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's appointment to his present office, may I ask whether he could do something to help in re-establishing the Specialist Committee of the House on Overseas Aid, which did valuable work in helping to interpret both these Reports?
    Mr. Wood: I have no wish, particularly after the hon. Member's kind remarks, to try to dodge his question, but I think he will find that it must be directed elsewhere.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend consider the importance of private enterprise investment in developing countries and the need for that investment to be insured against political risks?
    Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. That is a most important matter which we must consider.

    Aid
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is his policy regarding the aid target of 1 per cent. of the gross national product.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he will take to arrive at the Pearson target of gross national product for overseas aid.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Overseas Development if it is the Government's intention to reach the targets set for overseas aid by the Pearson Commission Report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wood: I am now examining the attitude we should take towards the various targets for resource flows. I welcome the interest of hon. Members in this matter, and I shall do my best to keep Parliament informed of future decisions.
    Mr. Maclennan: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether his Department's spending in this direction will be subjected to scrutiny under the public expenditure survey that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has initiated and whether we may see a

    821
    postponement of the targets set by the previous Government? Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the proportions as between private and public aid which he would wish to pursue?
    Mr. Wood: This question, like all questions of public expenditure, will be scrutinised carefully by the Government. I hope that this will not lead to the postponement that the hon. Member suggests. As to the division between private investment and official flows, this also is a matter on which I cannot at present answer because it is bound to be under consideration.
    Mr. Crouch: May I remind my right hon. Friend that I hope that he will bear in mind the serious concern which is felt in the country that he should not be parsimonious about aid, either official or the encouragement of private aid, and that the nation's moral standing in the world will be judged very much by this aspect?
    Mr. Wood: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, and, indeed, of the House, in a view which I entirely share.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise to all his Ministerial colleagues the importance for many of the poorer Commonwealth countries of continuing, and, indeed, strengthening, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, with particular regard to the opening of negotiations with the Common Market?
    Mr. Wood: That is another question and, possibly, not entirely directed to me, but I appreciate its importance.
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will announce the Government's plans for expenditure on overseas aid in the years up to and including 1973–74.
    Mr. Wood: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 7th July, all aspects of public expenditure are now being examined. I cannot, therefore, at present make a statement.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Minister recognise that last October, in the previous Parliament, his right hon. Friend who is now Foreign Secretary gave the
    822
    House to understand that a Conservative Administration would provide a larger amount of aid than the previous Administration? Does he not think it would be appropriate immediately to give effect to that implication of the Foreign Secretary's remarks?
    Mr. Wood: I must ask the hon. Member to await the statement which, I hope, the Government will be able to make on this important matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the major immediate effect of overseas financial aid is the provision of jobs in factories in this country for export orders which might not otherwise materialise and that while this may be an admirable purpose, it does not have very much to do with the moral postures in international affairs which hon. Members opposite try to read into it?
    Mr. Wood: I do not know whether that is very closely connected with the Question, which concerns the Government's plans for expenditure in overseas aid but it is certainly a matter of great importance.
    Mrs. Hart: While I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is bound to take a little time to consider this matter, may I ask him to assure us that he is fully aware that in June the previous Government had totally accepted the Pearson commitment for a 1 per cent. target by 1975 and had also accepted the concept and target of a ·7 per cent. official flow?
    Mr. Wood: I am well aware of the first part but I was less clearly aware of the second part of the right hon. Lady's submission. In any event, however, my awareness of the first part has increased my resolve that we should do at least as well as the previous Government, and, I hope, improve on their performance.

    Mr. Y. Alawi
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will reconsider the decision of his predecessor not to assume responsibility for the pension of Mr. Y. Alawi who served British administration overseas for 36 years and has been denied his pension by the Zanzibar Government.
    Mr. Wood: I am studying this question, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as I can.
    Mr. Braine: While thanking my right hon. Friend for agreeing to look into the matter again, may I ask him to bear in mind that Mr. Alawi, after a lifetime of service to the British Crown, is living sick and near destitution in this country and deserves very much better treatment than he has been getting? Would he also bear in mind that many of us will scrutinise with not much enthusiasm any aid proposals for Tanzania unless injustices of this kind are removed?
    Mr. Wood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not pressing me further on this specific problem. I am, as I have assured him, looking into this matter. I am aware of Mr. Alawi's difficulties and I would very much hope to be able to do something to help.

    Aid and Development Policy
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will publish a White Paper setting out the Government's overseas aid and development policy.
    Mr. Wood: I have no immediate plans to publish a White Paper, but I am considering whether it would be helpful to do so later on.
    Mr. Judd: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that aid is not just a matter of quantity but that there are a number of important questions concerning qualitative and administrative policies in respect of which the House is anxious to know the full details of Governmental thinking?
    Mr. Wood: It is just because I realise some of the complexities in this field that I was unable to give a wholly satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question.
    Mr. John Hall: If my right hon. Friend is considering publishing a White Paper, will he bear in mind that the previous Adiministration's proposals certainly would not have resulted in achieving a 1 per cent. target by 1975?

    Gilbert and Ellice Islands
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Overseas Development
    824
    what has been the increase in the cost of living since the last increase in rates of pay for those serving in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
    Mr. Wood: I assume that my hon. Friend's Question refers to the last increase in inducement allowances, which takes effect from 1st July, 1969. Between then and June, 1970, there seems to have been a rise of about 6 per cent. in the level of retail prices affecting expatriates in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the difficulties of servants in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands are probably unparalleled in most parts of the world. May I have his assurance that he will keep a close watch on those difficulties to see that the rewards are commensurate with them?
    Mr. Wood: I shall do so, and I think my hon. Friend knows that we have promised to review this whole matter generally fairly early next year. I hope that this will meet the case he has put to me.

    New Hebrides
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Overseas Development what are the comparable rates of pay after tax for British and French public servants serving in the condominium of the New Hebrides; and what has been the increase in the cost of living since the rates were settled.
    Mr. Wood: I assume, as before, that my hon. Friend's Question refers to inducement allowances.
    I have not enough information about the scales of pay in the French Service, New Hebrides, to make a direct comparison with the British rates; but in recognition of the special circumstances of service in the New Hebrides, expatriate officers in the British National Service receive a special additional allowance.
    Between 1st July, 1969, the operative date of the last increase in the New Hebrides, and the following December, the latest date for which information is available, there was a rise of 2 per cent. in the level of retail prices.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Would my right hon. Friend take some steps to find out what the differential is between those

    825
    who serve the French Government and those who serve the British Government and keep a close watch to see that British servants are not less well rewarded for their efforts?
    Mr. Wood: A senior official of to see whether I can obtain the kind of information my hon. Friend wants, but it is, of course, a difficulty not only of comparing rates of pay but of comparing a very great many other things, and difficult, therefore, to arrive at a direct and useful answer.

    Tanzania
    Mr. Oramasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement about the resumption of aid for Tanzania.
    Mr. Wood: A senior official of my Department visited Dar-es-Salaam at the end of June for discussions with the Government of Tanzania. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he offered a resumption of aid, including a loan for capital development and also the full range of our technical assistance. This offer was accepted. The details of our future programme will now be worked out in consultation with the Tanzanian authorities.
    Mr. Oram: May I compliment the right hon. Gentleman on the coincidence that he has assumed office at a time when a particularly vexatious problem in Africa seems to have been resolved, particularly since Tanzania is a particularly aid-worthy country from the point of view of rural development? Will he assure the House that rural development will be in the forefront of his Ministry's activities, both in Tanzania and elsewhere?
    Mr. Wood: I think I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Were obligations of the Tanzanian Government to officials who formerly served the British—such as Mr. Alawi, who was the subject of an earlier Question—included in the discussions with the Tanzanians?
    Mr. Wood: I am afraid I cannot give a direct answer to that because I do not know the answer. I certainly see the relevance of what is in my hon. Friend's
    826
    mind and I will take this question into account.

    British Volunteer Programme
    Mr. Oramasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will consult with the officers responsible for the British Volunteer Programme with a view to providing for an exchange of volunteers between this country and developing countries under a system which would enable the volunteers from both ends first to enter upon a period of postgraduate study and then a period of social service.
    Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir, but the necessary consultations will take some time, and I cannot at present say what the outcome will be.
    Mr. Oram: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for at least taking this suggestion into account, and will he note particularly the element of mutual aid which is contained in the suggestion and the parallel with the Study and Serve Scheme on a contract basis, which has proved successful in his Ministry's operations?
    Mr. Wood: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not only an interesting one but it is an obviously far-reaching one, and this is the reason why I think it will be necessary for the consultations to take some time. I will certainly take into account any points he would like to put to me.

    Commonwealth Countries (Education Service)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Overseas Development how many qualified teachers and people in Voluntary Service Overseas are at present working under the sponsorship of his Department in the educational service of Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Wood: At the end of last year, there were 4,643 British educational staff serving in Commonwealth countries under the auspices of my Department. The vast majority of them were qualified teachers. At the same date, 775 graduate or qualified volunteers and 205 cadets were serving in educational projects in Commonwealth countries under the British Volunteer Programme.
    Dame Joan Vickers: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply? Does he not agree that educational aid is one of the best forms of aid? Are there enough people available to take jobs? If not, will he help to see that employers are more sympathetic towards releasing people?
    Mr. Wood: I certainly agree with the premise of the question. I will go carefully into the matter to see that needs which must be met are met.
    Mr. James Johnson: Reverting to a former Question about Tanzania, will the right hon. Gentleman please pay special attention to the supply of teachers in Tanzania? Zambia is not alone in needing people who know English. We have been phasing out, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. In Tanzania we have very few teachers, and the English language is so important, and they badly need teachers there on the east side.
    Mr. Wood: I will certainly look into that.
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Overseas Development how much money is being allocated by his Department to help education in the Commonwealth countries; and how it is divided between primary, secondary and university education.
    Mr. Wood: The total indentifiable expenditure on aid to education in the Commonwealth in 1968 was about £21·5 million. Beyond this, we made contributions to international bodies concerned with aid to education. The allocation of our aid by country and function is rather complex, and I do not have the precise breakdown my hon. Friend requires. But I am sending her some figures which show in some detail what we are doing.
    Dame Joan Vickers: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? Does he consider that it is essential, if at all possible, that individuals should be educated in a unversity of their country of origin before taking post-graduate courses here?
    Mr. Wood: I would think this important.

    Institute of Development Studies (Seminar)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on a study course sponsored by his Department to be held by the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University for civil servants from developing countries at which it is planned to hold a session on methods for nationalising externally-owned companies.
    Mr. Wood: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Study Seminar on the State Corporations to be held next month. The Institute is organising this Seminar as part of its teaching programme, but it is not being sponsored by my Department.
    Sir R. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will relieve the anxiety of thousands of investors who strongly object to public money being spent on teaching developing countries how to seize their assets, and can he give an assurance that no public moneys are involved in this?
    Mr. Wood: I can assure my hon. Friend that I share his anxiety about this. It did cause me disquiet to see how this Seminar was presented. Certain steps have been taken. I hope that we shall not see this particular matter in this form again.
    Mrs. Hart: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would wish to make it clear that on this particular course decisions were made some time ago—the decisions to which he referred; but would he agree that it is of some considerable importance that he should arrive at some new understanding with the Institute, on the one hand to protect the rights of Government in deciding how public money is wisely spent and, on the other hand, to protect the academic freedom of the Institute?
    Mr. Wood: I should like to discuss with the right hon. Lady the new understanding which I hope my Department has reached with the Institute, because I think it is very important for its future administration.

  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    Joint Safety Committees
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will introduce legislation to make joint safety committees in industry compulsory.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Dudley Smith): My right hon. Friend proposes to start further consultations with the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries as to the best way of getting better arrangements for joint consultation on safety matters.
    Mr. Sillars: With due respect to the Minister, he has dodged the point of the Question about making compulsory joint safety committees. There should be no need for further consultation because both major parties have discussed this matter at great length. Will the hon. Gentleman take it that his Answer will be a great disappointment to trade unionists in this country?
    Mr. Smith: I do not think the hon. Member was in the House when we debated the health and safety Bill in the last Parliament. The then Opposition then had very substantial reservations about Part II of that Bill. I think it far better, before proceeding with this point, to have further consultations.
    Mr. David Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the electricity supply industry joint safety committees have been operating for many years on a virtually compulsory basis and have achieved a fair measure of success? Would not he agree that if the result were a drop in the number of accidents with a consequential reduction in pain and suffering, that would be beneficial and a fair exchange for a measure of compulsion?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. Substantial progress has been made on a voluntary basis and there are those who believe that even further progress could be made on a voluntary basis. My right hon. Friend intends to have serious consultations on this point and, if it is thought that further legislation is necessary, that will be brought forward.
    Mrs. Castle: Does this mean that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend do not intend to reintroduce the legislation which was before the House, which was urgently needed, which could have been amended and discussed in Committee and which his Department's Industrial Safety Advisory Committee was anxious to see make progress?
    Mr. Smith: We are giving urgent attention to the introduction of a Health and Safety Bill. At an appropriate time we shall bring these Measures forward if it is thought that they should be brought forward.

    Accident and Health Hazards
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if he will take steps to reduce the number of accidents and health hazards in industry.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, Sir. It is certainly our intention to do all we can to bring about a reduction in occupational accidents and illnesses. We hope to receive valuable advice in due course from the Committee on Safety and Health at work under the chairmanship of Lord Robens.
    Mr. Golding: Remembering the general welcome given by both sides of the House to Part I of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill, which introduced a medical service to seek out health hazards in industry, will not the Government, as a matter of urgency, reintroduce Part I of that Bill, since many people are suffering severely as a result of the delay?
    Mr. Smith: As I have just told the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), we are considering this as a matter of urgency, but we have been in office only for about two weeks. We shall bring forward our proposals probably very quickly.
    Mr. Peter Archer: As about five times as many working days are lost through industrial injuries as are lost through industrial disputes, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that his Department gets its priorities right?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I think that we are getting our priorities right, and that is why we attach considerable importance to the far-reaching inquiry which is now

    831
    under way. The urgency of it is well realised by Lord Robens, and the first meeting has already been held.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimate he has made of the level of unemployment at the end of the year.
    The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Robert Carr): It is not possible to give a meaningful estimate of the level of unemployment at some future date.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although it must be his first priority to reduce the total level of unemployment, one of the successes of the previous Government was the reduction in the disparity of employment opportunities between the regions? Will he give an assurance that he will not permit the present Government to reduce the amount of regional assistance?
    Mr. Carr: Everyone must be his own judge of facts, but when I consider the drop in employment in all the regions as well as in the country as a whole, I should not think that that was a part of the last Administration's policy of which they would be most proud. The hon. Member speaks of disparity. I do not imagine that it is much joy to people in Scotland, Wales or the North to know that some people in other parts of the country are suffering as much, or a little bit nearer as much, as they are; but of course it is of immense importance to raise employment opportunities in the development areas.
    Mr. Crouch: May I remind my right hon. Friend that it is not only the national and regional figures that concern me but the area figure within the region, and that in north-east Kent the unemployment rate is up to 6·5 per cent., with no help being given.
    Mr. Carr: I agree with my hon. Friend that one must look at the micro pattern as well as the macro pattern.

    Co-operative Insurance Society (Dispute)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity
    832
    what initiatives he has taken to negotiate between the Co-operative Insurance Society and their agents during the current dispute.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Paul Bryan): Officers of my Department have been in touch with the society and the union since the outset of this dispute and a joint meeting was held under Departmental chairmanship on 29th June, without a settlement being reached. I understand that the T.U.C. has also been in touch with the union concerned, and proposes to have discussions shortly with representatives of the society.
    Mr. Dalyell: In spite of the meeting on 29th June and the singularly ill-conceived letter from the general manager to the agents, will not the Department use its good offices and try to bring the parties together?
    Mr. Bryan: I think that the Department has already done this, with fairly good effect. I assure the hon. Member that the staff have discussed all the possibilities, including arbitration, with both parties, but there can be no arbitration unless it is voluntarily wanted on both sides.

    Trade Unions (Proposed Legislation)
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when he intends to introduce legislation for the reform of the trades unions.
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when he will present his Bill on Industrial Relations.
    Mr. R. Carr: I shall introduce a comprehensive industrial relations Bill as soon as possible.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the Minister aware—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to wave to Mr. Speaker to attract his attention.
    Mr. Tuck: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I was not waving. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since taking its recent powers the T.U.C. has

    833
    intervened in over 150 industrial disputes and has saved the country over two million man-days, and that this could not have happened under legislation of a "keep-the-unions-in-their-place" type which is so ardently desired by the Conservative Government? Will he look at this matter seriously before rushing headlong at the problem bull-at-a-gate?
    Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friends and I have often paid tribute to the work done by the T.U.C. under Mr. Victor Feather. I do not wish to detract from that. But I am also aware that in this last year there has been an escalation in the number of strikes and working days lost through strikes of very serious proportions, and that last year was much worse than any previous year. We are, certain that action is needed. I should like to assure the hon. Member that our action will be to reform the whole of industrial relations, not just the trade unions.
    Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 18th June the country clearly gave its answer that enlightened legislation on industrial relations is desired. Is he also aware that he will be supported by his back-bench Members in this legislation, in contradistinction to the way in which the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was treated by her back-bench Members a year ago?
    Mr. Carr: I am quite sure that the country is aware of the need for a more orderly framework for the conduct of collective bargaining, which is what we shall be providing.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State put some of his hon. Friends in training to do jobs on the docks and on the railways, where they will be needed if a Bill of the nature proposed by the Secretary of State is brought in? Is he not aware that to shift the question purely from unofficial to official disputes might put this country in line with the United States and Australia where, with the aid of legal sanctions, disputes are four times greater than they are in Britain?
    Mr. Carr: I do not accept any of the premises put by the hon. Gentleman, nor do I believe that he voices the opinions
    834
    of the vast majority of those who work in industry in this country.
    Sir G. Nabarro: While warmly endorsing my right hon. Friend's remarks, since the legislation he proposes is certain to be extremely complex in character would he consider issuing his Bill in the first week of September so that we shall all have ample opportunity to study it during the Summer Recess, before we come back to the House fully refreshed in the second week of October?
    Mr. Carr: I shall issue the Bill as soon as possible, after proper consultation.

  MALAYSIA (ALLEGED MASSACRE)
  Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General why he has decided against further investigations into the alleged massacre in 1948 of Chinese civilians by British troops in Malaysia.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): After considering the result of the police inquiries in this country, the Director of Public Prosecutions was satisfied that there was no reasonable likelihood of obtaining sufficient evidence to warrant criminal proceedings. He therefore decided not to ask the police to continue the inquiry. I agree with his decision.
  Mr. Lipton: Does the Attorney-General nevertheless agree that, in view of sworn statements by four ex-guardsmen claiming to be present at the scene, which were published in the People, it was necessary to have the inquiry even though after all these years it is generally accepted that it is impossible to collect sufficient evidence for a prosecution?
  The Attorney-General: I do not wish to make any comment about the necessity of this inquiry. All I would like to repeat to the House and to the hon. Gentleman is my agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Mr. Richard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Administration strongly took the view that once allegations of this sort had been made it was right and proper that a full investigation should be conducted into them by

  835
  the Director of Public Prosecutions? That investigation having been conducted and the Director having come to the conclusion which he reached, I trust that the House and the country will accept that a full investigation has been made.
  The Attorney-General: I understand the point of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he is correct in the last point he makes.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) leave a slur on those against whom allegations were made and would not it be fitting for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?

  LIMITATION ACT 1963
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Attorney-General when he expects to receive the Law Commission's report on the Limitation Act 1963; if he will consider an early deadline for completion of these reports; and if he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: I cannot give a precise date on which these reports may be expected, but both the Government and the Law Commissions appreciate that this is a question of social importance which should be resolved as quickly as possible. The issues are, however, complex and their examination necessitates consultation with a number of bodies concerned. This consultation is proceeding now.
  Mr. Allaun: I thank the Attorney-General for that reply, but is he aware that the Commission states that the three current proposals only tinker with the Act? Will he therefore recommend, in addition, at least the abolition of the need to apply to a judge for leave?
  The Attorney-General: These are matters which it is best to leave to the Law Commission. I appreciate and sympathise with the feeling of the hon. Gentleman, which I know is shared by many hon. Members, but this is in the hands of the Law Commission. I will do what I can to make sure we get the answer as quickly as possible, but it is a matter of great complexity.

  LEGAL AID
  Mr. Jannerasked the Attorney-General if he will raise the upper income limit for eligibility for legal aid.
  The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. The Government have been advised by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee which has made certain recommendations. Accordingly, the Government propose to withdraw Regulations laid on 28th May and to replace them with new.
  Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that great anxiety and hardship are suffered by people who are just outside the present legal aid limits and who cannot afford to pay for the legal representation which they require? Will he therefore indicate the stages which will be introduced for further steps in this direction?
  The Attorney-General: We have received advice from the Legal Aid Advisory Committee which makes advisable certain changes in the regulations which were made. The effect of the new regulations will be to leave the average applicant in the same position as he was under the regulations laid by my predcessor in May. Some exceptional cases will be better off, and some will be marginally worse off, but that will be only marginal.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: I should like to congratulate the Attorney-General on his appointment. In view of the urgency of this matter, does he propose to lay the relevant regulations before the Parliamentary Recess?
  The Attorney-General: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy. I will take instructions from those who know better than I about that matter, but it is appreciated that the subject is important, and that there is also Scotland to consider.
  Mr. Hiley: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind, before he makes any changes, that many experienced magistrates consider that at present the legal aid system is grossly abused?
  The Attorney-General: It is always important that any such scheme should be properly and fairly administered. If

  837
  my hon. Friend has any evidence of any matter which should be investigated, I should be grateful to receive it.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Heads of Governments of the Common Market countries to visit him.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: In view of the clear indication of the British electorate that its main objection to Britain joining the Common Market is the long-term aim for a federal Europe affecting our sovereignty, would it not be a good idea for the Heads of Government in the Common Market to come to this country so that M.P.s of all parties could question than to get at the real truth of what they think?
  The Prime Minister: That may be desirable. But now that negotiations have been started by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, we had better let them proceed a little before we issue any invitations.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Prime Minister at least not ask the Common Market Prime Ministers for advice on how to fulfil his General Election pledge to reduce food prices in this country?
  The Prime Minister: The matter of the common agricultural policy is one for the negotiations.

  UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY (PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will seek an early opportunity to address the United Nations General Assembly.
  The Prime Minister: I am hoping to do so in the Autumn.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I am glad to hear that. Will the Prime Minister make quite clear to the United Nations General Assembly exactly what is his policy on the sale of arms to South Africa? Will he clearly say whether it is to safeguard
  838
  the Simonstown Agreement or to get 30 pieces of silver for his commercial and business friends, since the country and the Commonwealth, the coloured Commonwealth in particular, are deeply concerned about this matter?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] If he engages in the selling of arms to South Africa for purely commercial reasons, he will cause more damage than advantage to the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be reasonably brief in their Questions.
  The Prime Minister: A statement has been promised in advance by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the House and it should be made here first.
  Mr. David Steel: If the Prime Minister is to go to the United Nations in the autumn, will he, in his capacity as President of the United Nations Association in this country, read the speech made by the chairman of that body at the 25th anniversary banquet dealing with the impact of Britain's rôle in the United Nations and any possible decision on the sale of arms?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of that speech and its content.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: If I am not out of order, I should like to wish the right hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday and a not too-hard-worked one. With regard to the point at issue on arms to South Africa, will he give an undertaking that the statement will be made to the House before the Summer Recess?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already indicated that he hopes to do so.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from Mr. Ian Smith; and if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said about Rhodesia in the Debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 81.]
  Mr. King: Although I appreciate that there need be no haste, is it in the Prime

  839
  Minister's mind to seek to distinguish between approval of the régime, which we ought not to confer, and the continuation of sanctions which, after a lengthy period of trial, are seen as a costly failure and which have served to increase Mr. Smith's obstinacy rather than to reduce it? May we assume that we shall seek to do away with the psychological folly of the sanctions introduced by his predecessor?
  The Prime Minister: I indicated our approach to the House in my speech—that we should make one further attempt to see whether it is possible to reach a settlement within the five principles.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six."]—In the meantime, the sanctions remain.
  Mr. Rose: In view of Mr. Smith's statement that there can be no going back on his action in asserting independence outside the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister explain how there can be any meaningful negotiations short of selling out on those five principles?
  The Prime Minister: The onus is on us to see whether it is possible to reach a settlement.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister say whether he still regards Southern Rhodesia, as administered by the Smith régime, as a police State?
  The Prime Minister: I said in earlier days that there were aspects of it which I very much disliked and which could be described as aspects of a police State. In fact, some of these have been changed—[Interruption.] As regards the Press, some of them have been changed. The point is that we have to see whether a settlement can be reached within the conditions that we have previously described.

  SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister when he intends to visit Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.
  Mr. Sillars: When the Prime Minister goes to Scotland tomorrow, will he look up the election results for 1970 and understand that, because he issued a separate manifesto for Scotland and
  840
  Scotland voted overwhelmingly for Labour, it is claptrap for him and his Ministers to say that they have a mandate for cutting Scottish public expenditure and destroying the Labour Government's investment grants scheme?
  The Prime Minister: Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and intends to remain so. Policies are pursued by the United Kingdom Government. We shall carry out the policy that we pledged to Scotland.
  Mr. Buchan: When the Prime Minister goes to Scotland, will he give a simple and direct answer—which his right hon. Friend failed to do yesterday—to the question whether aid to industry in Scotland will be cut?
  The Prime Minister: We have described our policy towards development in Scotland on many occasions. It is to maintain development areas and to encourage growth points within them. We intend to get value for the money spent in terms of jobs available for the people.

  PRICE RESTRAINT
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for price restraint.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Fraser: While we understand that we shall not have instant government, can the Prime Minister say what, after a suitable period of incubation, will be done about price increases in insurance premiums, mortgage rates by the Conservative G.L.C., restaurant meals, coal and food, and other price increases which were restrained by the early notification machinery operated by the previous Government?
  The Prime Minister: Such a question does not come well from a member of a party which has presided over the biggest inflation in 20 years, the legacy of which we have inherited in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to answer questions about the G.L.C. and the rest, will he at least answer this one? In view of

  841
  the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we all wish a speedy recovery, that the Government intend to scrutinise rigorously applications for price increases in the public sector, will the Prime Minister say whether this rigorous scrutiny will be carried out by the National Board for Prices and Incomes or by Government Departments? If it is to be by Government Departments, will he say which Departments will be responsible and what he plans for parallel action about price increases in the private sector?
  The Prime Minister: One price increase is already under review by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. As for the remainder, the scrutiny will be carried out by the Government Departments concerned.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the rest of my question. What action does he propose about price increases in the private sector?
  The Prime Minister: That is already governed by questions of competition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That has already proved to be far more effective than any measures which right hon. Gentlemen opposite could devise when they were in power.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, NEW ZEALAND (TALKS)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has held or intends to hold with Mr. Jack Marshall, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand; and to what extent these include matters pertaining to Great Britain's entry into the Common Market and its effect on New Zealand's trade with Great Britain.
  The Prime Minister: I discussed these and other matters with Mr. Marshall yesterday.
  Mr. Lewis: The Prime Minister has not given us any information. Is it not the case that the New Zealand Government are very much against Britain's going into the Common Market because they know that we cannot possibly get any terms which will not be ruinous to the Commonwealth, New Zealand especially?
  842
  Will not the Prime Minister give them an assurance that we shall do nothing to harm our Commonwealth partners?
  The Prime Minister: The New Zealand Government asked that the special problems of New Zealand should be stated in the opening statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That was done at the opening of the negotiations.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Has not the Prime Minister seen the text of the television broadcast by Mr. Marshall a few days ago which took place after the right hon. Gentleman had made his openning statement and in which Mr. Marshall expressed his great anxiety? Cannot the Prime Minister make a series of public statements as the negotiations proceed to try to show the people of New Zealand that their interests will be safeguarded? While there must be secrecy about certain details, there need not be secrecy about matters of this kind.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will report to the House at each stage of the negotiations. As New Zealand matters are dealt with, not only will the New Zealand High Commissioner here be informed but also, when necessary, New Zealand's Ambassador in Brussels; and the House will be informed at the same time.

  CIVIL SERVANTS
  Dr. Summerskillasked the Prime Minister what reduction in the number of civil servants is planned; and in what Government Departments these will take place.
  The Prime Minister: We are reviewing staff needs in the light of the Government's programme.
  Dr. Summerskill: Can the Prime Minister tell us when the axe will fall, as there is a gnawing anxiety among civil servants about who is to be made redundant and when it will be?
  The Prime Minister: We shall announce our conclusions in due course. The Staff Side knows that matters will be handled through the appropriate channels.
  Mr. Pavitt: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Commission in 1963 reported on the value-added tax that 20,000 more tax inspectors would be required to administer it? Will he bear that in mind in regard to the future employment of civil servants?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept that figure, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends accepted it, either.

  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
  Dr. Summerskillasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Government Minister as the permanent United Kingdom representative to the United Nations.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Dr. Summerskill: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that if there is no Government Minister as the United Kingdom's permanent representative at the United Nations, our standing there will be greatly diminished? Is he aware that the present Government have downgraded the United Nations in this country?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept that conclusion for a moment. Like many others, I recognise what Lord Caradon achieved when he led our delegation at the United Nations. However, many other countries have their delegations led by permanent members of the diplomatic service, and Ministers are present there whenever they are required. We propose to follow that procedure.
  Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend consider resuming the original idea of sending two hon. Members from the back benches to the United Nations?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to consider the possibility of hon. Members of this House going in the delegation.

  GLASGOW
  Mr. Hannanasked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to Glasgow.
  The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Hannan: If the Prime Minister goes to Glasgow, will he direct the attention of the Tory-controlled local authority to its declining housing programme at a time when housing records are being broken in the rest of Scotland? Secondly, as regards the special assistance which he proposes to give to Glasgow, will he ensure that it is devoted to such purposes and not to reducing the rates, as was done with the special assistance from a previous Administration?
  The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, he is already in consultation with the City Council about these matters.

  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Malaysia.
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for official visits to the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  Mr. Maclennanasked the Prime Minister when he intends to visit the President of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) on Tuesday.—[Vol. 803, c. 30.]
  Mr. Sheldon: In view of the cost of defence arrangements in this area, can the Prime Minister say whether the rundown of British forces is continuing?
  The Prime Minister: As regards dispositions, some changes are still being made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence expects to leave for the area at the end of this month in order to enter into consultations with Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand about the five-Power force and its make-up.
  Mr. Maclennan: When the Prime Minister visits the United States, will he instruct himself about labour relations in that country and observe how, as a result of legislation parallel to that proposed

  845
  by his Government, the Americans have failed to improve the situation and how they have a much worse strike record than we have?
  The Prime Minister: As I said, I have no plans at the moment to visit the United States. We have previously discussed this matter in debates on industrial relations.
  Sir R. Cary: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is free to invite the President to visit this country?
  Mr. Heath: The President will always be very welcome in this country. At the moment I have no plans to extend a particular invitation to him.
  Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether the rundown is continuing or not?
  Mr. Heath: This is an entirely separate Question from that put down on the Order Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have said that changes in dispositions are taking place, because the plan that we have for a presence in a five-power force is smaller than what is there at the moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business proposed for next week?
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, 13TH JULY.—Supply [1st Allotted Day].
The Chairman will immediately put the Question on all outstanding Votes.
There will be a debate on the National Health and Social Services, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
TUESDAY, 14TH JULY.—Second Reading of the Harbours (Amendment) Bill and of the Fiji Independence Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH JULY.—Remaining stages of the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowances) Bill, of the International Monetary Fund Bill and of
846
the Education (Handicapped Children) Bill.
THURSDAY, 16TH JULY.—Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs Bill.
FRIDAY, 17TH JULY.—Remaining stages of the Harbours (Amendment) Bill and of the Fiji Independence Bill.
MONDAY, 20TH JULY.—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment on Friday, 24th July.
Mr. Wilson: With regard to Wednesday's business, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, while we shall want to facilitate these Measures as far as possible, we do not yet know how many Amendments will be put down? It looks as though it may be a fairly heavy day. If it means carrying the House late into the night, I hope that he will think again and allow extra time.
Secondly, may we expect a statement next week on the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) with the Home Secretary about an all-party delegation going to Northern Ireland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we reluctantly accepted the Home Secretary's view about a delegation going this weekend during the time of the Orange marches, there is strong feeling in many parts of the House that Members may wish to observe the situation even after that? May we expect a statement from the Home Secretary that he is making arrangements for an all-party delegation?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. We will just have to see how we get on. If there is too much business, we can certainly put it off to another time.
On the second point, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his decision reluctantly because of the pressure on the security forces this coming weekend. My right hon. Friend will certainly consider providing facilities for a delegation at some future date.
Mr. Emery: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to Motion No. 1, standing in my name and the names of 180 right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, on the question of postal votes for people on holiday?
[That, so that no one is needlessly deprived of their right to vote and in order to meet the convenience of electors, this House urges Her Majesty's Government as soon as possible to take action so that a postal vote may be claimed by people away from their home on holiday.]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this matter, if not next week, at least before the House rises?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have, of course, seen the Motion. I recognise the strong feelings on this issue, particularly after the General Election was called in a holiday month, although I do not think that we on this side have any complaint about that. There was a Question down for answer by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today, which was not reached. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, but I can promise that my right hon. Friend will certainly consider the terms of the Motion.
Mr. Latham: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 8, of which I gave him a correct copy last night, which is now supported by over 50 Members, which number I am sure will grow?
[That this House believes that the matter of the rights of hon. Members of this House who have been committed to Her Majesty's Prisons, and of their constituents, be referred to a Select Committee to be appointed for this purpose, and that they do consider and report, in particular, what action should be taken if any person deliberately delays the receipt of mail by an hon. Member, interferes with a Member's right to correspond with any constituent, member of Her Majesty's Government, Department of State or another Member of this House, forcibly prevents a Member from attending this House, or prevents a Member who wishes to do so from interviewing a constituent or a fellow Member who is assisting him in the conduct of his constituency business.]
May I also draw attention to the many unanswered questions in the submission
848
that I made to you, Mr. Speaker, which you properly said were not matters for the Chair? Therefore, on this important and urgent issue, will the Leader of the House consider allowing time for a debate? Further, in view of the difficulty about tabling Questions on this matter, will one of his Ministerial colleagues or himself make a statement to the House so that we may put Questions on the subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) for his courtesy in coming to see me personally last night about this Motion.
The conditions under which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is being held are a matter for the Northern Ireland authorities. I recognise that the Motion goes somewhat wider and has other important implications, and I am certainly willing to examine how best this matter can be considered. However, in view of its complexity, I should be wrong at this stage to promise either a debate or a statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I intervene to say that the Motion to which the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) referred contains an error? The first four words of the Motion as printed did not appear in the manuscript handed in by the hon. Gentleman. They were inserted in error by staff at the printing works. They will be removed the next time the Motion appears on the Order Paper.
Mr. Nigel Fisher: On a point of order. I am sorry to delay our proceedings. However, as we are considering Motion No. 8, may I say that I have just noticed that my name is printed as having signed the Motion. I certainly did no such thing. I should be obliged if it could be omitted.
Mr. Speaker: There is obviously a need for a correction, which will be made.
Mr. Marten: The Leader of the House told us when we were going to rise for the Summer Recess. Will he give some indication, if not precisely, at least generally, when we are likely to come back?
Mr. Whitelaw: Some time in the autumn.
Mrs. Renée Short: As there appears to be a disastrous rash of circulars being issued by new Ministers, may I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be an opportunity next week to discuss the circular issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the sale of council houses, which is of prime importance?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am not aware of any rash of circulars. There will not be an opportunity next week to debate that particular circular.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does my right hon. Friend recall that towards the end of the last Parliament the Select Committee on Procedure submitted a number of important reports suggesting changes and improvements in our procedure? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate so that the Government may become aware of the wishes of the House in this matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: I ask my right hon. Friend to await what I hope to say in a speech later this evening in the debate on the Address, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Coal Industry Bill is to be reintroduced?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing further to add to what I said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition last week.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend tell us who in the House of Commons will answer for the arts part of the Ministry of Education and Science? Will he, when giving the name of whoever will answer, say whether whoever does answer will be able to deal with questions in depth, because I am very interested in the arts and I might want to put some rather tricky questions?
Mr. Whitelaw: The answer is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am sure that, in view of her sex, my hon. Friend will be extremely pleased that they may have one against the other. My right hon. Friend is certainly able to answer in depth.
Mr. C. Pannell: The Leader of the House will remember that some years ago we had a report from the Select Committee
850
on parliamentary privilege which was not implemented in the last Parliament. Is it likely to be implemented in this Parliament?
Mr. Whitelaw: I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to await what I have to say tonight, if I have an opportunity to make a speech, on the whole subject of Select Committees and parliamentary procedures.
Sir C. Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 5 which has been signed by more than 40 hon. Members from both sides of the House?
[That the matter of the style and title of the honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed be referred to the Committee of Privileges.]
Would my right hon. Friend be prepared for this matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have read the Motion, which I have before me now. I am advised by the House authorities that this is not an appropriate matter for consideration by the Select Committee of Privileges. I am, however, willing to have the issue re-examined.
Mr. Michael Foot: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) about the Early Day Motion on the rights of Members of Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the extreme urgency of this situation because of the denial of rights at the present time to the people of mid-Ulster, particularly as two of the most provocative marches proposed for Monday are to take place in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)? Does he not think that this matter should be dealt with by the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have said that I shall examine how best these matters can be considered. I do not think that it would be wise for me to go any further than that now.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when the Statutory Instrument giving effect to the white fish and herring subsidies will be

851
published, and can he give us an assurance that we shall be able to discuss this Statutory Instrument before the House rises?
Mr. Whitelaw: I must admit that I do not know much about this, but I shall inform myself. I cannot give an answer until I have done so.
Mr. Orme: Reverting to the question of the proposed deputation to Northern Ireland which my right hon. Friend raised with the Leader of the House, and the decision of the Home Secretary not to proceed with it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any Government Ministers are to observe the Orange parades on Monday? May we have a report to the House next week following these demonstrations?
Mr. Whitelaw: I understand from my right hon. Friend that there will not be any Government Ministers observing the marches. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is most anxious to keep the House informed of any developments, and will certainly do so.
Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of people, including some of my constituents, are in considerable difficulty as a result of the uncertainty surrounding transactions in which they have been involved with the Land Commission? May we have a statement next week to clarify the matter.
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot promise a statement on that subject next week.
Mr. Swain: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 6 dealing with what is reckoned to be one of the most important issues that will face the country this coming winter?
[That this House is deeply concerned at the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to publish the Coal Industry Bill prepared by the previous Government; and urges that whilst the National Union of Mineworkers Conference is in session in the Isle of Man this week a decision be announced forthwith on a matter of such crucial importance to the mining industry.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to find time for a debate on this important subject? If not, will he draw to
852
the attention of his right hon. Friend the fact that a statement is urgently needed before the recess starts a fortnight from today?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have said before that I recognise the important issues involved in this Motion. I have said that I cannot today add to what I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition last week, and I must stand by that.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On this important question, while last week we understood, since he had been given notice of the question only the day before, or as soon as we saw the Queen's Speech, surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that a whole week's delay in being unable to say anything at all will arouse suspicions, not that he has not had time to look at it, but that the Government are hedging on this important issue which has been before the House for some time? Is he saying that it is being reconsidered and the Government do not propose to continue the help that we have been giving to the coal industry at this critical time?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that the Government are considering their legislative programme, as they are entitled to do, and I can remember many occasions during the last six years when it took a great deal longer for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to produce various Bills in the House.
Mr. Braine: While noting with satisfaction that my right hon. Friend intends to make a statement about Select Committees in general, may I ask whether he is aware that in the last Parliament the Select Committee on Overseas Aid took a great deal of evidence, much of it abroad, and that its report is now in draft? In order that this valuable work should not be wasted, will my right hon. Friend consider putting down a Motion next week to create a new Select Committee with the task of reporting urgently?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the important work carried out by this Select Committee during the last Parliament. I must, however, ask my hon. Friend to await what I hope to say tonight if I get an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Foreign and

853
Commonwealth Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about his meeting yesterday with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Dr. Hillery? His colleague was beside himself before that meeting to give the House his views about Dr. Hillery. Could he now be brought to the House to tell us the outcome of the meeting?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall represent to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman said, but I could not possibly promise that he will find it necessary to make a statement.
Sir G. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend perceived that Early Day Motion No. 6 on the coal industry has been heavily revised from this side of the House and the Amendment has been signed by a large number of my hon. Friends and myself?
[Line 1, leave out from 'House' to the end insert 'notes that the Coal Industry Bill, prepared by the previous Government, achieved a Second Reading without division on 9th April, 1970, and that for the ensuing 50 days the previous Government took no action to secure progress thus relegating the Measure to low priority, notwithstanding the then Opposition supporting the Bill on Second Reading; and deplores the dilatoriness of the late Government in not securing passage of this important Measure to the Statute Book in more than seven weeks at their disposal between 9th April and Dissolution of the last Parliament on 29th May 1970, which was ample time to complete the Measure.']
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his legislative intentions are not in question, but that the issue really is whether Lord Robens is to be allowed to increase coal prices by 10 per cent.—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a business question. We cannot debate the merits either of the Motion or of the Amendment. The hon. Member can ask for time.
Sir G. Nabarro: May I come to the question? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will undertake to ensure that a statement is made before the recess on the future of this Bill, and the fact that we will not have any coal price increases during the long recess?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it would be extremely unwise for me on a purely business question to enter into policy matters of that sort. I have made it clear that the Government are considering the whole question surrounding the Bill as put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I would not wish, therefore, to get involved in a controversy at this stage. I think this shows how wise the Government are to consider very carefully how best to proceed in this matter.
Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up next week the Services Committee, or whatever machinery he wishes to replace it with, to deal with accommodation facilities and the problems of new Members, and also the difficulties which some of our late colleagues have found after leaving the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: May I break with what I have been saying about Select Committees and dealing with things in my statement later on by saying that I hope to see the Services Committee set up next week.
Mr. Palmer: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will put down a Motion for the reappointment of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the important work of which was rather rudely interrupted by the General Election?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can blame me for that rude interruption. I am afraid that on this occasion I must again return to asking the hon. Gentleman to await what I hope to say later this evening.
Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more forthcoming about the possible resumption date of the House after the Summer Recess? If he cannot give us the date, will he at least give us the month—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or the year."]—as the belief is spreading that not only is there not to be instant Government, but possibly there is not to be instant Parliament?
Mr. Whitelaw: On this occasion I shall return to a time honoured and well-worn phrase—not next week.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why we are rising

855
as early as 24th July? Could it be that the Government have been caught on the hop and have nothing ready.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not drift into the merits of why. He can ask why, without comment.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the function of an Opposition is to provide an alternative instant and effective Government at any time?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is entirely for the hon. Gentleman to discuss with his right hon. and hon. Friends what sort of opposition they ought to provide. On the question of the date of rising for the Summer Recess, the hon. Gentleman might like to consult the precedents of the last two years when his party was in power. He will find that they were not substantially different from this one.
Mr. Jay: Can we expect that next week Ministers will be in their places and ready to answer Questions at the proper time?
Mr. Whitelaw: Most certainly, yes.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that before 24th July the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on the supply of arms to South Africa. Second, can the right hon. Gentleman say what form the debate on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will take a week come Monday? Will it go on all through the night? I certainly hope it will.
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when he was answering Questions earlier on the subject to which he referred in the first part of his question. How long the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, devoted to subjects raised by private Members, continues depends entirely on the number of subjects put down for debate by private Members.
Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we get a statement early next week on the Prime Minister's undertaking to give a 30 per cent. pay rise to doctors and reinstitute the Kindersley
856
Committee, preferably before we start the debate on Monday afternoon?
Mr. Whitelaw: I never understood any right hon. Friend to give such an undertaking. I cannot promise that a statement will be made next week. There will be ample opportunity in the debate on Monday for hon. Members to raise this and other matters.
Mr. Jennings: May I take it that we shall have frequent interim reports on the progress of the Common Market negotiations? If so, will the reports be debatable? Alternatively, will we have a number of debates on the Common Market proposals before the House is asked to make a final decision?
Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers have promised that the fullest reports will be made to Parliament on the progress of the negotiations. Exactly when and how we shall have debates must depend on how matters proceed. It will be much better to wait to see how we get on.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: As we almost had a statement after Questions in answer to Written Question No. 11, and in view of the importance of the subject, may we have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on the dangerous situation in the docks?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will be most anxious to keep the House fully informed of the situation, and I understand that, if appropriate, he would be pleased to make a statement to the House tomorrow. Naturally, all of us on both sides of the House hope very much that reason will prevail and that the threatened trouble will not take place.
Mr. Ifor Davies: In view of the comprehensive speech which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated he will make tonight, will he find time, if not tonight then next week, to explain why the Government have reduced the number of three Ministers for Welsh affairs which we had in the Labour Government to two, thereby affronting the people of Wales?
Mr. Whitelaw: Simply because we believe that two Members on this side of the House can do what three Members on the benches opposite did.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It sounds as if the right hon. Gentleman is drifting into merits.
Mr. Hattersley: As the Minister of State at the Department of Employment and Productivity announced yesterday the date by which the new Industrial Relations Bill will pass into law, may we soon be told the date on which it will be presented?
Mr. Whitelaw: I was not aware that my hon. Friend had many any such statement.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it the intention that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will answer Questions on the arts, or will she delegate that matter to a second Minister? Will both Ministers act as subsidiaries to the Minister in the other place, and will there be three people in place of one on this side of the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I find the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question somewhat complicated. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will normally answer Questions on the arts in this House. Naturally, as with all other Ministers, she may occasionally delegate Questions to one of her junior Ministers.
Mr. Albu: Further to the question of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), does the Leader of the House intend to move for the reappointment of the Select Committee on Procedure so that it can continue and finalise its report on the scrutiny of taxation and finance?
Mr. Whitelaw: I ask the hon. Gentleman to await what I hope to say tonight.
Mr. Kaufman: As the National Insurannce (Old Persons' and Widows' Pension and Attendance Allowance) Bill has proved how quickly the Government can frame and put through legislation, would the right hon. Gentleman agree to rearrange next week's business so as to allow for the introduction of a Bill to abolish selective employment tax and thus
858
carry out the Prime Minister's pledge that it will be abolished this Session?
Mr. Whitelaw: May I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman in his new rôle under which he has to live with us instead of looking down upon us? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister never promised that selective employment tax would be abolished this Session, and certainly a Bill to abolish it will not be introduced next week.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend did say that selective employment tax would be abolished in the first Budget? He said it last February. If the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that there will not be a Budget at all in this Session, will he tell us when we can expect a Budget?
Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally I should have thought that there would be a Budget in this Session. I would prefer to rest on my party's manifesto for the General Election in which we made it perfectly clear that this was a programme for a Parliament. We intend to carry out what we said in our manifesto, unlike the Labour Party.
Mr. Judd: Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) about the future of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, would the right hon. Gentleman, in preparing his remarks for tonight, bear in mind that in view of the considerable public expense involved in the work of the Committee last year, it would be a pity to deny the House and the public the benefit or dividend of a considered report?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the very important work done by the Committee. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that I will say anything tonight to suggest that this work would be in any way lost to the House.
Mr. Small: Would the right hon. Gentleman give regular weekly reports on the recruitment of executive business men as a Cabinet task force? What is their rôle in relation to the Civil Service?
Mr. Whitelaw: That is not a question for me or a matter for next week's business.
Mr. McManus: In view of the very serious nature of affairs in Northern Ireland, and particularly the fact that, due to the provocative Orange parades, there may be considerable trouble over the weekend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift into argument. He must put a question on business.
Mr. McManus: Would the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for a debate on Northern Ireland?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is most anxious to keep the House fully informed about events in Northern Ireland. That he will certainly do. I do not wish to go further than that today.
Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been an extensive report made by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? When does he intend to place it before the House for debate?
Mr. Whitelaw: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await what I have to say tonight. Very soon everyone else will have as much anxiety about the remarks that I am to make tonight as I have myself.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (DEBATES)
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will help hon. Members if I remind them that for the debate on Monday, 20th July, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill they may hand in to my office by 9.30 on the morning of Friday, 17th July, their names and the topics which they would wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. Hon. Members should give their full name plus the topic. Hon. Members may hand in only their own names and topics. I shall put out the result of the ballot later on Friday, 17th July.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
  [SIXTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2nd July]:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both House of Parliament.—[Mr. Blaker.]
  Question again proposed.

  REGIONAL PLANNING
  Mr. Speaker: We shall be debating today the Amendment in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends. I say at the outset that I am sorry that again I must disappoint many of the 16 hon. Members who wish to make maiden speeches today. The House appreciates their keenness and their wish to speak as soon as possible, but it will take some time before every one of them can be fitted into debates. Older hon. Members know how frustrating it is for them, but we must make balanced debates as we go on.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Crosland: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
  but humbly regret the omission from the Gracious Speech of any proposals to maintain the previous Government's policies to strengthen the development and intermediate areas, to maintain and reinforce regional economic planning and to strengthen and modernise the basic industries on which employment in those areas depends.
  I start by congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman on becoming Minister of Technology. He has something of a reputation for Right-wing bellicosity, and his appointment came as something of a surprise. But it is none the less the worse for that, and I hope that the fact that his constituency is near some of the biggest problem areas of

  861
  the Northern Region will cause his bellicosity to give way to the compassion about which we hear so much more now from the party opposite. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have successful and fruitful tenure of office.
  Regional policy, which we debate today, has this in common with education, which we debated yesterday; it was one of the success stories of the Labour Government, but it is one of the successes most at risk under a Tory Government. I want today to probe the new Government's intentions for the regions in the hope that they are innocent but in the fear that they may not be.
  We have two problems in the regions. The first is the one that always, and rightly, causes the most immediate and acute anxieties—the problem of unemployment; the problem of how we ensure that those who live in the North, Scotland, Wales, the South-West and the intermediate areas, shall have the same chance of a secure and well-paid job and the same social and economic opportunities as those who live in the more prosperous areas. Fundamentally this is a problem of equality between the regions.
  But we have a second problem, which is more long-term but not less important, namely, how regional planning can contribute to what will increasingly become our overriding problem between now and the end of the century—how we cope, between now and then, with 12 million additional people, double or more the number of cars, an insatiable demand for more space, leisure and recreation, and more and more pollution from more and more factories, and still preserve in this small island a decent environment to live in. It is a problem, in other words, of physical planning, land use or environmental planning—call it what you will.
  There is one comment that I must make. It has been said about the recent General Election that there was too little discussion of the basic issues and that the public could not see much difference between the two parties. Whether they could or could not during the General Election, they will certainly see it in the months ahead, for one thing that these regional problems have in common is that they raise profound issues of principle
  862
  and ideology, in attitudes to public expenditure, to control over industry and generally to planning. These are problems that cannot and will not be solved by a Government committed to the ideology of laissez-faire, non-intervention and market forces—an ideology that runs through the Queen's Speech.
  Before I turn to the question of differences in policy, I want to say a word about machinery of government. The House spends too little time discussing this. I have become convinced, in six years of office, that the subject is crucial, and that unless we get the machinery right we shall not get the policy right. The Prime Minister says that he wants time to think about machinery. That is reasonable. Nobody could object to it. He is against instant Government, except in housing and education, where the two Ministers concerned have instantly brought out the two most fatuous reactionary and ill-thought-out circulars that it has ever been my misfortune to see. The Minister of Housing, in particular, has clearly attempted to be instant in everything, except in attending the House to answer Questions.
  But however worthy the Prime Minister's caution, the indications that have appeared so far give little confidence in what will ultimately emerge. This applies to every level of government—local, regional and national. At local level we are to have a postponement of local government reorganisation; indeed, there is complete uncertainty what, if anything, will happen then.
  I have personal sympathy with the Minister of Housing in this matter. I found, when I presented my White Paper to the House in February—although the discovery hardly came as a surprise—that local government reform is not the quickest way to the top of the popularity poll, although, if it is any comfort to the Minister, the recent election suggested that there are few votes to be lost by it. But, popular or not, it has to be done, and done as a matter of emergency. At the moment not one local authority in England covers an area that should be planned as a whole. Regional planning must be hampered unless we can get local authorities of the right size and strength. I urge the Government not to delay too long on this vital reform.

  863
  At regional level we have an apparent downgrading—almost a snubbing—of the regional economic planning councils. These councils may not be perfect—and no doubt we shall reconsider their rôle when Crowther reports—but they represent the first attempt in this country to create machinery for regional planning, and they have made the Government and the public much more responsive to regional problems and aspirations. In my view they are one of the major achievements of the Labour Government, and I pay tribute to their creator, George Brown—that remarkable man whose loss to this House deeply saddens me and many other hon. Members for many other reasons.
  The planning councils were not mentioned in the Queen's Speech or in the Prime Minister's speech last week, although he had a passage on regional planning. It was only through a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on Tuesday that we elicited any reference to them. Then we discovered that they were to be responsible, not as previously to a senior co-ordinating Minister, but only to one Departmental Minister. I shudder to think what the morale of the councils must be at this moment.
  But this is not the only sign that regional policy is being demoted under this Government. Another is the failure to appoint a Minister with special responsibility for the North. The Northern Region has a particularly difficult unemployment problem, due to the exceptional rate of pit closures. Scotland and Wales also have difficult problems, but they have articulate Secretaries of State to stand up for them—or at least they were articulate under the Labour Government, with the Welsh Secretary—wonderful to relate—actually sitting for a Welsh constituency. We therefore found it helpful to have a Minister who would speak specially for the North—a task admirably fulfilled by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin). I greatly regret that this arrangement, which was much appreciated in the North, has now been terminated in this cavalier fashion.
  In passing, I urge the Prime Minister not also to terminate or demote the Central Pollution Unit, which I set up
  864
  under the leadership of Dr. Martin Holdgate. It accomplished a lot during its comparatively short life, culminating in an admirable White Paper which the New Scientist described as "a unique and historic document". I thought—though prejudiced—that that was a good description. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) used to take a mild interest in this question when in opposition, but he has now been translated to a higher sphere, where he will horribly pollute the environment by allowing commercial radio which nobody wants except those who expect to make a profit from it.
  I hope that one of the Ministers on the Front Bench will remind the Prime Minister that he once wrote an article in the Spectator on pollution and the environment. It was not a very inspiring article; indeed, the editor of the Spectator was sacked shortly afterwards. Nevertheless, I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government will not allow the impetus that we created to be lost or weakened.
  My last point on the machinery of government—and I urge this most strongly on the Government—is not to go back to the old system under which regional planning was divorced from local authority planning. One of the great improvements that came out of the changes last October was the amalgamation of the D.E.A. regional divisions and the planning divisions of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government into a single planning group of divisions responsible directly to me. We do not know officially what the Prime Minister intends on this. We shall apparently have to wait until the autumn. There is a remarkable thing about this Government. Although we do not have instant decisions from them we have instant leaks. Indeed, this strong, silent Government, so deliberate in their decision-making, give promise of being the leakiest Government in modern history. So we read in The Times business section of 3rd July:
  "Mr. Heath is understood to have taken a firm decision on making the Board of Trade into a ministry for the regions.
  Responsibility for … the regional economic planning councils will be transferred to the Board of Trade this autumn.
  The move is considered to be an easy and logical first step in planning the new

  865
  functions of the department, splitting off these two responsibilities from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government."
  This may be an easy first step, but it is not a logical one. I yield to no one in my devotion to the Board of Trade, being—like all really distinguished politicians—an ex-President of it. Nor am I concerned to argue now the merits of the solution which we would have adopted—a complete amalgamation of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Transport and the Ministry of Public Building and Works—though I see great merit in it. I am concerned only to avoid a divorce between regional planning and the planning functions of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is a recipe for disorder and confusion.
  If this went through we would have the Board of Trade responsible for the regional plans coming from the planning councils and communicating to the regional economic planning councils the Government's views on regional policy. Yet another Department, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, would be responsible for policies inseparable from regional planning, for the structure plans of local authorities under the 1968 Act, for overspill decisions, decisions on new towns and expanded towns, and a host of major planning decision which are relevant to regional planning. It would be worse than that, because in some regions joint conferences of local authorities are now themselves engaged in regional or sub-regional planning alongside the regional economic planning councils. The Minister has just received the report of the South-East Joint Planning Team, a team drawn jointly from Government, the Regional Employment Planning Council, and the local authorities. Under the proposed new set-up this report would have to go to two separate Ministers, to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing. That cannot be a sensible organisation of government.
  Take the situation in another region, the West Midlands. Many hon. Members will know the difficulties there due to the fact that two separate bodies, the regional economic planning council and the standing joint council of local authorities, were each drawing up separate regional plans in isolation from each other. Since last
  866
  October it has been much easier to get co-operation between them because one Minister was responsible for both the regional economic planning councils and local authorities. The proposed change would plunge us back again into the old confusions.
  I am sure that our object must be to draw regional planning and local authority planning closer together. This we did last October by the changes made then, but the Prime Minister's proposal, if confirmed, would put the clock back very seriously. All that I can gather about machinery of government changes fills me with foreboding on behalf of the regions, but that is nothing to the foreboding I feel when we turn to the likely policies for the regions. Both the Prime Minister last week and Treasury Ministers on Tuesday refused to go into any detail about these policies, on investment grants, R.E.P. and the rest.
  Now we accept the Prime Minister's feeling against instant government, but this excuse is going to wear very threadbare very soon. Tory Ministers, when in opposition, consistently attacked our regional policies, so presumably they have alternative ones of their own. They had plenty of time in opposition to work them out. We used to hear of all the study groups which were furiously at work. Strong hints came out from Selsdon Park and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made specific proposals in a debate as long ago as last January.
  So there is no excuse for leaving the development areas and industrial areas in a state of total uncertainty until the autumn. Industrialists are taking investment decisions every day of the week. They certainly will not decide to go to a development area if they have no idea what the financial arrangements are to be, whether they will get investment grants or allowances, whether R.E.P. is to be terminated, and so on. I warn the Government that a delay of several months in announcing their policies could have the most serious effect on the prospects of the regions, and indeed, on investment generally. We must know where we stand—quickly, preferably this afternoon.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman said that industrialists would be deterred from going

  867
  to development areas while there is uncertainty about investment incentives. Is he aware that last week we had the largest single proposal, involving a substantial number of jobs for men, that we have had on Tayside for more than six years and, despite all these uncertainties, the announcement was made within a week of the Government being formed? Does not that suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is making a feeble point?
  Mr. Crosland: I should like to know the details of that decision, but it is obvious, from what the hon. Member has said, that this must have been planned and effectively signed a very long time ago.
  What we can gather, although only from limited information, about likely Tory policies is enough to make us extremely uneasy. First, the I.D.C. control is to be kept, but it is to be operated more flexibly. That can mean only one thing—more I.D.C.s in the South-East and the Midlands and fewer firms steered into the development areas. In other words, a gradual erosion of the control at the behest of the C.B.I. and other private enterprise bodies.
  Secondly, investment grants are to be replaced by investment allowances with a differential in favour of the development areas, but with no hint as to the rate of allowance or the size of the differential. There is no mention of the advantages of investment grant quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. D. Reed) and which apply particularly in the development areas—that they help new enterprises which have not yet begun to earn profits and that the money comes in more quickly as new firms have incurred their expenditure. Many hon. Members from development areas can testify to the strength of the investment grant incentive, not only in bringing new firms into those areas but—equally important—in encouraging existing firms to expand.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Crosland: No, I will not give way now. Mr. Speaker has said that many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate and I wish to carry the argument a little further.
  868
  Certainly no Minister who tours the development areas and sees the new factories and factory extensions can doubt their effectiveness. It would be a tragedy if they were done away with.
  Thirdly, investment grants need obviously to be balanced by R.E.P. I think it is generally agreed that when we had only a capital inducement there was a danger of attracting only capital-intensive projects in areas where the central problem was a surplus of labour. It was the whole point of R.E.P. to redress the balance and give a direct subsidy to labour costs and the employment of labour. It is interesting to note that last year about the same amount was paid out in investment grant differential and R.E.P.—about £100 million in each case. That, I should have thought, is a good balance.
  But the Government are pledged to phase out R.E.P. Do they really mean this—first to weaken the capital incentive and then to eliminate the employment subsidy? Is nothing to be put in its place? What will happen to shipbuilding, to heavy engineering, to other industries on which the development areas depend and which have benefited so dramatically from R.E.P.? The outlook for these areas begins to look very ominous.
  We are to have a more flexible system of grants under the Local Employment Acts. That is what the Tory manifesto states. I cannot think what "more flexible" means unless it means less generous. There is the doubt over the future of the intermediate areas. The Tory manifesto says:
  "…these powers"—
  powers under the Local Employment Acts—
  "will also be used where appropriate in the intermediate areas."
  But what does "where appropriate" mean? Does it mean a change of policy compared with the one we were pursuing? There is considerable anxiety in these areas, and the matter needs to be cleared up very soon—indeed, in the speech we are to listen to next.
  There is the anxiety over the future of the Coal Industry Bill, one of the most humane Measures introduced by the Labour Government. It helped the coal industry and, above all, cushioned the very harsh effect of pit closures on the

  869
  redundant older mineworkers. There was some discussion during business question time on this matter, and there is a Motion on the Order Paper signed by many of my hon. Friends—in fact, by all my hon. Friends who represent mining constituencies. They have deep feelings and long memories on this topic. I cannot see why the Government should delay before letting the House know their intentions on the Bill.
  There is the uncertainty over the future of the steel industry, an industry crucial to the prosperity of many parts of the development areas. Under nationalisation, despite occasional frictions, the British Steel Corporation paid close attention to regional considerations when making its investment decisions. But we are now told in the Tory manifesto that:
  "An increasing use of private capital will help to … get better investment decisions…"
  Better for whom?—better for the private shareholder, or for the development areas?
  I cannot believe that the Tories are really so bemused by their faith in market forces and Adam Smith's "invisible hand" that they think that the two are identical. The Stock Exchange has not become quite so indifferent to profit and quite so ardent for regional policy. I warn the House that if private capital comes to influence the decisions of the steel industry the outlook for regional policy is very black indeed.
  Coal, steel—there are also other industries and firms whose future is at stake: U.C.S., Cammell Laird, Palmers Hebburn. All were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on Tuesday night, and I shall not repeat what he said.
  When we raise these doubts and anxieties we are met by the answer, "Well, it will all be all right, because we shall improve the infrastructure and the environment in the less prosperous areas, and this will attract new industry." I wish I believed that.
  As to the infrastructure—the houses, roads, schools, hospitals, new and expanded towns, urban redevelopment and the rest—I gave figures in our debate on 6th May to show that under a Labour Government spending on infrastructure in the development areas had increased not only absolutely but also relative to the
  870
  rest of the country. Are the Government really going to do better than this on the infrastructure? Are we to have still higher programmes for all those spending Departments, for transport, education, housing and health? Of course not, because the Chancellor will not allow it. It would be totally inconsistent with all that he said on Tuesday about the future of public expenditure.
  As for their promises on the environment, what the Queen's Speech called improving the amenities of these areas, I find these particularly incredible in the light of the record. Take derelict land, the biggest blot on the landscape in many of these areas. In 1945 the post-war Labour Government initiated the system of grants to local authorities for clearing derelict land. In 1951, when the Tories returned, one of their first actions was to suspend all grants, and they remained suspended until 1959. They were resumed in 1960, but only for the narrowly-drawn development districts. Today, by contrast, we have 85 per cent. grants for the development areas, 75 per cent. in the intermediate areas, and 50 per cent. in the whole of the rest of the country.
  In the last year of Conservative rule the amount actually spent on clearing derelict land was negligible. Last year it was £2 million, this year it will be about £3 million, and I had established the programme for raising it to £6 million in 1973–74, a programme which I hope, without too much optimism, will escape the Chancellor's axe. In the light of this record, we should be grateful not to have any more talk about over-riding Tory concern for the environment.
  The regional problem is deep-seated and intractable. It has been with us since the end of the First World War. It is fundamentally a legacy of laissez-faire capitalism, which, because it rejected planning, had not the means, even if it had the will, to offset the decline of the older industries in the North, Scotland and Wales.
  The problem has, if anything, grown more intractable in recent years. If we take seven of our older industries on which the development areas are heavily dependent—coal, railways, agriculture, textiles, steel, shipbuilding and the ports—the total drop in employment in them from mid-1964 to mid-1969 was 678,000.

  871
  In the previous five-year period it was 466,000, one-third less. So we faced a structural change, almost a convulsion, of quite unusual magnitude. Without the vigorous measures which we introduced we should have had unemployment of disastrous proportions.
  As it was, we spent large sums of money on preferential assistance to those less prosperous regions—over £310 million in 1969–70, far more than was spent in the last year of Conservative rule, whatever allowance is made for the grants and allowances, and we established a battery of controls and incentives, on which the comments of the O.E.C.D. are of some interest. In a very recent report, "Manpower Policy—the United Kingdom", discussing development area policy, it said:
  "There has been a remarkable display of ingenuity in the approach to regional economic development in Britain Many of the measures…recommended themselves to the close attention of other industrialised nations with serious regional development problems…a great variety of individual development instruments is available…Taken together, they form an impressive tool-kot for fostering industrial growth in the DAs."
  That is quite a tribute from an international organisation that has not been reluctant to criticise British government policy. I hope that Minister's concerned with these matters will read the report in detail.
  As a result of the spending and of that battery of measures, although we certainly did not solve the problem, we made positive and substantial progress. Unemployment in the development areas remains higher than the national average, but since 1964 there has been a marked improvement in their position relative to the national average. In 1964, 48 per cent. of the total unemployed were in the development areas. By this spring the figure had fallen to 36 per cent., and their industrial base is infinitely stronger, more varied and more secure than it was in 1964.
  The question is whether the new Government can possibly maintain this progress. Here our doubts and anxieties relate not only to the individual policies which I have mentioned and to Tory pronouncements on them, but even more to the basic philosophy which underlies
  872
  the Queen's Speech and which, as the Minister of State, Treasury, made so abundantly clear when winding-up on Tuesday, differs fundamentally from ours.
  I sum up my fears in this way. First, I do not believe that the problem of the less prosperous areas can ever be solved by a Government so totally committed to cuts in public expenditure, including regional expenditure. Whether the cuts fall on investment incentives, on R.E.P. or L.E.A. assistance, they must cause serious damage in the regions.
  Second, I do not believe that a party so committed to laissez-faire, to non-intervention, to a belief in market forces, can have an effective regional policy. It was, after all, market forces which created the regional problem, and if we revert to market forces now industry will once again pour into the South-East and Midlands at the expense of the development and intermediate areas. It is only deliberate planning and intervention that can create a proper balance and equality between the regions.
  Third, I do not believe that a party so close to private industry, so wedded to profit maximisation, so partial to unbridled free enterprise, can adequately protect or create a decent environment for British citizens to live in. The threats to our environment, the threats of urban sprawl, the motor car, industrial dereliction, pollution of the air and of inland waters and the sea can be averted only by strict planning and subjecting industry to communal control.
  The Prime Minister said in a speech last weekend that he had a vision about the British people, what some people, he said, called an impossible dream. I am glad that he did. All politicians should have their visions and occasionally we should all lift our eyes to the rather longer-term future. But a vision is useful only if it embraces the means of achieving it, and the vision which I have and I am sure the Prime Minister has is a vision of shared prosperity in all the regions, a vision of a total environment fit for the British people to live in. This vision is not consistent with Tory policies as now displayed. For the sake of the country, I hope that these policies will change. If they do not, the country will pay a heavy price for the choice it made on 18th June.
  4.31 p.m.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) for the generous way in which he referred to me and to my new appointment. I am grateful to him also, as I am sure the House will be, for the valuable contribution which he has made to the discussion on changes in the machinery of Government which, after six years in office, the previous Administration were considering making. What he has to say about that showed how necessary it is for all of us to deliberate about these matters in a calm and sensible way and not attempt to reach instant conclusions.
  Early in the debate on the Address, the Leader of the Opposition promised the House that he and his colleagues would not
  "be tempted to censure and negative opposition for opposition's sake. We shall wait for each new development of policy, wait watchfully and keenly, but we shall not rush into condemnation for the sake of it"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 57.]
  In the light of that perfectly reasonable assurance, it is a little disappointing that the Opposition have so hastily proposed this Amendment, which represents an early reversal of Opposition policy, accustomed as we became in the last Parliament to these rapid turnabouts.
  I welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's contribution on the subject of the machinery of Government, but I was disappointed in what he has to say on the whole subject of regional development, because he showed no disposition to consider that some of the measures which the previous Administration followed might be amended with advantage and might be considered with an open mind. [Interruption.] Hon. Members intervene to say that we do not know what they are, but in that case why did they put down a Motion of censure on the subject?
  The truth is, and every hon. Member recognises this, that these are important issues affecting the lives and welfare of the people, and we must debate alternative policies on their merits and with proper regard to the facts. Labour Members must start by accepting that by the will of the people there has been a change of Government, and that means
  874
  that there will be new and different policies. But the policies will be laid before Parliament and brought forward in a considered way, bearing in mind that it frequently takes more than two weeks to fulfil a five-year Parliamentary programme.
  However, although this is a censure debate, we need not differ about the objectives. After all, it was the present Prime Minister who, as Secretary of State for Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade in 1963, gave great impetus to regional development and regional policies, and it was the present Lord Chancellor who gave his name to the Hailsham Plan for the North-East and pioneered the Government's determination, expressed in the Gracious Speech, to
  "stimulate lone-term growth in the less prosperous areas by increasing their economic attractions and improving their amenities".
  The House and the country may be assured that the Government regard an effective regional development policy as a vital element in their economic and social strategy; in their economic strategy because everyone, in prosperous and less prosperous areas alike, suffers from the present regional imbalance and the waste of resources it involves; in their social strategy because we are not prepared to tolerate the human waste of unemployment, dereliction and decline.
  We propose, therefore, and we have made this quite clear, to retain the present development and intermediate area boundaries unless and until the problems of any particular area are on the way to solution. But the important thing is that the policy should be effective. Effectiveness is determined not, as the Opposition always suggest, just by the amount of public money spent, but by the value obtained for it. By that test, the Labour Government demonstrated for six years how not to run a regional policy.
  The one inescapable fact, to which, of course, the right hon. Gentleman made no reference, in the last six years was that whereas in June, 1964, there were in Great Britain just over 300,000 unemployed, a figure which had been about the average for the previous 13 years, there were well over 500,000 people unemployed in June, 1970, of whom almost 200,000 were in development areas. That

  875
  hardly constitutes an argument for leaving the last Administration's policies absolutely unaltered as though they represented the only word on regional policy.
  Those policies have shown that subsidies cannot bring prosperity to the regions if the national economy is stagnant. This is the situation we face today and with which we have been faced for the past few years. We have also seen that indiscriminate assistance like the regional employment premium not only wastes resources, but actually aggravates the problem of neighbouring areas without solving those of development areas. We also feel that it is wrong and wasteful to pay out automatic subsidies for projects regardless of how many jobs they provide and whether the firms concerned would have gone there anyway.
  In considering the level and form of direct assistance to industry in the development and intermediate areas, the Government will be bringing forward new proposals in due course. As we are not satisfied that all the incentives at present provided give good value for money, we shall closely examine the various financial inducements to industry currently available in the assisted areas.
  But it should be understood—and this is the answer to those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, feel that this necessary review of policy must not take place because it will create uncertainty—that the Government will honour existing commitments, commitments entered into, on the basis of which firms and individuals have made their plans. For example, we do not consider that the regional employment premium has lived up to the claims made for it when it was introduced.
  This gentle bonus, falling like gentle rain from the heavens above on all industrialists in development areas was, so we were told, calculated to narrow the unemployment gap within three to five years. We have said consistently that it was wasteful and would not work, and there is no evidence that it has worked, certainly no evidence in the unemployment figures, and we shall phase it out. But we shall phase it out taking account of existing obligations and commitments.
  In this case, as with all other forms of assistance, we all recognise that transitional ararngements have to be made.
  876
  There is no need, therefore, for any firm or industry to feel the degree of uncertainty which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. If there are such industries or firms, I have no doubt that they will make their direct representations to the Government.
  Meanwhile, industry knows that we intend to retain the differential investment incentives for development areas and shipbuilding but by way of tax reductions or allowances in preference to grants. It is also known that indiscriminate assistance will no longer be given automatically to capital-intensive projects which provide few jobs and would be likely to go to the area in any case. We also intend to give fairer treatment to service industries and commerce which also plays a big part in the development areas.
  Industry knows this and generally recognises that the Government approach is just, responsible and sensible. In linking assistance to industry more closely with the provision of new jobs we intend to make fuller use of the powers available under the Local Employment Acts which stem from the Measure introduced by the Conservative Government in 1960 and which, all parties accept, has proved an efficient and flexible instrument of regional development policy.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the new plans will come out in due course. Could he be a little more precise about what that means? When does he hazard that these new plans will be forthcoming?
  Mr. Rippon: Before long.
  In parallel with all of this we will use some of the savings achieved from changes in investment incentives to accelerate improvements in the attractions and amenities of the less prosperous areas. Experience has shown, and this is true of my own area in the North-East, that one of the best ways of attracting new industry is by the provision, for example of airports and better road communications. The House and the country should bear in mind that much of the work for which the Labour Government claimed credit, such as the provision of Woolsington Airport or the provision of new roads was set in hand by the previous Conservative Administration. In the last few years much of the impetus has been lost. I freely admit that it is

  877
  not because of a lack of good intentions on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite but because of the general economic stagnation created by their policies.
  For regional policy to be successful industrialists must want to invest in development areas. Many of the development areas, again like my own, have great natural attraction and many of the towns and cities lie close to scenery of outstanding beauty. It seems to us that the basic aim of regional policy must be to concentrate resources not on indiscriminate assistance but on providing the services and creating the conditions needed for new industrial growth, and that rural as well as urban.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would my right hon. and learned Friend say a word or two more about this? I think he recognises now that those who are almost the worst off in the country are certain of the coastal seaside resorts where unemployment is very much higher than in the development areas, and where there is considerably less prosperity. Will he bear in mind the use that can be made of the Local Employment Acts, a far more flexible instrument than any ever used by the party opposite, to see that we conquer this problem which can be found in practically every one of our major coastal resorts?
  Mr. Rippon: We must not ignore any area in which there are particular difficulties. One of the reasons why we believe in the operation of the Employment Acts is that they are flexible.
  The right hon. Member for Grimsby quite rightly devoted a great part of his speech to the importance of the environment. That is something which is important everywhere not just in development areas. It is of special importance in those areas where the quality of housing is poor, where the amenities are lacking and job opportunities are few.
  We are determined, as the Prime Minister told the House last Thursday, that there shall be effective land-use planning and co-ordination of the activities of government across the board. There will always be a need for co-operation with and advice from local authorities and other bodies as well as with industry. My right hon. Friend
  878
  the Minister of Housing and Local Government is as concerned about this as I am and the Government are determined to promote and work out an appropriate strategic approach to meet the needs of all areas.
  It is not enough that industrialists should want to go to development areas; they must also be able to find there the labour they require. The mere fact that there is unemployment in an area is not a decisive factor in a firm's decision to move and to expand. For instance although unemployment in the Northern Region, I am sad to say, is nearly double what it was in 1964, there is a shortage of skilled labour there as elsewhere. As the North East Development Council Annual Report for 1969–70 commented:
  "The shortage is great because the skills available do not match the skills wanted."
  That is why we have emphasised our determination to improve and extend the facilities for retraining. [Interruption.] This is absolutely essential if we are to correct the situation in which even in areas of considerable unemployment—[Interruption.]—there are large numbers of unfilled vacancies.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter rose—
  Mr. Rippon: Hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite may laugh—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way the hon. Gentleman must sit down.
  Mr. Rippon: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should not laugh about this. It is a very important subject.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I must confess that I have to laugh. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's belongs to a party that actually closed down the training centres. The great job of the Labour Government was to redress that position and training in the northern area now is far higher than ever it was, with a target production of new trainees of over 3,000 per annum. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking nonsense.
  Mr. Rippon: There is nothing nonsensical about the 60,000 people unemployed in the northern area. It is not a great testimony—
  Mr. Leadbitter rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has long experience of the House, that unless the Minister gives way to him he must not interrupt a speaker.
  Mr. Rippon: I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will quarrel now about our determination to move in this matter—[An HON. MEMBER: "We have waited so long."] We have waited at least six years and we will try to put this right. Of course hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have done a great deal. I said that we need not disagree about the objectives. All I am saying is that we attach great importance to this. We have not only to improve but to adapt skills in response to the specific requirements of industry. In all this, as I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, the trade unions have a great part to play, in persuading men and women to accept training in new skills so that they can adapt to changing techniques and prepare for the needs of incoming industry. It is no good providing training facilities if forces are at work which prevent full use being made of them.
  Mr. William Ross: Is this to be done by expanding Government training centres?
  Mr. Rippon: We will take whatever action is appropriate in whatever area is appropriate. I am not so sure, and hon. Members will appreciate that I have only been looking at this for a short time, but as far as the Northern area is concerned I am not so sure that it is necessarily expansion of facilities which is needed. It is not just expenditure of public money and the provision of buildings as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think; it is how the system is used and what goes on within it and the sort of support we can get from management and trade unions in facing up to the problems with which industry has to deal.
  We cannot ask industry to go into development areas, whatever incentives we provide unless we take some collective steps to ensure that the labour force is there.
  Dame Irene Ward rose—
  Mr. Neil Kinnock rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister was giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Kinnock: In view of the emphasis that the right hon. and learned Gentleman places on the provision of training and the supply of adequate labour, can he explain why in 1963–64 there were 200 Government training centre places in the whole of Wales, yet by the beginning of next year there will be 2,000?
  Mr. Rippon: That is some improvement in six years.
  I have been speaking only of the incentive side of our regional development policy. I should like to say something about industrial development certificate control.
  Dame Irene Ward: To deal with the problem of training and what results from it, will it be possible, not today, but perhaps—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to put a point to the Minister. May we have an analysis of the people who have been trained in the training centres, what they were trained for, and what happened to them after training, so that we may know the value of the training schemes which were introduced?
  Mr. Rippon: I will look into that interesting suggestion and see whether the information is available or, if not, whether it can be obtained.
  I have been speaking only of the incentive side of our regional development policies. I now wish to say a few words about industrial development certificate control which, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby pointed out, has proved to be an important element in regional policy and which the Labour Administration inherited, as they inherited so much which was good, from their predecessors. It may well be more important in some cases than grants as a means of encouraging firms to go to the development areas.
  On the other hand, we must ensure that the control operates sensibly and flexibly and not as a deterrent to investment by firms which need to expand on

  881
  existing sites or nearby and which would not move elsewhere in any event. I am, therefore, considering the recommendations of the Hunt Committee, which the previous Administration set up, for raising the exemption limits either generally or in particular areas. It is important that industry should be given clear guidance on the criteria to be applied in dealing with applications for industrial development certificates.
  Apart from the need to attract new industries to the development and intermediate areas, the right hon. Member for Grimsby—and the Amendment raises this issue—spoke of the need to strengthen and modernise the basic industries on which a great deal of employment in these areas depends. Persistently, hon. Members opposite base their speeches on the assumption that the Government are opposed to any assistance in industry which might be construed as intervention. The right hon. Member for Grimsby kept on referring to laissez-faire capitalism. Throughout the nineteenth century, the party which I support opposed Liberal laissez-faire capitalism—each man for himself
  "And bid the devil take the hindmost."
  Mr. John Pardoe: To refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory, may I point out that a very large number of members of the party I represent also opposed laissez-faire capitalism throughout the nineteenth century?
  Mr. Rippon: The party within a party which the hon. Gentleman represents might be more sympathetic to my point of view than some of the other parties in the Liberal Party.
  We are concerned to end unnecessary intervention, and our philosophy can be summed up in the assertion that for us the State is the last and not the first port of call. It is in the traditional industries in the assisted areas that the difference beween the policies and approach of the Government and those of the Opposition is most evident. We all want to see a strong coal industry, a strong shipbuilding industry, a strong heavy engineering industry and a strong steel industry. But, unlike the last Government, we do not believe that any unit in these or other
  882
  major development area industries should be propped up regardless of its long-term efficiency and prospects.
  We intend to continue to give special assistance for particular industries like shipbuilding. Assistance to this industry has been given under the Shipbuilding Industry Act and the review to which the last Government committed themselves in April on the future position and prospects of the industry is now underway. The Opposition clearly accepted that the position had to be reviewed, and we are reviewing it. Meanwhile, I appreciate that the taking of orders by British yards from British shipowners is dependent on the credit scheme, and we are considering the position in the light of it.
  But, looking to the long-term policy, the concern of everybody must be to ensure that British shipbuilding is a viable competitive industry and is not dependent on periodic rescue by public funds. Whatever happens, the Government will bear in mind the transitional problems of reorganisation. But we beleive that the contribution which the industry should be making to the national economy and employment in development areas must be based not on continuing financial assistance to meet losses but on its own efforts and performance.
  The situation of the coal industry has been drastically affected by the swing from surplus production to a tight supply position—another of the so-called benefits of Socialist administration. Now, and for some time to come, only pits which are exhausted or seriously uneconomic will be closed. But looking further ahead, we all know that the reduction of uneconomic capacity will have to be resumed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when replying to Questions on Monday, referred to the urgent consideration which we are giving to the question whether, and if so in what form, we shall introduce a Coal Industry Bill on the lines of the Measure which was lost last Session.
  There are many interlocked issues which are currently affecting the performance of the coal industry and we must consider them before making a definite statement. However, I want to make sure that the scheme for social payment to redundant miners will achieve what is wanted by everybody, namely, that men affected by changes in the

  883
  coal industry are given imaginative and effective help to obtain and adjust to new forms of employment.
  The only other basic industry to which I want to refer is steel. The steel industry is traditionally of great importance to the development areas, with two-fifths of its work force and over half its crude steel output concentrated in Scotland, Wales and the North-East of England. Many changes are taking place, with the most modern plant displacing old and inefficient capacity. The accent on all this development is to enable the industry to become more competitive with overseas industry. Obviously that must be a first priority if the industry is to make its full contribution to our economic progress.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: May we take it that a statement will be made by the right hon. Gentleman's Department before the House rises on 24th July about when and in what form the Coal Industry Bill will be presented to the House?
  Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman must take the statement in the form in which I gave it. We appreciate the problem and we are looking at the position as a matter of high priority.
  We can be grateful that the British Steel Corporation is taking steps to minimise the impact of rationalisation and redundancies, in consultation with Government and regional bodies and the trade unions. That process will continue. I hope that the Opposition, and the House as a whole, will feel that the Amendment is totally unnecessary and can be withdrawn. We all agree about the objectives. The Labour Administration's policy was not so successful that we are not right to try to do something much more effective about unemployment.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that the House will be grateful for the number of times that he has given way. What do the Government intend to do about the gas industry? The gas industry has been waiting for a Bill on reorganisation for about three years. Part of its reorganisation has taken place in the expectation that a Bill would
  884
  be put on the Statute Book. Has my right hon. Friend anything to tell the House about this matter?
  Mr. Rippon: We have inherited a good many problems from the last Administration but not always too many solutions. We inherited a great deal of potential legislation and we are looking at this, including the Measures to which my hon. Friend referred, to see how many of them are justified either at all or in the form in which they have been presented. I have no doubt, however, of the importance of the matter which my hon. Friend raised.
  I should like, in conclusion, to come back to the terms of the Amendment and the speech of the right hon. Member for Grimsby. The trouble with right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that they consistently fail, as they failed when they were in office, to recognise the close connection between the health of the regions and the health of the economy as a whole. That failure has led them into the error, to which I referred, of assuming that regional problems can be solved simply by increasing public expenditure, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. If the economy is not expanding as it should, the number of projects available for location in the development and intermediate areas is automatically restricted.
  In those circumstances—and the present unemployment figures show this—even massive increases in inducements and subsidies create only a marginal increase in industrial mobility. For those of us who live in development areas, any increase, even marginal, is to be welcomed, but it cannot in the long run be sustained in an economic climate of stagnation with large wage increases unrelated to productivity and wild-cat strikes producing not only higher prices but lower profitability and lower investment in industry. If we cannot make industry profitable, if we cannot create a situation in which industry can afford to invest, none of these inducements will in itself be sufficient.
  We intend, as we have said, to strengthen the development and the intermediate areas. We will try to do so—indeed, I am sure we shall succeed—on the basis of sound management of the national economy and not by such a doctrinaire adherence to the measures

  885
  which the last Government introduced and which have not proved, as they, like us, should be willing to accept, as successful as we would wish. We want to restore a sense of responsibility to expenditure on regional development, to be sure that we get good value for the money we spend and to create conditions in which we can ensure that the country as a whole shares in greater prosperity.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity of making my maiden speech so early in this Parliament. I represent North Kensington, a constituency which was for 25 years represented by my friend Mr. George Rogers. It is clear from what has been said to me by a great many hon. Members that he is remembered with great respect and affection here, as he is by a great many of his constituents.
  North Kensington is probably rather better known to the majority of the public as Notting Hill. It is recalled unfortunately, for the disastrous race riots which took place there in 1958. I am happy to be able to tell the House that race relations in Notting Hill have enormously improved during the last 12 years.
  I have lived in my constituency for a long time. I was fortunate in that I represented part of the constituency on the Kensington and Chelsea Council. I know the constituency and its problems very well. The chief of those problems is housing.
  North Kensington is an area with a proportion of council and housing trust property and some fine Georgian terraces and squares. Unfortunately, however, we also have a very large area of decaying Victorian terraced houses. They were built for the middle class but shortly after they were built, because of the railway development, they were occupied by working-class families living in densely multi-occupied conditions and have had few repairs or improvements since. They now contain some of the worst housing that one could find in London. We have a great many of the conditions which the Minister of Housing and Local Government found in Lambeth the week before last. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I consider that the solution
  886
  to the problems which he found in Lambeth, as to the problem which exists in my constituency, lies not so much with the Community Relations Commission as with local authorities throughout the country, his own Ministry and this House.
  Nobody in this House is likely to dispute that the only ultimate solution to the appalling housing conditions which still remain in many parts of the country is the provision of a greater amount of housing. Our differences arise as to the best means of providing it. It is, no doubt, true that we have reached a stage at which there is no longer an absolute shortage of houses throughout the country as a whole. A surplus of houses in the North, however, is of very little assistance in relieving the housing stress in London or the Midlands. On the contrary, the fact that there is a surplus of housing in the North is indicative of the fact that we are likely to have a situation in London which will get progressively worse, because as more and more people move from the areas where there is insufficient employment, and squeeze into the already over-crowded Midlands and South-East, the conditions of housing stress in these densely populated urban areas will get progressively worse.
  The first main point which I want to make to the House is that regional development policy is not only of concern to the areas which directly benefit from it. It is of the greatest importance to everyone who is concerned either with housing problems in the highly populated areas, or with the preservation or improvement of the environment in which all of us live and the quality of living for everybody, both of which will be immensely damaged unless we can counteract the economic forces which tend to press people to move out of the development areas and into the Midlands and the South-East.
  I believe that we are approaching the stage—in some respects we have already reached it—at which the ability to buy more consumer goods is of much less importance than the quality of the environment in which we live. By "environment" in this context I start with the size of one's living accommodation, the play space available to one's children, the quality of schools which one's children attend, the ability to get to and from work in a reasonable time

  887
  and under tolerable conditions, and access to a countryside which has not been completely built over.
  I hope that in making decisions about their regional policies, the Government will not allow their desire to avoid what the Minister of Technology described as "unnecessary interference" with business decisions to create a society in which we have material wealth but not the environment in which to enjoy it.
  The Queen's Speech promised
  "a vigorous housing policy with the principal aim of improving the position of the homeless and the badly housed."
  The Report of the Cullingworth Committee on council housing has illustrated a large number of ways in which existing housing policies can be improved to ensure that the greatest needs are more quickly and efficiently met. I am sure that the Government will pay great attention to the views of that Committee. There is, however, one aspect of housing policy which is not referred to in the Cullingworth Report—that is, the need to preserve existing communities wherever possible and to ensure that where new estates and new towns are built, a real effort is made to provide the essential ingredients of a new community and not simply to create a collection of houses.
  In my constituency I have watched, and am still watching, the destruction of houses in which, despite appalling housing conditions, a sense of community has grown up. What is even more important, a sense of multi-racial community has grown up. We have streets in which families have lived for two or three generations. During the last five or 10 years immigrants have been moving into those streets, and during the last few years we have seen a new sense of community developing. We find in the slum areas of North Kensington that there is far less racial antagonism than there is in the more segregated areas where fewer black faces are to be seen.
  I have seen many of these streets which, inevitably and quite rightly, are going to be pulled down. It would be a great pity if, in pulling down those streets, we were to break up that sense of community which has been developed. I hope that the housing policies which we shall be seeing from the present Government and other Governments in future will take
  888
  great account of the overwhelming importance of ensuring that these communities are preserved. We have at present families in North Kensington being moved to the outer suburbs, and when new flats are built we have other families coming in from other and different areas and attempting to put down their rather uneasy roots in North Kensington. Thus two communities are broken, and it takes a long time for those communities to be replaced. I am sure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will take careful note of two studies of Oldham, "Living in a Slum" and "Moving out of a Slum" recently published in his Ministry's Design Bulletin.
  I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will also consider very carefully the plight of families living in furnished accommodation. Of the households in Kensington and Chelsea 35 per cent. occupy so-called furnished accommodation. Not, for the most part, because they want other people's furniture in their homes; not because they are single or transient; but because it is so easy for the landlords to opt out of the Rent Act by installing £50 worth of furniture and charging £150 a year more rent. Thousands of families with children are compelled to live in furnished accommodation, paying excessive rents, which they dare not refer to the Rent Tribunal for fear of eviction.
  I do not expect the Minister to anticipate the Report of the Francis Committee on the Rent Acts, but I was delighted to read in the Sunday Times the week before last that the Conservative Party's "Daily Notes" dated 12th June contained the passage:
  "Conservatives believe that the fair rents system should be gradually extended to all privately rented homes."
  I believe, and many with much greater knowledge of the subject than I have agree with me, that extending the Rent Acts to protect furnished tenants will eliminate the greatest single source of housing stress. Instead of the present quite unworkable distinction—for even experienced lawyers find it impossible to predict which way the court will determine it—between furnished and unfurnished, we should substitute a distinction between tenancies where the landlord is the owner-occupier and those where he is not. It should be made easier for an

  889
  owner-occupier to get rid of a bad tenant, whether furnished or unfurnished, but all good tenants, whether of furnished or of unfurnished accommodation, should have the right to a fair rent, security in their homes, and the right to rehousing in the event of redevelopment. I believe this step would both increase the amount of accommodation offered to rent, and eliminate an enormous amount of the misery and exploitation which exists at the present time.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am told that a speech need not be interminable to be immortal. I am happy to assure hon. Members that this maidenly performance has no ambition to be either. I shall take only as much of the House's time as will suffice to relate the Gracious Speech to my constituency of Conway, described by my predecessor, who ably represented the constituency from 1966, as one of the finest in the Kingdom. Indeed, for mountains of matchless calm, wooded vales fresh as the day they were created, and restful shores which have restored countless work-weary visitors from Lancashire and beyond, my constituency has no equal, as more than one hon. Member has assured me in the short time I have enjoyed the privileges of this House.
  Like most of North Wales, my constituency is full of poetry, and occasionally the poetry is peppered with politics, as when Shelley, on leaving London for North Wales, feared that his soul might soon forget
  "the woe its fellows share".
  My concern on the reverse journey from Wales to Westminster was much the same and I might well have pleaded with the poet
  "Let me for ever be what I have been,
  But not for ever at my needy door
  Let misery linger speechless, pale and lean."
  Some of my constituents have been looking distinctly pale and lean in recent years. I refer particularly to the small business men and hoteliers in that part of my constituency, notably Llandudno, which is on the wrong side of the development area blanket and, therefore, not exonerated from S.E.T. I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the reform and reduction of taxation and trust that some relief from this sative
  890
  tax will not be long in coming. Although we have a wealth of sunshine I fear that we belong to the category described in the Gracious Speech as
  "the less prosperous areas".
  Traditionally, I am bound to be non-controversial on this occasion, and I trust that hon. Members will not think that I press my advantage too far when I point out that part of my constituency is not only outside the Welsh development area but sandwiched between that area and the Merseyside development area. This places us at a unique disadvantage in attracting new industry.
  Pleasant as our sunshine is, and even the "unfettered wind" which Shelley relished, at least in his anticipation of his holiday, we cannot live on these blessings alone, as our unemployment figures indicate. We need light industry to support our tourist trade, and I am fully in accord with the Government's policy of stimulating growth in the less prosperous areas by increasing their economic attractions. The natural attractions of the North Wales coast would be greatly enhanced by a first-class road from Merseyside to Bangor, and I sincerely hope that I shall not, at the end of this Parliament, look back in Bangor at lack of progress in this vital connection. I hope, too, that our rail connection with my native island of Anglesey will be fully restored as soon as possible.
  The Gracious Speech makes reference to plans at a later stage for giving the Scottish people a greater say in their own affairs. The party of Government stated some time ago that Wales also has a proud and distinctive tradition and that the views of the Welsh people must also be represented strongly and democratically. The plans for Scotland will, of course, be closely, but, I hope, not jealously, studied in Wales, for any effort in self-government is bound to be fraught with difficulty, and I hope that, when those plans are revealed, our people in Wales will wait and see before jumping to the conclusion that what is good enough for Scotland is good enough for our
  "old and haughty nation, proud in arms"
  as Milton described us.
  Like the majority of people in the Principality I would wish any step taken in the direction of self-government for

  891
  Wales to be a right and timely development of the devolutionary measures which have been taken during the last two decades. I would also wish any such step to be motivated entirely by a desire for our better government. There is no doubt in my mind that in Wales priority must be given to measures of reform in local government, and as such reforms will, we are promised, be associated with a general devolution of power from central Government, we may hope that the people of the Principality will shortly feel that they, too, have a greater voice in the conduct of their affairs. For this is the nub of the matter: government now touches the people closely, perhaps too closely for comfort, and there is a general desire that those responsible for government should be near to the people they govern.
  There is one other matter in the Gracious Speech to which I crave the indulgence of hon. Members to refer, rather belatedly. That is the fresh emphasis given to Britain's international interests, the maintenance of peace and the promotion of prosperity. These interests are traditionally very close to the hearts of our Welsh nation. The younger generation particularly regards the world rather than Britain as its oyster, and in its own way this generation is more imperially minded in the best sense than those which preceded it. Its genuine concern for other peoples and its belief that Britain should do right by those peoples augur well for Britain's future in the world.
  I have never believed that Britain has yet to find a rôle in world affairs. There is always a rôle for a country that dedicates itself to the maintenance of peace and the promotion of world prosperity. If we pursue these objectives honestly and realistically, as I am sure the Government will, leaving to others the perfidious rôle, we shall achieve the "unity within" spoken of by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and attain the greater respect we all wish for Britain in the world at large.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: As one who has for a relatively short period been a Member of this House, I little thought that I should have the great pleasure of following two maiden
  892
  speakers. I have a certain fellow feeling for them, as this is my first contribution from the Opposition benches, and I congratulate them with great enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) made a speech that was rich in substance, delivered with firmness and with clear articulation. I am also glad of the opportunity to welcome my fellow countryman, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) whose speech was full of charm and delivered with all the rhetorical fervour which one expects from a Welshman with his antecedents. The House will look forward to further contributions from these hon. Members.
  One of the significant policies developed by the previous Government was their obvious dedication to the principle of regional development. This encompassed not only the problem of creating the dynamic of economic growth but it also entailed a devolution of decision-making power to the areas concerned. No one would accuse the Government of being over-candid in the revelation of their regional policies. It is not so much their vagueness in the Queen's Speech as their vagueness viewed against the background of cynicism which they have shown towards regionalism over the years when they were in Opposition which causes us so much doubt.
  The Conservative Party voted against the Development of Industry Act which set up the development areas in 1966, and Conservative spokesmen have never wearied of reminding us that they regarded these policies in the main as being unspeakable prodigality. The fundamental question which must therefore be asked of the Conservative Party is whether they really believe in regionalism and, if so, what priority are they willing to give it.
  The difference between the two parties in this matter is not just a question of the expenditure by the Tory Party in Government up to 1964 of less than £20 million per annum and by the subsequent Labour Government of about £300 million per annum, it is not just a difference of degree, but a fundamental difference in philosophy. Central to the Tory creed is the belief that the law of nature should at

  893
  all times be allowed to prevail. If it be that economic changes might condemn a community to stagnancy and extinction whilst at the same time allowing other areas to wallow in wealth and prosperity, so be it. The canons of Conservatism demanded that there should be no interference with such a system.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who as we all know is the custodian of some of the darkest prejudices of Conservatism, first articulated his views on this matter in a speech which he made on 2nd April, 1964 in Wolverhampton, when he said:
  "For the sake of what then do we feel constrained to count economic loss and fly in the face of our own beliefs? Is it on account of some theory that industry and employment ought to be more evenly distributed over the country as a whole?"
  Substantially how, if at all, does Government thinking at present differ from such a philosophy? The Government pay lip-service to regional development in the Queen's Speech, but it is right to look not only to such anodyne presentations but to specific proposals made by the Conservative Party when in opposition. We were constantly reminded by the present Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that there was every likelihood that if the Conservative Party was returned to Government it would abolish investment grants. The President of the Board of Trade in a speech on 16th May 1966, on the Second Reading of the industrial Development Act made it bluntly clear that he would favour such a development.
  I represent a community which has only about 8 per cent. manufacturing industry, and the common experience of such localities is that they are able to attract only small firms which are reliant in their early months and years upon the assistance given by development grants. Investment allowances to a large extent would not be relevant to such enterprises, as they turn upon profits and in those uncertain first months and years there is often no question of profit. If investment grant were to be removed the incentive which is the direct allurement to these firms to look to areas such as my constituency would be withdrawn.
  Mr. John Brewis: Is not it possible to give grants under the Local Employment Act, 1960? Does not the
  894
  hon. Member think that this would be exactly the same?
  Mr. Morgan: It is perfectly possible under the Local Employment Act 1960 to give grants, but the criterion set out in that legislation is that there should be a high level of unemployment. The grant is paid only whilst such a high level of unemployment prevails, and in practice that level is about 4 per cent. That does not cure the slow cancer of depopulation which is the main problem suffered by areas such as mine.
  The Queen's Speech contains the ominous phrase:
  "… saving and liberating industry from unnecessary intervention by Government."
  Regional growth can be stimulated only by the provision of positive incentives, operating in turn in conjunction with negative restrictions which have the effect of creaming off resources which would otherwise flow to areas of superfluous affluence. If the emancipation of industry from such necessary restrictions means the abandonment of an effective industrial development certificate policy, then, whatever grandiose generalities are indulged in in the Queen's Speech, the Tory policy of regional growth can never be anything more than a sham and hypocrisy.
  Reference has been made in the debate to infrastructure, but no promises as to increased expenditure on infrastructure can be a proper substitute for the comprehensive planning of a region. The promises of the Conservative Party are bound to lose a little of their credibility when one compares the amount invested by them in their years in office between 1960 and 1963 with the annual amounts expended for the same purpose by a Labour Government. It is true that in 1963 there was some element of deathbed repentance. As Dr. Johnson said, the knowledge that a person is to be hanged enables him to concentrate his mind wonderfully. That is exactly what the Conservative Government of those years managed to do over capital expenditure.
  I understand that the road schemes in the preparation pool at present for Wales represent an increase of 400 to 500 per cent. over the total value of the schemes which lay in that pool when the Conservative Government left office in October, 1964.

  895
  The Government's alibi for not publishing their proposals is that they abjure every temptation to indulge in instant government and, at the same time, say they must have more time to study in detail all the consequences of these policies. Whatever we may say about instant government, the Conservative Party were quite adept at instant opposition over the last five-and-a-half years. It also begs the question whether over the years they have been making any attempt at all to sketch out an alternative policy. We have been told that over the years cost-benefit studies have been made. The Financial Times in January, 1969, described a number of current studies made by the Conservative Party.
  Did they or did they not in those years have a creative alternative policy or was it the case that when they were disdainfully condemning Labour development policies they were doing so only in the spirit of malevolent negativism? There can be no doubt that it will be very much in the interest of all who are concerned with the development of the regions that the period of gestation for the Conservative Party should be short. Delay in spelling out these policies inevitably creates an atmosphere of uncertainty which is utterly destructive of the initiative and confidence which we so assiduously sought to create.
  Therefore, I invite the Government to reply specifically to three questions at the earliest opportunity. First, do the Government pledge themselves to spend on regional policies, including special expenditure on infrastructure, as high a percentage of gross national product as was expended, by the Labour Government? Secondly, will the present development areas be preserved rather than to have scattered pinpoints of growth which enjoy only short and intermittent bursts of aid? Thirdly, will regional employment premium be continued at least up to the end of 1974 so as not to breach the undertaking solemnly given to industrialists by the previous Government which was the determining factor in alluring so many firms to development areas? These questions go to the heart of the concept of regional growth. The replies to them will be the acid test of the Government's sincerity about regional development.
  896
  There is a great deal I should like to say about Wales and development policies but I do not propose to do so at this stage. I merely point out that I doubt whether any other country in the United Kingdom or any other region has benefitted so much from growth policies as has Wales. Professor Brindley Thomas, the Chairman of the Welsh Council, in an article to the Liverpool Daily Post on 27th January this year, said:
  "Whatever our professional purveyors of gloom"—
  and we have them in Wales—
  "may say, the economic prospects for Wales in the 1970s are distinctly favourable. The signs are that we are about to enter a period of rapid economic growth."
  Later in the same article Professor Thomas says:
  "The Government development area policy has been of immense value in enabling Wales to weather this structural crisis. It is vital that this policy should be maintained in full strength for several years yet."
  No one can make an assessment of the success of development policies in Wales without taking into account the establishment of the Welsh Office itself and the great efforts of the three persons under Labour who gave leadership to that office, namely, my right hon. Friend James Griffiths, the Member for Llanelly for 35 years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). Wales is greatly in their debt. It is not just a question of regional policies for Wales. Wales is very much more than a region; it is a country and the homeland of a nation.
  It is against the background of this factor that we can best understand the shock and outrage many people felt in Wales three weeks ago when the Prime Minister appointed as Ministers to the Welsh Office two gentlemen who had not behind them the vote of a single Welsh elector. I do not say this with any disrespect whatever to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales or to his hon. Friend the Minister of State. On the contrary, I have a great deal of personal respect for both of them. But it is the essence of democratic process that the exercise of power should depend on the mandate of the governed. No such mandate has been given in this respect.
  Mr. George Thomas: Would my hon. Friend also remind the House that not only are they not representative of Welsh constituencies, but that they were rejected by the Welsh people the last time they stood at the polls?
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): Would the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) tell the House where the "shock and outrage" he mentioned was expressed in Wales?
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: As soon as the Secretary of State comes down to Wales I am sure that he will see it is apparent from the Island of Anglesey to the southern corner of Monmouth. It is not just a case of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend not having a mandate—it is a case of the Conservative Party not having a mandate in Wales. That party, since 1872, that fateful year when the Ballot Act came into force, has been rejected by the Welsh people.
  Despite the pro-consular attitude of the Prime Minister towards Wales in the two appointments I have mentioned, I felt that there was a chance for him to have redeemed himself in part when it came to the appointment of an Under-Secretary of State. Here was an opportunity for him to show some modest measure of confidence in his colleagues from Wales. It could be some minor reward for past services or some cautious investment in future performance. But we were not kept waiting long. The situation was solved by abolishing the office. As Sir Walter Raleigh is supposed to have said when he contemplated the axe which was very soon to terminate his life,
  "It is a sharp but a certain remedy."
  I revel in the fact that primary and secondary education have been transferred to the Welsh Office. If the Labour Party had remained in office, I am certain that these are two further transfers of power to the Welsh Office which would have occurred; but I am utterly baffled to understand how it is that the Welsh Office, which was running at full stretch with three Ministers and which was given jurisdiction over health and allied services in April of last year, can now carry on efficiently in such a truncated fashion. The Scottish Office has five
  898
  Ministers. Bearing in mind the different conditions and jurisdictions in Scotland, I would have thought that three Ministers for the Welsh Office would not have been a prodigality.
  The Gracious Speech contains this reference:
  … plans will be laid before you for giving the Scottish people a greater say in their own affairs."
  This has been alluded to already by the hon. Member for Conway. We on this side of the House have little interest in the turbulent post-Hamilton panics which might have been responsible for such a decision on the part of the Conservative Party. However, the nationhood of Wales is as irrefutable a fact of society and history as the nationhood of Scotland, and there is no justification for depriving Wales of any constitutional advance and development that is envisaged for Scotland.
  As regards Wales, the Tory Party has started its term in this Parliament badly. It has shown monumental insensitivity to the feelings of the people of Wales. We are a generous and benign people, but we are quickly incensed by insult or injustice and when we bare our teeth to bite, we do not let go until the bone cracks.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: On that note, I scarcely dare utter a word. However, if I may, I will congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on a most amiable and well-informed speech. He pointed out a theme which I would like to develop, namely, that a regional policy is not just for the benefit of the regions and for the benefit of those who receive the subsidies and grants. A regional policy is equally for the benefit of the congested areas which do not receive. The hon. Gentleman instanced in this connection the housing problems of North Kensington and said that it was not much consolation to those who live in crowded conditions in North Kensington to know that there are empty houses in the North of England.
  I represent a town in the North of England which has empty houses. It is a town from which labour is drifting. It is exactly the sort of town that the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I ask him and

  899
  others to reflect whether the regional policies which have been pursued in the last five-and-a-half years have succeeded in doing the job which is so necessary for his constituency and for mine.
  Ten days ago, I was asked by the mayor and the town clerk to call on them because they were so agitated by the number of mills which are soon to close. Three mills of good standing are due to close in the borough of Darwen in the next few weeks. When I was told this, I thought, "This is the same old story. It is the import of Asian cloth. The order books are again low. We are back where we started." But that is not the reason. The reason came to me as a surprise. The mills are closing because of the shortage of labour. Order books are full, but there is no labour. There is no labour because of the development area policy of the last Government. Development areas having come to within 20 or 30 miles on two of the four sides of my constituency, and all the new development having gone to those development areas, the potential labour force in North-East Lancashire has dwindled to nothing.
  Perhaps the most crucial decision was that of Courtaulds in deciding to put its new weaving sheds in the development areas and not in the traditional weaving belt of Lancashire because it got such large grants and subsidies for doing so. The result was that the people of the traditional weaving area came to the conclusion that there was no future for them in the cotton trade. There has been very little recruitment of apprentices in that area since these very large inducements were given to industry to move out and not to develop in the traditional textile industry area.
  To my mind, this is a classic case of the dangers of using what the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) described, I thought with a good deal of self-satisfaction, as a policy with a remarkable degree of ingenuity and an impressive toolkit. The truth is that it is far too blunt. The previous Administration knew not what they did, and the Hunt Report told them that what they were doing was wrong. The Hunt Report said that there should be a uniform system of grants and inducements
  900
  over a wide area of the whole of the North-West and that, unless that were done, the magnetic quality of the development areas surrounding other excluded northern areas would produce in those excluded areas the lack of development of which I have been speaking. The report warned that it would drain away labour, and that has happened.
  The Courtaulds decision was a watershed. After it, people in the traditional weaving area felt that there was no future in the cotton trade. The result has been that three mills are to close just when the trade is picking up because there has been a very insensitive and blunt attack upon the normal course of economic life.
  The matter does not stop there. Another development area in the shape of a large new town is to be placed within eight miles of the constituency which I represent. I refer to the Chorley-Preston new town. I look round me with some trepidation because, among our excellent new recruits to this side of the House are two formidable ladies, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks) and the hon. Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt). I am glad to see that they are not in the Chamber at the moment, otherwise they would be springing to the defence of this vast new proposal. Such is their duty, of course. However, I implore the Government, in their study of the system of large grants for development areas, to reconsider the proposal to put down in the middle of Lancashire, a county which is not deficient in large towns already, yet another large town at a vast and artificial expense. If it is possible to stop the proposal or at least to re-examine it, I shall be very grateful.
  Already we have two new towns sandwiched in among the old towns in the neighbourhood. There is Skelmersdale, which has not been a very happy experiment, and Winsford and Runcorn. If there is to be another vast new development in which it is hoped to house a million inhabitants eventually, from where are they all to come? The county is losing population. As I tried to demonstrate, in my constituency, not eight miles away from this new horror that is proposed, there is already no

  901
  sufficient labour force. How is it proposed, as it were, to man up this new vast town and at whose expense? It is planning gone mad.
  It was a plan that was put down on a totally false basis of future population prospects for Lancashire. Those have already been exploded. Yet such is the mechanism of planning and of government, as recently administered, that apparently it is impossible to put this decision into reverse. If it goes on, instead of creating a growth point or giving hope for Lancashire, it will bring fear and doom to all the old towns. It will ruin some of the best agricultural land in the county and the cost to the Exchequer is simply vast. Why put down yet another town when there are quite enough very good towns in Lancashire? This is regional policy gone mad.
  I have always felt that it is wrong to give large inducements that pervert the natural course of development of industry. This has happened in the North-West. My constituency has been denuded of the development that it might otherwise expect. Half of it is now an intermediate area. But that is no good to it, because grants are available in an intermediate area, though not in a development area, only if the applicants can prove that it is creating so many new jobs. There is no possibility of doing that in my constituency, because there are not the men there to man the jobs so created.
  For these and many other reasons, I implore the Government, if it is possible and there is still time, to stop the vast public expense upon this new town. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends, the Members for Chorley and Preston, North will say that it would be a tremendous blow to them and to the hopes that they have built upon this. But I do not think that they will find it very agreeable, or as agreeable as they think, to have placed upon the proud old municipalities of Chorley, and particularly Preston, a non-elected development corporation which will have power to overrule the desires of the local authorities over and over again. I think that it is wrong both financially and socially, and I hope that it can still be stopped. If it is continued it will be yet another example of a perversion of natural growth which, to the
  902
  old towns of Lancashire, suffering as they have, will come as the last blow.
  We are delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley and Preston, North and Preston, South (Mr. Alan Green) won their seats by such large majorities. Nevertheless, the swing to the Conservative Party was far greater outside the area of the new town than inside it. There is no doubt that in Rossendale, Bolton, East and Bolton, West, Bury, and in all that area of North-East Lancashire, the swing to the Conservative Party was very large, mainly as a result of the treatment they have had by the magnetic qualities not only of the development areas, but of this threatened new town. For that reason, I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to look at this matter again.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Deputy Speaker, many hon. Members making maiden speeches are able to start by wishing their retired Members pleasant and long retirements. Sadly, that pleasure is denied me, because my election as the Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, North was marred, in terms of celebration, by the death of Hector Hughes swimming in the sea off Brighton. Hector Hughes was not a native of the city of Aberdeen, although he represented Aberdeen, North for 25 years. It is, in a sense, axiomatic that an incomer to a community can love it with even greater fervour than a native resident. Hector Hughes loved Aberdeen, and, indeed, was loved by Aberdeen. I am sure that his loss is mourned by both sides of the House as greatly as in the city itself. By a curious quirk of fate, the name of Hughes as the Member for Aberdeen, North continues. I doubt whether I can bring to this Chamber as much charm and humour as did my predecessor. However, I hope that in my varied interests I can bring to this House the sense of involvement that he always displayed in his business in Parliament.
  My constituency cannot be isolated geographically, in the sense that it is half of one of Scotland's major cities, but I am sure that I speak for the whole city and for the region concerning regional development policy. For many years the city has suffered lack of job opportunity and there has been a great migration of

  903
  young skilled citizens. If we examine "The Scottish Economy"—Cmnd. 2864—in paragraph 201 on page 51 it reports:
  "Much the heaviest net migration from the North-East comes from the Aberdeen area. It comprises some of the best labour in Scotland and most of it 'overflies' the central belt, going direct to England and overseas."
  On page 119 the report lists the kind of places to which our skilled labour has been going: Corby, Rugby, Scunthorpe and Luton, which are all engineering towns. This means that the industry, with which I am very much involved, is being denuded of the kind of skilled labour that we can ill-afford to lose. The greater this loss of population the more difficult it is to attract new industry to the area.
  We want to attract industry which brings not only jobs, but also high earning potential. We have recently had success in being able to attract to the area a computer manufacturing company. This we welcome. It is also suggested—we believe this to be true now—that we may be getting a factory which will manufacture tyres. These are growth industries. They are industries with considerable financial backing. This is the kind of industry that we want.
  I am grateful to the Minister of Technology for his Answer yesterday to my Question, that the existing development areas in Scotland are not to be altered at present. Certainly I welcome this for Aberdeen, although the City of Edinburgh and Leith will regard their expectations as having been dashed to the ground.
  Looking at the Gaskin Report on the development potential of the north-east of Scotland, we are concerned that many of our manufacturing industries are small. Many of the new industries coming to our area are also small and do not have great financial backing. Therefore, we express the greatest concern about the possibility of the change from investment grants to profit incentives. Our industries, which we hope will have growth, do not have the resources available to give them the spurt forward which they need. We are desperately disturbed that, on a number of different occasions on a number of specific queries, the Government have denied us the opportunity of knowing whether they will spend at least the same amount in Scotland as their predecessors in Government. This
  904
  is important to our region and to our people. I hope that at some time today we will get an answer from the Government about their precise policy and how much money will be spent.
  A sphere where perhaps money can be made available and be given value, if the Government would tackle it in a sensible fashion, is in the financing of house building. The passage in the Gracious Speech about the fashioning of housing subsidies is fatuously irrelevant to the needs of local authorities. I come from a local authority which has a fine housing record, and I hope that I shall not be accused of immodesty, as I am still a member of that local authority, if I say that we have built 18,000 houses since 1945—a significant contribution—but now, like every other local authority in Scotland, we are facing a crisis of how we finance that.
  Last year, simply to service the interest alone, we had to raise £2,354,705. The House may wonder where the money has gone. That was purely to service the house building. The actual capital repayment was only £492,000. If one considers a 15-year period and examines what has been happening to our housing accounts, one finds that in servicing interest the City of Aberdeen has spent more than £17 million, whilst being able to repay a capital sum of only £4½ million. If one looks at the effect that this has on houses being built, one finds that, for every house built, at current interest rates we add £330 per annum to the servicing of interest, or £6 per week per house. How, in those circumstances, one can have any sensible policy of house building I cannot imagine.
  If the Government wish to see value for money, I hope they will agree—though I do not suppose they will—that where money has been wholly repaid, interest on it should cease. Where money has been not been wholly repaid, an allowance should be made for reasonable profit, and thereafter interest should cease. The future prospects of providing money for local authorities should be on a direct cash basis of grant, and thereafter any money raised at local authority level could be used to help the environment of housing needs. If that were done, we would be saved from the tremendous economic slavery under which we are working now.

  905
  It has been said in the Lobbies and corridors of the House—it is a massive rumour—when the House rises on 24th July it will not return until 18th November.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): To stop the hon. Gentleman from worrying, perhaps I can tell him that if that is the rumour going round it is wholly false.
  Mr. Hughes: I wish I knew the correct date, because it has been interpreted as meaning that the long recess will be a period of non-government. But I have another fear. It is that what we are to get is government by stealth; that during the long recess many decisions will be taken which will adversely affect the lives of our people and we shall have no opportunity to comment on those decisions. In home affairs this might be consolable by saying that it will be only a temporary setback, but what I am concerned about is that if a decision is taken to sell arms to South Africa, or to conclude a peace treaty, if one can call it that, with the Smith régime in Rhodesia, that will be intolerable and will cause irreparable damage to the whole future of mankind.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude by thanking you for your courtesy in calling me to take part in the debate. I hope I shall have a chance to address the House again in the future, and perhaps with the same tolerance that has been shown me this afternoon.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Trew: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. My predecessor here was Sydney Irving, who represented Dartford for 15 years. He was highly regarded by all sections of the community in Dartford as an assiduous and dedicated constituency Member, and during the five years that I nursed that seat as prospective candidate, although we were political opponents, has was always unfailingly friendly and courteous, and I am grateful to him for that. Since I came to the House it has been obvious to me, from the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and by members of the staff, that he was held in
  906
  the highest esteem at Westminster, both as Deputy Speaker and as a Member, and so it is no empty convention by which I pay a tribute to Sydney Irving. I do it with great pleasure.
  It is now my honour and privilege to represent Dartford in this House. Dartford is an ancient town in the ancient Kingdom of Kent. It was the home of Wat Tyler, that implacable opponent of the selective employment tax of 1381. It is the birthplace of British paper making, and it is still today an important centre of paper making, as well as engineering, pharmaceuticals and cement manufacture. It has a large rural area in which horticulture and agriculture are important activities and in which, despite its closeness to London, there is still some fine unspoiled country.
  Most people think of Dartford in connection with the tunnel that bears its name, and I shall be pressing for an early start to the second Dartford Tunnel. Like all constituencies, Dartford has its problems and perhaps, inevitably, with an area that is both industrial and rural, and a dormiory area, there is a conflict betwen the needs of the community and the preservation of the environment. The constituency is crossed by three trunk roads with an unenviable accident record. One length of road is known as the "bloody mile", and another as "death hill".
  There are in the rural areas about 600 acres of gravel pits and other mineral workings; all necessary to provide resources for the community, but posing problems in the preservation of landscape. The cement works provide vital raw materials for the building industry, but they also present the problem of cement dust fall out, despite strenuous efforts in the past to cope with it.
  But perhaps the most worrying problem for the Dartford constituency in the future is the rundown of heavy industry on Thamesside. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on regional employment policy, and I note with approval the reference in the Gracious Speech to the need for effective regional development policies because I fully support all measures which bring jobs to the less favoured areas of Britain. I welcome the assurance by my right hon. Friend that the development areas and the intermediate areas will be preserved,

  907
  because I should not like to see any downgrading of priority for areas in need of help, but I am a little hesitant about the wisdom of too rigid and too doctrinaire a definition of those areas. I say that because where there is an area there is a boundary, and where there is a boundary there are anomalies. I hope that our development policy will be applied flexibly, particularly at the boundaries where these anomalies occur.
  Perhaps the chief victim of too doctrinaire a definition of areas is, paradoxically enough, the prosperous part of Britain, the South-East, because there are in the South-East pockets which have special local problems. My hon. Friends the Members for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) have referred to the high rate of unemployment in parts of North-East Kent, particularly the seaside resorts, and as a Kent Member I support their pleas for special help for those areas.
  In that part of the South-East which I represent, in North-West Kent, there are, in purely statistical terms, no serious unemployment problems. Our unemployment is somewhat above the level for London and the South-East, but marginally below the national average. However, this conceals what is really happening in that part of the world, because during the last few years there has been a series of factory closures and a scaling down of operation by some large industrial undertakings, many of which are household names—A.E.I. at Woolwich; British Oil and Cake Mills; C. A. Parsons; London Paper Mills; B.I.C.C.; and Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers. Many of my constituents work in these undertakings and have been affected by the fairly large-scale redundancies. It is a strange paradox that, despite these redundancies, the unemployment figures in that part of North-West Kent are not abnormally high, but the reason is very simple. Many of these people continue to live in the area, but they are travelling increasingly far each day to find work at the same remuneration as they enjoyed before.
  Two consequences flow from this. First, an already congested transport system—perhaps the most congested in the world—is being subjected to still further overload. Second, if the process is not
  908
  checked, an area which has hitherto been a thriving industrial area in its own right will increasingly become a dormitory area for other parts of the South-East. This is not right.
  We on this side place great stress on the need to build up the infrastructure in the areas in which we want to stimulate development, but, in the South-East, we have the infrastructure and in North-West Kent we have it, although there is always room for improvement—but we have the houses, the roads, the schools and the hospitals.
  Although the object of any regional development policy must be the better use of human resources, it must also concern itself with the better use of other amenities. Therefore, what I am asking is not that the Government should siphon off from the less favoured areas help towards the particular part of the South-East of which I am speaking; what I am asking is that they take note of the fact that something is happening on Thamesside that could be serious. I ask that, in formulating their policy for the grant of industrial development certificates, they have very careful regard to the need to maintain the level of industrial activity in that part of the world.
  I said that the employment figures were misleading. Very often, the instincts of ordinary men and women are a much more acurate guide. For this reason, about six months ago, I organised a survey in those parts of Dartford housing predominantly people who work locally, as opposed to commuters, to find out what they thought about this problem. Nearly half the 100 families we interviewed were pessimistic about the future employment prospects on Thamesside. Only one in eight declared himself fully confident. I have great faith in the instincts of ordinary men and women, and when nearly half the people in a particular situation are apprehensive, that is prima facie evidence, I believe, that a problem exists or is likely to. I ask the Government to consider this very carefully.
  There is one other economic activity in my constituency to which I should like to refer—not in the context of regional development but in relation to our application to join the Common Market. Horticulture is an important activity in the

  909
  Dartford constituency, and it is probably more vulnerable than any other activity in the country to European competition. Horticulturists throughout the country are apprehensive about the sort of transitional arrangements which will emerge from the current negotiations. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has this problem very much in mind, but I shall be taking a close interest in these terms as they emerge, as I am sure will every hon. Member with horticultural interests in his constituency.
  I have referred to what I believe to be the most important two problems facing my constituency—the run-down of heavy industry on Thamesside and the problems for horticulture if we join the Common Market. There are other problems, but I hope that none will suffer from lack of attention on my part. I thank the House for its forbearance.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) on their maiden speeches. They rightly paid tribute to their predecessors—Hector Hughes and Sydney Irving—both of whom were respected by all hon. Members, and deeply missed by all hon. Members, on whichever side they sit.
  Maiden speeches are, by their nature, an ordeal. So are others. It does not get any better the longer one is here. Both hon. Members acquitted themeselves very well, speaking with considerable eloquence, knowledge and, above all, sincerity. One can speak an awful lot of nonsense in this place, but so long as one is sincere one can get away with it. I think I speak for the whole House when I say that we hope to hear both hon. Gentlemen many times in future, so long as they do not interfere with my right to get up and speak!
  The way in which the televising of the proceedings of the opening of Parliament is done is an example of riding roughshod over the rest of us. This is thrust upon us as though we were little schoolchildren. I am very much in favour of televising the proceedings of this House, but I object very much to televising the feudal nonsense and anachronisms
  910
  which we televised a week ago, when all the people who claimed to be somebody and are nobody are put on the screen—and without our consent or knowledge. It is done through the usual channels. The next time it is done I shall be sorely tempted to cut the cables. Let them be warned that we will not stand for it. Having got that off my chest, I feel a little better.
  We in Scotland are gravely apprehensive following the election of the new Government. That apprehension will be in no way allayed by the speech which we heard from the Minister of Technology today. Indeed, it will be increased. One of the reasons why our Amendment was tabled is that we did not get across to the people of Britain the enormous success of the regional policies of our Government since 1964—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) bellyaches about that. He is rather boring on the subject, and he is speaking from outside the Chamber anyway. If he wants to speak, let him come into the Chamber. I have dealt with him before, and I will deal with him again.
  The election results in Scotland reflected the measure of the satisfaction of the people of Scotland with those policies. Let the Conservative Party never forget that they have no mandate whatever—they will get tired of repeating this, but they will hear it every day of the week—to interfere with those policies in Scotland. They are very much in a minority. Their own young people said to them many months ago that they do not speak the language of Scottish people: they do not understand the problems of Scotland.
  I think Lord Polwarth does. When he was opening the exhibition "Opportunity Scotland", just before the election, he said that the Scottish economy today is stronger than at any time this century and that Scotland is better able to withstand the inevitable changes in the international trading climate and is better placed to seize upon the multiplying opportunities. He referred to the dramatic drop in the emigration figures, which is one of the tests. It was one of the tests hon. Gentlemen opposite sought to apply to the success of the previous Government He also referred

  911
  to opportunities for the young, and went on:
  "We need qualified young people in many occupations and professions to turn Scotland into a swingling humming place, a country where opportunity abounds, and where it is possible to climb rapidly to the top of the ladder as a young man."
  He went on to speak about the enormously increased opportunities for the young in Scotland today. When the former Leader of the Opposition went to Scotland during the election campaign, immediately following the then Prime Minister, the only contribution that he could make was that Edinburgh was outside the development area of Scotland. I wonder whether he and the Government will put Edinburgh into the development area and make the whole of Scotland a development area.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to a point made by the hon. Member for South Angus—the hon. Member who is sitting asleep in the corner. He has said, time and time again, that we had been creating jobs at a cost of £72,000 or £74,000. If he had bothered to look at the report produced in the early 1960s—I believe—by the Estimates Committee, he would have seen that that point was met. I was on the sub-committee that went into the question of what were then the development districts. We asked the Board of Trade to give us a figure of the cost per new job created, and the Board of Trade went out of its way to demonstrate that it could not be done, because it was not possible to say whether a new job arose directly or indirectly from a specific pouring of public money into a public or private undertaking. All kinds of jobs could be created indirectly, in terms of the opening of new shops, new housing schemes, building jobs, and the rest. At any one time the number of new jobs being created might be increasing, and any figure produced at any one time would be relatively meaningless. There is not much point in making that kind of criticism.
  I am the last to suggest that the present regional policies are the last word; a good deal of refinement and flexibility can be introduced. I see no reason why we should pay training grants of £10 per week per man or £7 per week per woman to I.C.I. and all the other big firms,
  912
  whether or not they are needed. That is a nonsense. There is no doubt that these policies can be sharpened up, refined and made more flexible, thereby saving money.
  Mr. Brewis: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same argument to R.E.P., in terms of I.C.I. and other big companies?
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall deal with all those points, but if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends keep interrupting I shall take a lot longer than I intended to do. I agree that the question of training grants needs to be looked into in order to see whether we can produce the same result for less money. On that principle I go along to some degree with hon. Members on the Government benches. Hon. Members opposite have said specifically in their election manifesto and in their speeches in the debate on the Address that the way to solve these problems is to allow the free play of market forces. That has been said very forcibly in speeches in the country and in the House by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). He is one of the villains of the piece in this matter, together with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—if he does not mind being linked with that fellow—and the present Secretary of State for Social Services. All those hon. Members and right hon. Members are on record as saying, "Leave it alone and everything will be all right. Do not allow the Government to interfere."
  The argument between the two sides of the House is to how much the Government shall interfere. This afternoon the Minister of Technology said something about unnecessary Government intervention. I forget his exact phrase; it was meaningless. That begs the whole question of what is and what is not necessary. This must be a political judgment of the Government in power. If hon. and right hon. Members opposite say, "We believe in Government intervention but we believe in it less than the Socialists," that is fair, but for some hon. Members opposite to pretend that no Government intervention will solve these problems is a nonsense, and they know it is.
  Even the Minister of Technology—the hatchet man, or Jack-the-Ripper on the Front Bench—who is one of the most sinister appointments, because he believes

  913
  in a minimum of State intervention, said this afternoon, speaking in broad generalities, "We will help the coal industry, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders"—[Interruption.] Yes. That surprises the Leader of the House. He is looking very worried. He does not know. He did not bother to stay to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not blame him; it is an acquired taste to listen to the Minister of Technology. But I assure him that I am not misrepresenting his right hon. and learned Friend. He said that help to U.C.S. would be continued, although the Secretary of State for Social Services said in the House not many weeks ago that not an extra penny would be given to the U.C.S. Who is right? I am not asking the Leader of the House, because he does not know. He requires notice.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do know. I understand that the Paymaster-General in the previous Government said exactly that.
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that he did. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce the quotation. I bet that he cannot do it.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I can help the hon. Gentleman. I was dealing with this matter from the Opposition benches. It was the then Minister of Technology and later the Paymaster-General who said that although the last Government were proposing a £7 million loan to U.C.S. that was the last money from the Government. But that is still to be legislated for, and therefore it is still for the House to decide.
  Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. My right hon. Friend the then Minister of Technology said words to that effect, but he was not as forthright and definite as the present Secretary of State for Social Service, who said that not a single extra penny would be given to U.C.S. My right hon. Friend never committed himself to that kind of finality.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hamilton: We shall look at the records. To suggest that Scotland's problems can be solved other than by
  914
  interfering with the market forces or inducing private enterprise to go into the difficult peripheral areas that they would not otherwise go to is an absurd proposition, which I am sure not even the Tory Party believes. The problems of the development areas would be insoluble without Government interference and investment of one kind and another.
  Although in the last few years massive financial inducements have been given to Scotland, the North-East and elsewhere. we have not produced complete solutions to the problem. The point made by the hon. Member for South Angus about losing jobs is a fair one, to the extent that the old industries have been declining at a faster rate than we have introduced new industries. The problem does not end there. Not only is that the case; the new industries themselves—owing to the new industrial revolution that we must all face and for which no party has a solution—employ a larger proportion of women than the older declining industries.
  The older declining industries, such as coal, heavy engineering, agriculture and railways, employed 90 per cent., 95 per cent., or 100 per cent. men, but the new electronic industries in Fife and other parts of the country employ 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. women. This has important economic and social implications. In my constituency there are men in their homes washing dishes while women go out to work in the factories. This is a serious problem. I do not think any party can be dogmatic and say that it has the answer to that problem.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member said about the decline of jobs in traditional industries, but one of the biggest declines in any industry in the last five years has been in the service trades, while in every other industrial country in Europe those trades have been growing very fast.
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not know that that is true. I would not accept any facts or figures from the hon. Member because he has been proved so wrong so many times.
  We know that investment grants are to go, for the Government have said that they are to disappear. I believe they came very near to spelling that out in their

  915
  manifesto and to saying that they are to be replaced by tax allowances or tax reductions. That was very effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). We know that S.E.T. is to be abolished, but we do not know what is to be put in its place. Presumably another tax would be put in its place, or the Government would reduce public expenditure by a comparable amount.
  It may be unfair to expect a decision to be announced in the first fortnight, but we do know that there is to be a reduction in housing subsidies. Presumably that would include Scottish housing subsidies, and that must mean increased rents. There is to be a reduction in farming subsidies, which would mean increases in food prices. That is bound to give some extra twist to the inflationary spiral about which hon. Member opposite complain so much. If that happens, the development areas will be harder hit than other areas.
  These proposals are no solution to the kind of problem we are discussing. I do not believe that any party in this House has a solution to the problems of the development areas, but when we look at Scotland and consider the infrastructure on which hon. Members opposite have laid such emphasis, we must see that to spend more on housing, schools, hospitals and the rest is far more useful than to give investment grants, training grants, and so on. The record of the previous Government from that aspect was far better than that of the Government of hon. Members opposite. The record of the last Government on roads, housing, hospital and school building, in the last six years was infinitely superior to that of hon. Members opposite in the previous six years. For them to infer in the manifesto and the debate that we have been neglecting these things is an absurdity and an inaccuracy.
  In my constituency and in many others where there has been coal mining we have had dereliction arising from coal mining. If hon. Members opposite cannot answer the question of what they would put in place of S.E.T., they should be able to answer the question of what they will do about the great scourge of industrial areas, dereliction. In Scotland, and particularly in Fife, we have a record on that which is second to none in the
  916
  world. Fife County Council co-operated with the Labour Government and had an 85 per cent. grant from the Government. Unless the present Government can give a specific undertaking that that 85 per cent. grant will continue, I am afraid that clearance of industrial dereliction from pit bings and old linoleum factories in Kirkcaldy will come to a standstill.
  I hope that those on both Front Benches will be rather more modest in their claims about what they have done or are going to do in solving the problems of the development areas. I do not think any country in the world has a solution to the imbalance between the peripheral areas and the central areas such as London and the South-East.
  6.35 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) spoke about an acquired taste in listening to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Technology. I think there is an acquired taste in listening to the hon. Member, but I compliment him on livening up any debate. I agree with the hon. Member on two points, first, about training grants and, secondly, about televising this House. I do not suggest that I would help him to cut the cables, but when the time comes I hope that he will come into the Lobby with me to vote against televising the House, should we have that opportunity.
  Opening the debate, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) mentioned an important factor, the Central Pollution Unit. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look into the many organisations which are dealing with pollution and see if he can co-ordinate their activities. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has the responsibility of looking after this problem and I hope that he will be able to help in securing co-ordination.
  Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Fife, West with reference to men having to do the washing up and women going out to work by saying that of course, as another reason for equal pay, it should be a big help because men will not mind taking on those jobs when they are paid the right rate for the job. I support what my hon. Friend the Member

  917
  for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said about training. Far too many are trained and then have no job to go to. I reported to a previous Minister that a considerable number of people in my constituency had been in this position; so a survey of the problem would be very advantageous.
  West Country M.P.s are not a rebel group, but I think we are the only group which issued our own election manifesto with the approval of the present Prime Minister, and in it we indicated the needs for the West Country. We also quoted from the manifesto as a whole:
  "We regard an effective regional development policy as a vital element in our economic and social strategy; economically, because both prosperous and less properous areas are affected by the present regional imbalance and waste of resources it involves."
  I want to speak particularly about the waste of resources. The South-West covers a large area. We have development and intermediate or grey areas which cover Cornwall, Barnstaple and other parts of Devon. We not only need factories but the means of travelling to them, the provision of roads and other services. Then we could get orderly development and economic growth in Cornwall and North Devon and look on Exeter in the far West as a major centre. Our group is studying the development area policy recommended by the Hunt Committee. The phasing out of the regional employment premium, while taking into account existing obligations, will remove a heavy discrimination against the service and tourist industries.
  We want to concentrate on improving roads and other basic services in our region. Such a policy would be much more effective in bringing new industry to the West Country and providing more employment. It would also diminish the differences between development and grey areas.
  We have been talking a great deal about industry, but other types of employment are very important. We must think of leisure. I hope that in the future we shall consider the South-West as a conference and tourist centre. This is equally good as an industry. Our tourist industry is a very big dollar-earner, and it can benefit both the people in the region and the country as a whole. New hotels create new jobs.
  918
  I have been very disturbed about the whole situation. Until 1964 we came under the Local Employment Act of 1960. We were taken out of that, and then Plymouth and district sought development area status. There were a number of deputations, including members of the city council, but it was not until late last year that we became of intermediate status.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has talked about our being one nation. I entirely agree, but we shall never have one nation while there is such a disparity between the regions. So we must put this right if we are to have our hopes fulfilled.
  Like other areas, the South-West has a planning council. The South West Regional Economic Planning Council wrote in 1967 about "A Region with a Future." But there have been no real results of its expensively-produced document and all the consultations that were held. I am very glad that so many Conservative Members have been returned for the South-West because we can press the Government to see that we do not have a region with a dim future.
  We suffer from high unemployment and low wages. There is little encouragement for young people who want to make any progress to stay in the region. Unemployment in the South-West is almost twice as high as it was at the time of the last General Election, and unemployment rates there are higher than they are in other development areas during the winter months. This is a particular difficulty in Cornwall, which has a great deal of seasonal employment, and some of the agricultural areas, also have very high unemployment, and to correct this we want better policies than we have had.
  It is regrettable that during the past few years there have been successive cuts in the road programme. Delays in improving our roads have caused tremendous frustration. Now there is the question of closing down the freightline service at the end of this month. I understand that redundancy notices have already gone out, and I have taken the matter up with the Minister concerned. The service runs from Parr and Plymouth and goes to London and the Midlands. I

  919
  have a letter here from a business man who says:
  "I find this very disconcerting as my business associate and I were hoping to use this service."—
  he was writing from Derbyshire—
  "After inquiring into why this was, I found that it was not the volume of freight going down to the South-West but the amount returning to the north. As the South-West is designated a development area I can only see this as a retrograde step in encouraging industrial development."
  It is indeed a retrograde step, and I hope that even at this late hour action may be taken to stop it. The service has been running for only 15 months and has not had time to prove itself. Our roads are very congested, and to force larger lorries on to the road will make the situation even worse.
  I am glad that something is to be done about selective employment tax, because it has proved more damaging to the South-West than to any other region. This is because we are so dependent on tourism and service industries, which are very heavily taxed. We do not gain very much from the premiums paid to manufacturers, because there are so few industries. We were much better off under the old Local Employment Act of 1960, which produced 15 new factories for us.
  Still we seem to be neglected in other ways. We have been told for some time that we are to have a new hospital, but it does not seem to materialise. We have no encouragement for reopening the tin mines, which will be very beneficial to Cornwall.
  In Plymouth alone we are 400 telephones short. It is aggravating to business men when they cannot get a call to London. There is no decision yet about an airport.
  We also have the question of low wages. The Government have just produced a report, Cmnd. 4351, "Pay and Conditions of Industrial Civil Service", which shows that these civil servants have to work for 43·9 hours for £13 16s. 3d. It is said that they can get overtime of £2 2s. 9d., an incentive of 1s. 7d. for productivity and other pay—I do not know exactly what that means—of 12s. 3d. Even this combined does not bring them up to the national average, and it is very unfortunate when a person
  920
  has to rely on overtime to get an adequate wage.
  Mr. Tom King: So far from its not coming up to the national average, it does not even come up to the poverty figure.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I was going to mention that. A number of firms come to the South-West and pay less than they do elsewhere. For example, one firm pays it men in Hertfordshire at least £2 a week more than it does in a similar factory in our area. This is wrong.
  It does not pay to work in the South-West in many instances. The building trade is an example. I know someone with five small boys whose take-home pay is about £12 a week and there is very little overtime in the building trade in the South-West. He recently hurt his back, and the family was then much better off, because a family with five children on supplementary benefit gets £19 15s. In many cases it is not worth a chap's even trying to take a job, because he is no better off. That makes it very difficult for some firms who can offer only small amounts of money.
  I am also interested in the children of such families, because they have a very tough time, as they cannot have the usual amenities of other children. I know one infants' school where some children will not take off their clothes for P.T. if they can help it because they are so ashamed of their underclothes. I know that in London things are probably better, because the schools have a care committee to deal with such problems. Then the last Government was boasting about the great increase in the number of children having free school meals, but that is not a very good criterion because the reason is that they are too poor to pay for them.
  Like many other hon. Members. I have surgeries, but an election campaign opens our eyes tremendously. When we are canvassing, people who are too proud to come and see us meet us in the streets and often tell us their problems. Some families told me "If only we could have a pot of paint, which we cannot afford, we would be pleased to do up our house." That proves the low standard of wages in our area.
  Certain countries, such as Canada, France, the Netherlands and the United

  921
  States, have a national minimum wage system. This has been examined by the United Nations, and the Department of Employment and Productivity has made a survey which I have read. Canada has said that the system is to ensure as a matter of right the highest standards for employees within the Federal jurisdiction that are economically feasible. I should have thought it might not be impossible to do in this country.
  If we are to get one nation, if we are to end the imbalance among the regions, this is one of the points which the Government will have to study. I am very glad to see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the Front Bench, because I know that he is sympathetic about this type of problem.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: It is a pleasure to begin my maiden speech following the excellent and charming speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). I hope in time to match her constructiveness and concern, but I shall not aspire to match her charm.
  My constituency in central Scotland cradled the first industrial revolution. It is a constituency which produces many commodities for domestic and international consumption, not the least important being our store of whisky and our brewing potential. Should you wish to relieve yourself of the burdens of the metropolitan pleasures of London, Mr. Speaker, you will be welcomed in the spiritual sense both psychologically and physiologically. We also produce refractory bricks and we have the largest refractory brickworks in Europe and it makes a valuable contribution to the nation's exports.
  The people in the area cradled the first industrial revolution, as I have said, and, thanks to the excellent policies pursued during the past six years of Labour Government, policies epitomised by the presence in the Chamber of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), they are now forging ahead to
  922
  take their place in the new technological revolution.
  The constituency was represented for 31 years by the right hon. Arthur Woodburn. Arthur Woodburn is a big man, both in the physical sense and in the mental sense. I can hope to aspire to his potential only in the mental sense; physiologically I do not match him. I trust that the House will do me the courtesy of measuring a man, as we do in Scotland, from the neck up.
  Mr. Woodburn did something which I have inadvertently achieved—he intervened in a debate before having made his maiden speech. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) chided me about this. Mr. Woodburn intervened in the course of questions to the Prime Minister of the day about the Barlow Report, the Report of a Royal Commission on the Distribution of Population, which has been the foundation of regional policy from that day to this. There have been many variations, but the foundation of the original policy goes back to the Report of a Royal Commission published in 1940. I am following Mr. Woodburn's footsteps in many ways by intervening in this debate today.
  Hon. Members have argued that there is a gulf between the parties about what is meant by the words "unnecessary intervention" on the part of the Government. Many of us have posed the question, "Who knows best, the Government or industry?". In reality it is a false question, because sometimes industry knows best and sometimes the Government. There are flaws flowing from trying to follow too doctinaire an approach.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that there had been leaks about Government policy. If there are leaks South of the Border there is an absolute deluge North of the Border—and I am not referring to the deluge at the Royal and Ancient Burgh of St. Andrew's; I will not lay the blame for that on the Leader of the House, whom we wish well when he wears his other hat at the weekend. If he takes the Prime Minister to St. Andrew's, by road, rail, or on foot, we hope he will show him the excellent achievements of the Labour Government in Fife, Central Scotland and throughout Scotland as a whole.

  923
  Too doctrinaire an approach has evil consequences. I welcome the presence on the Treasury Bench of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who has been responsible in today's Glasgow Herald—and I do not often agree with that noble organ of public rectitude and erudition—for certain leaks of Government policy in relation to Scotland. He said:
  "While the Prime Minister has rightly said that he does not favour 'instant government', it is to be hoped for the sake of existing and potential Scottish companies that decisions are not delayed too long. The present uncertainty gives little confidence to invest."
  The hon. Member is clearly beginning his apprenticeship in the Scottish Office. He inadvertently dropped one or two hints in that interview. He clearly indicated that while Scotland might have been a depressed or distressed area in the past, it no longer was. He said:
  "This may have been true in the past, but it"—
  Scotland—
  "is rapidly becoming an area which has a great attractiveness to offer."
  A revelation indeed! Speaking for the Government, presumably, he went on to say that
  "they were convinced there was a need for changes in the development incentive system because it had not been producing good results".
  There is a contradiction in that. If Scotland is now becoming very attractive to new industrialists, will not the Government indicate their better policies or allow the existing policies to continue? This is where there is the division between the parties. This is a doctrinaire approach and it is no better illustrated than by the policy towards industrial development certificates.
  I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that his policy is for a full Parliament, which presumably means between four and five years. I have always agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who asked why we should look at the crystal ball when we can read the book. Let us look at what the Conservative Party in Government did between 1951 and 1964 about industrial development certificates. Both sides accept that the Government do not have the right to tell industry where it should go, but
  924
  they should have the right to insist—and this is particularly true of Scottish Cabinet Ministers—on telling industry where it should not go. This is the device of the stick, a very important device.
  What happened to this device in the mid-1950s? I quote an important commentator who, referring to i.d.c.s, said:
  "The threat of compulsion gave way to an almost exclusive reliance on persuasion until by mid-1956 the application for an Industrial Development Certificate had become, in almost all cases, a mere formality".
  In Scotland we cannot afford that in the mid-1970s. That would be disastrous for the Scottish economy.
  I turn to the second test for industrial development and structure. There is a mistaken view that the private entrepreneur always knows best. On occasions, the private investor will be most able to appraise an investment situation. I served an apprenticeship in the ship-wards when the industry was exclusively controlled by private entrepreneurs. I read with diligence and interest the Geddes Report. It was an unbiassed statement of policy and investigation of the industry. Paragraph 276, referring to the investment policy carried on by private entrepreneurs in that industry before any Government interference, necessary or unnecessary, says:
  "During the past ten years industry has spent over £60 million on land, buildings and new plant and machinery."
  That is very interesting on the investment record, but it goes on
  "It appears to us, however, that little if any attempt has been made before investing new capital to estimate the return in terms of increased profit or reduced cost which could be expected therefrom."
  So much for the point of view often put by the Conservative Party that public expenditure is wasteful and inflationary whereas private sector expenditure is not.
  When this view is examined against the stringent scrutiny which has been enforced by both parties against public expenditure, the case that is often put up for this view falls to the ground. I do not accept that public expenditure is wasteful or necessarily inflationary, but I am willing to discuss openly the methods of raising finance for public expenditure and whether it exerts inflationary pressures. There is a subtle difference to be made is neglected by hon. Members opposite.

  925
  I turn to another area of doctrinaire approach. I have been disturbed by the answers recently given in the House by the Minister of Technology. He is undermining the confidence of private industry to go to a Government-sponsored body, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. I have made a good deal of investigation into this matter and I have concluded that there has been no pressure by Government to force enterprises to go to I.R.C. But the Minister in answer to a question the other day clearly indicated that he would veto, tacitly or otherwise, companies which sought mergers necessary for the restructuring of British industry. I accept that the merchant banks have a rôle to play and that there are mergers necessary in industry that can be brought about by means independent of Government. If we are to get the industrial structure we need, particularly if we enter the Common Market, some direct Government intervention is necessary. If for doctrinaire reasons the Conservative Party are to bow to the interests of some sections of their supporters in financial terms, this might be disastrous for the British economy.
  I will turn to my final point which concerns regional employment premium. On this matter we see possible signs of a doctrinaire approach. No Government has the full solution to the problem of regional development, but the idea of a regional employment premium is to balance the attractiveness of the investment grant system so as to bring in capital-intensive industry with a labour-intensive base. I warn the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Ministers that the Scottish economy is delicately balanced. We have, rightly or wrongly, brought in a good many capital-intensive projects. They need an ever-widening market; they need concerns and enterprises of a labour-intensive nature attached to them. If regional employment premium is to be phased out some other labour-intensive device should be substituted. We need new industries in Scotland to take up some of the surplus manpower.
  I thank the House for its indulgence. I hope to intervene in the future debates, if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I promise then to be more coherent and cogent in my remarks.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I rise with great humility to make my maiden speech as Member for Hastings. At the same time I wish to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on the fluency and ease with which he made his maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear him on many future occasions in this House. He spoke with knowledge of industry since he was an engineering apprentice, as I once was. It was a pleasure to hear him.
  First I wish to pay a tribute to my predecessor Sir Neil Cooper-Key, a man of great character and ability who served in this House for 25 years. I know that his friends on both sides of the House will join me in wishing that he will still be able to give his services in some other form to our nation.
  The County Borough of Hastings, which I have the privilege to represent, is a town whose traditional trade over the last century has been that of tourism. As our postal franking clerks say, we have been "Popular with visitors since 1066". But over the last 20 years as people have gone abroad for their holidays the pattern of tourism has changed. At the same time more and more people have retired to our community into the sunshine. In fact, half the electorate is over 65. I am happy to say that the centenarians are commonplace in our town. These changes in themselves have brought problems and I should like to deal with them in my remarks this evening.
  Normally the whole of the South-East is regarded as a wealthy area. Unfortunately this is not true of Hastings or other South-East towns around it. In terms of selective employment tax we had all the redeployment that was hoped for from the service industries, but it went into unemployment. There were no other jobs to which people could go. In our town over the last few years 1,000 people have been out of work. The average wage is only £15 per week. This is nothing like enough to face up to the problems of inflation that have beset us all.
  When we tried to get help from the last Government we were met with the sort of reply we had from the former Secretary

  927
  of State for Education and Science when we sought to get permission to rebuild one primary school, Hollister Junior School, which is 100 years old. The only reply we had was, "We do not know when it can ever be rebuilt." We have a manual telephone exchange in Hastings which will not be replaced until 1973. This is hardly the type of treatment for the South-East in the latter part of the twentieth century. We have been deluged with social studies and economic advice. Over the last five or six years we have had everything short of actual help.
  My main suggestion is to hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the traditional definition of regional development areas to accommodate the development needs of coastal towns like Hastings. They need aid as problem points within the rich South-East area, not on a permanent basis but on a transitory basis over, say, three or five years. They need sufficient economic resources injected into the economy to enable them to become self-sustaining and to give them growth potential.
  This type of aid could be of two forms. First, local assistance tailored to the particular problems of a selected town. Secondly, area assistance tailored to the general problems of the total area's development progress. These two types of aid should be simultaneous and part of a strategic programme, partnering Government and industry. I welcome the proposals to bring business men and industrialists into Government Departments.
  This is an excellent way to develop the particular type of partnership envisaged in the Gracious Speech and it would help development areas of all kinds. From my 20 years' experience in technology, I know, as a technologist whose white heat was rather dampened by the Labour Party when in power, that these proposals have been welcomed by industry and business as indicative of a Government who at last know how to get on with the real problems of developing industry in the difficult regions. I welcome this, because at last we can bring together the spirit, the enterprise and the local knowledge which businessmen and industrialists can give.
  I should like to analyse a little further the two types of aid which I envisage could help the South-East coastal towns.
  928
  First is the local aid, the transitory aid over three to five years. It could be in the form of that now given to a development area—the economic incentives and the assistance that central Government resources can bring to the planning and promotion of economic growth, in other words, bringing to a community far more assistance and help than it could ever conjure up from its own local resources.
  I hope that we shall be thinking not only of new factories but of new schools and housing. At area level—here I am less optimistic about the South-East than was my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew)—we need a dramatic improvement in the infrastructure of communications. The South-East may be rich compared with the northern areas, but it is moving towards stagnation. In the next 10 years we like the rest of the country, will have 50 per cent. more vehicles on the roads, and our roads are archaic. They do not lead anywhere nationally and they follow no normal pattern of development which one would expect to see coming from either an area or a central Government.
  We have dribbles of motorways. Some motorways start and end at the most unexpected places. One has only to look at the M2 and the M20 as examples. What we need in the South-East, as part of the development assistance which would enhance those coastal towns and all the other small pockets which have been mentioned, are improvements such as a genuine spine motorway leading in fact from one place to another—namely, from London to the Channel ports. Whether or not we enter Europe, there is no question but that our trade with Europe is developing rapidly. It is not logical to accept that the area should have anything other than a sensible spine motorway system—not only to the ports but to the Channel tunnel. At the same time, I should like to see another motorway from those ports right along the South coast. If people are coming from the Continent, it will encourage tourists to enjoy the facilities all along the coast. We also need a motorway link right around London to wherever the third London Airport will be.
  With railways, the situation is grim, as many hon. Members from the South-East know. We have to put up with commuting standards which would be banned if we were animals. We have to suffer

  929
  these day after day and week after week: many people must suffer them all their lives. It is not sensible just to accept this as a condition which cannot be changed.
  Our railway freight services tend towards restriction. Only yesterday in my constituency we were told that the freight services are likely to be withdrawn without consultation. We have only just fought off—temporarily—the threat to close our main rail link with the Channel ports, and now another bolt from the blue comes upon us.
  Therefore, the type of aid needed in these South-East coastal towns may be totally different from that which is applicable in Scotland or the North. I believe that the local and area aid which I envisage for these towns could make their economies self-sustaining and could give them the growth potential which they simply cannot develop from their own resources. They must be seen to have this so as to induce modern industry and commerce to come to them and help them develop. The entrepreneur should be allowed to make his own judgment. If he makes a judgment to develop within those towns, that is the best way that those towns can get the development they need. We are looking not for a subsidised economy but for an opportunity to develop and get on. At the very least, we want to rejoin the progress, the pace and the prosperity that the rest of the area around us has.
  I thank the House for its courtesy in hearing me today, and I hope that I shall be able to make a further contribution in a later debate.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Leonard: The hon. Members for Hastings (Mr. Warren) and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Dick Douglas) have inadvertently made a difficult task more difficult for me. I am only too well aware that I cannot compete with the knowledge and fluency with which both have spoken, but I hope that I can compete with their brevity.
  I have the honour to represent Rom-ford. My predecessor, Mr. Ronald Ledger, served here for 15 years, during which time he made a distinctive mark in the House and the constituency. Soon after his election, he made a remarkable maiden speech, which I gather from many
  930
  hon. Members is still remembered vividly today. It is far beyond my capacity to hope to make a similar impact.
  Romford is a constituency of many striking contrasts. In its ancient market place, traders have sold their wares week in and week out since the years 1267. Immediately alongside this market place is the most modern shopping centre in the country, encircled by a ring road opened only during the recent Election campaign. The constituency, which is within the Greater London Council area, contains a tiny village, Havering-atte-Bower, which is completely surrounded by open countryside. Not far away is the Harold Hill Estate, the second largest council housing estate in London, where 30,000 of my constituents are tenants of the Greater London Council. The constituency also contains several smaller G.L.C. estates and other estates belonging to the London Borough of Havering.
  I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I speak about the economics of council housing and particularly those in the Greater London region, rather than follow some of the wider aspects of regional policy with which other right hon. and hon. Members have dealt. The question of the sale of council houses has already been discussed by several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) in his maiden speech the other day. I do not want to bore the House by reiterating his points: I simply say that I completely agree with them. But I should like to say something about council house rents.
  As hon. Members will know, the Minister of Housing has the power, under the Rent (Control of Increases) Act, 1969 to restrict the freedom of local authorities to increase the rents they charge to their tenants. This power will lapse in June, 1971 and it is disturbing that there was no mention in the Gracious Speech of the Government's intention to seek a renewal of this legislation.
  In case any hon. Member should doubt the need for such a renewal, I should like to give a few facts and figures about the way rents have been forced up in recent years, despite the fact that the Minister's predecessor, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, made extensive use of his power to moderate the increases sought by many local authorities. The average weekly

  931
  rent of a council house in Greater London in 1957 was 21s. 2d. a week. By last October, it had increased, according to the official publication Housing Statistics, to 55s. 11d. Since then, the G.L.C. has increased rents by the maximum allowed by the previous Minister—an average of 7s. 6d. a week. This means that council house rents in London have trebled over 13 years. Increases in the rest of England and Wales have been almost as great.
  Those increases have been much greater than those experienced by tenants of private landlords in recent years. Their rents are now effectively determined by rent officers appointed under the Rent Act, 1968. Council tenants in my constituency feel that far from removing the restrictions introduced by the last Government, there is now an overwhelming case for strengthening them and for ensuring a period of respite for a number of years during which the recent substantial increases can be absorbed.
  They were alarmed by a speech made by Mr. Desmond Plummer, the leader of the Greater London Council, on 27th February in which he said, according to the Evening News, that he
  "banks on a Tory Government to let the G.L.C. put up council house rents by larger amounts than the Labour Government has permitted."
  If the Government do not take early steps to prove Mr. Plummer wrong, I feel that they will rapidly lose what support they have previously been able to command from council house tenants. More importantly, they will be guilty of allowing a harsh and unjust new burden to fall on the shoulders of many thousands of people who are least able to bear it.
  I note that the Gracious Speech contains a pledge that housing subsidies
  "will be refashioned so as to give more help to those in greatest need."
  That is an aim which, in principle, I am sure, we would all warmly support, but I warn the Government that it is an aim which they should approach with due caution. Any large-scale switch of the distribution of subsidies resulting in a further rapid increase in rents for large numbers of tenants would cause
  932
  widespread and justified resentment and would go flatly against the Government's election promises to prevent further rises in the cost of living. Moreover, to single out subsidies for council houses for this treatment without, at the same time, refashioning—a nicely ambiguous word—the larger subsidies given to owner occupiers would constitute a retreat from rather than an advance towards social justice.
  The subsidy which is received by owner occupiers is, of course, the relief which they obtain from income tax payments or through the option mortgage scheme introduced by the last Government. Those subsidies are largely directed to those in least need. A house buyer who purchases a house for £10,000 receives twice the relief gained by one who buys a £5,000 house although, in all probability, his total income and resources are far larger. If the Government are interested in reducing anomalies in the distribution of public assistance to those in housing need, I suggest that their attention might be more fruitfully turned in this direction.
  While council house tenants now demand a period of respite from rent increases, this will not give them the permanent security which they desire and to which they have a right. In my view, the Government should take steps to put council tenants on the same footing as tenants of the very best private landlords, because it is not merely the cost of rent increases which hits tenants but the arbitrary and unpredictable way in which councils have been able to impose them. Tenants should have an assurance that the rents they pay will remain unchanged for a fixed period—say, three, five or seven years—as is normal in agreements for private rented property, and there should be no possibility of their being raised before the expiry of that time. This would relieve tenants of the fear that their rents will be raised year after year and it would enable them to plan their personal budgets ahead with some degree of certainty.
  Moreover, the time has surely come when council tenants should be granted the same degree of security of tenure as is enjoyed by private tenants under the Rent Act. It was always presumed that as local authorities are not in the housing business for the purpose of making private

  933
  profit, they would behave responsibly towards their tenants. This reliance has, in the great majority of cases, proved to be justified. In recent years, however, there have been a number of disturbing instances when councils have sought to dispossess their tenants on questionable grounds. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench to convey to the Minister of Housing and Local Government the suggestion that this protection should be extended to council tenants.
  There is in some quarters a belief that council tenants are privileged people. Others take the view that they are second-class citizens. In my opinion, both those views are mistaken. Council tenants do, however, suffer from certain disabilities, and they look to the Government to remove them.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: The House has just listened with great pleasure to three notable maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) was well informed and well prepared, and the House will always listen with great interest to one who knows his facts so well. I enjoyed particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who was extremely fluent. To one who comes from Scotland, it was interesting to hear the problems of regional development from the point of view of an hon. Member from the South-East of England.
  I should like also to congratulate the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). We knew his predecessor very well and listened with great respect to what he said. The hon. Member was well informed and humorous in parts. He was contentious, but not too contentious. On the next occasion, we shall look forward to hearing what he is like when he is really contentious.
  I am glad of the opportunity to speak in this debate, because there has recently been published the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which looked into the question of economic planning in Scotland, and particularly the question of industrial incentives. I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee which worked on this subject.
  Undoubtedly, the last Government were committed to regional development, as,
  934
  indeed, are the present Government. In listening to the debate, I have felt that many hon. Members who have spoken have not read the Gracious Speech or the passage in it which states that
  "My Ministers attach the greatest importance to promoting … an effective regional development policy."
  When one looks, however, at the results of the policy of the last Government, they were not particularly remarkable or effective in Scotland. Certainly, emigration was reduced, but the figures of unemployment were much too high and the loss of jobs in Scotland throughout the whole period of the Labour Government was most disappointing.
  We were, of course, lacking the first essential, which is an expanding economy, because when the economy is expanding it is like a high tide, which floats all boats, and manufacturers who want to expand will start another factory in a development area or engage more labour. In times of freeze, however, that effect is absent.
  The regional policies of the last Government cost a lot of money. There were suggestions that investment grants were sometimes given to people who did not really need them as they would have chosen the same area for the location of their project in any case. It was sometimes suggested that the regional employment premium went to people who could have done without it. In listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I was interested to hear that he went quite a long way with this point of view.
  It is absolutely right that the new Government should review the policy to ensure that public expenditure is saved wherever possible. I want, however, to make the point that the people who go out to attract industrialists to come to Scotland, like the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) want a settled package of inducements which they can "sell" to industrialists from, perhaps, America or from other parts of Britain. They do not want to have the package chopped and changed, as it has been so often during the last 10 years.
  We in Scotland need all the new industry we can get, whether it is capital intensive like the aluminium smelter at Invergordon or whether it is labour intensive like shipbreaking at Cairnryan

  935
  in my constituency. The object of incentives should be the promotion of new technological industries as well as traditional industries. In the Scottish Select Committee we were quite clear that industrial development certificates played a valuable part in showing to industrialists the attractions of a development area, and this was of more effect on them than actually getting them to move. It may interest the House to know that in 1969 only 8 per cent. of applications for industrial development certificates were refused in the South-East and Midlands. We undoubtedly need a further reverse incentive to get industry to move from over-heated areas. We examined, as a witness, Professor Brown of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who suggested in the Hunt Report on intermediate areas a form of congestion tax. It would work as a payroll tax in certain areas where there is a shortage of labour and consequent over-heating of the economy.
  In the evidence we took in the Select Committee we found that the cost of congestion had never been examined in this country. There are such questions as the bidding up of wage rates when labour is very short; familiar losses due to traffic congestion; the cost of additional infrastructure for people moving into an area which is already congested such as the housing and sewerage which has to be provided. We were given no figures as to costs except that in France it had been worked out that for every family which moved into the Paris conurbation the cost was an extra £3,000 in providing infrastructure. It was fascinating to see the other side of this picture in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). I recommend that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology sets up a working party to look into the costs of congestion in the South-East and the Midlands of England.
  I am sure my right hon. Friend is right to concentrate on growth points. All European experience points to this as being a correct solution. The present system of inducements which we have inherited from the last Government was weighted too heavily in favour of the conurbations like Merseyside and the central belt of Scotland, because the
  936
  same inducements were offered in those towns where there was a plentiful supply of labour, and they obviously were much more attractive to industrialists than such areas as Wigtownshire, one of the counties I represent, or Banffshire, another county not in the Highland Board's development area. To correct this distinction the last Government had various categories of development area. There were, for example, the special development areas, areas where there had been colliery closures; then there was the Highlands development area which had a distinct edge over the next category of development area; finally the Government had to produce the intermediate area or grey area as a result of the Hunt Report.
  If we are to have this sort of categorisation it seems to me utterly logical that areas of persistently high unemployment should not get a higher status, areas like Stranraer and Newton Stewart or Inverurie in Aberdeenshire where the railway workships are scheduled to close down, and special area development status should not just depend on whether there has been a colliery closure in the area.
  The last Government always seemed to me to be prejudiced against the service industries. They felt that they did not really contribute to employment; they were like new shops opening in a town with the custom from other shops drawn to them. I think this is an oversimplification, and that service industries can provide a great deal of employment. I know that the Stranraer to Larne ferry service increased with the provision of new boats for the crossing and a larger number of extra lorry drivers was needed in the districts served. All that was very welcome. Exactly the same thing can happen if we can induce offices, perhaps head offices of insurance companies, to move from congested areas to, say, a city like Edinburgh.
  Very little research is being done on the question of service industries and the contribution which they could make to curing unemployment. Again I suggest that my right hon. Friend should look into this aspect and see if there are any possibilities of providing more employment in the service industries.
  Finally, a word about small industries and small places. Let us by all means

  937
  encourage small industries to grow bigger but I have found in my experience that there are often considerable difficulties for one reason or another in getting the necessary finance. There are not nearly enough small industries on the move, small industries seeking to employ 40 or 50 people. Will my right hon. Friend see that such few as are on the move do not settle in the middle of a big conurbation like Liverpool or Glasgow? These are industries which should be induced or persuaded to go to smaller places in development areas. At the moment this is not being done in the Ministry, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). He will forgive me, I hope, if I say that I saw a contradiction in some of the things he was saying. He said at one point that the Government were entirely right to concentrate on growth points and the next moment he was for steering industry to Wigtownshire and the remoter areas. Such areas as that will never become growth points. Growth points, by definition of the present Prime Minister, are areas capable of massive industrial development. That is a quotation from a speech by the present Prime Minister at Dundee last year. He said that regional development under the present Government would be concentrated on points of massive industrial growth. These will never include Wigtownshire or Inverurie or the rural peripheral areas. I do not unduly blame the hon. Member for Galloway for this deep-seated confusion in his thought because it only reflects the confusion in the Government's thought about regional policy.
  I have a collection, which I used for campaign purposes and to entertain audiences, of contradictory statements by members of the Conservative Party about regional policy. For instance, there is the sort of statement which one gets from the present Prime Minister to the effect that the jam is spread too thin by the Labour Government. It should be concentrated on areas of rapid industrial growth and should be less in quantity. Money can and should be saved. Then one gets the present Secretary of State for Scotland who used to go around saying nowhere
  938
  in Scotland would lose its development area status under the Conservatives, but the value of this was reduced when he also said that within development areas there would be special growth points. I think he became known as "Growth point Gordon" because everywhere he went there was described as a possible growth point.
  I do not wish to develop this because it is a little unfair to push the present Government around on contradictions in its development policy. Clearly, they have not worked out these matters at all, but one point which all members of the Government should notice is that they should take great care before returning to the policy they applied to Scotland before 1964 when they relied on growth points because, in addition to not producing a satisfactory situation in Scotland as a whole, that policy had a detrimental effect within Scotland.
  I think the hon. Member for Galloway dislikes, as I also dislike, the drift from peripheral points to the Central Belt of Scotland, since it is socially damaging and inadequate as a development policy.
  Mr. Brewis: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was exactly the same growth point policy which was being followed in practice by the Socialist Government?
  Mr. Mackintosh: No. I would not agree with that for one moment. It was under the Labour Government that the Highlands and Islands Development Board was set up for development policy in the north, and then there was the decision to make the whole of Scotland a development area, and not to give special advantages to the central belt. There was also the production of development plans for the Borders. If the Conservatives are undertaking a reexamination of this matter they might consider giving special advantages to the remoter areas, since those are the areas to which it is harder to attract industry.
  Rather than pursue this pointless theme of attacking the Government on a matter which they have not thought out, I will turn to a different subject in the Gracious Speech which was also indirectly illustrated by the speech of the hon. Member for Galloway, because he was Chairman of a Sub-Committee of the Scottish Specialist Committee which looked into

  939
  these matters. Those aspects of his speech which contained new information came from the evidence which he and his colleagues on the committee were able to collect.
  I want now to deal briefly with the machinery of government. Each Government is elected in an atmosphere and brings in its own attitude to problems. The atmosphere of this Government, typified by the Treasury team, is an atmosphere of economic efficiency. They have come in on the notion of a long-term approach to streamlining Government to make it work more effectively and more cheaply in terms of public expenditure. But I hope that they will not set aside or stop thinking about the proposals brought forward as part of the 1964–66 atmosphere, for parliamentary reform, a great deal of which is necessary from a long-term national point of view in improving the whole machinery of government.
  In addition to the need for efficient government, we also have to face declining public confidence in Members of Parliament and in this House. I was disturbed by the fall in the poll and by the number of people reported by the polls as saying that what happened in the House made very little difference. I know what these people mean, and if we are to have Conservatism of the traditional type which conserves by reforming and preserves by improving, I hope that the policy of parliamentary reform which we started in the last Parliament will not be set aside and that the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure will not be ignored.
  To give one example of the contempt with which people tend to view the working of Members of Parliament is typified by the way in which directly the House is dissolved the job of the M.P. is assumed to disappear. The Minister's job does not cease to exist; it is worth doing; his job and his pay continue until a successor takes over; but the M.P., who is apparently just here to produce hot air and lobby-fodder, loses his job when Parliament is dissolved. This is irritating and humiliating when an M.P. is in the process of dealing with certain problems. I had twenty cases which I had started before the Dissolution and
  940
  which I was unable to finish because my job had ceased.
  For instance, I wrote to a Government Department about a pension case. I received a reply which was not satisfactory, so I wrote again to the Department. In the meantime the House was dissolved and the reply which I received from the civil servant said, "We are not in the habit of discussing the affairs of citizens with other citizens who have no interest in the matter." This is intolerable.
  Another example is that I was concerned with the possibility of building a motorway in my constituency. I had had two meetings with the Department and local authority officials when it became apparent that the House was about to be dissolved. The civil servants had the courtesy to ask whether the next meeting could be put forward, otherwise it could not be held. The suggestion that I should get political capital by stopping my election campaign to hold this meeting is nonsense and it is ridiculous that my constituents should not be represented at an important meeting in this period because the job of the M.P. had technically ceased.
  Meanwhile, in the House, our secretaries were locked out from their filing cabinets and their offices and rooms. This typifies the attitude that the job of the M.P. is so trivial and pointless that it can stop dead and only start again once the M.P. is re-elected.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): Will the hon. Gentleman inform me how he relates what he is saying to the terms of the Amendment?
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am discussing the Gracious Speech, and I informed Mr. Speaker by letter that I wished to talk about those aspects of it which dealt with local government and parliamentary reform. The debate is on the totality of the Queen's Speech, but if I am out of order I hope you will inform me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing the Amendment to the Queen's Speech. In the interests of orderly debate we should try to adhere to what we are meant to be discussing, but I will not be too hard on the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. William Molloy: On a point of order. Are you saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if hon. Members who happen to sit on the Front Bench put down an Amendment all hon. Members are bound to speak to that Amendment? If that is what you say, it is a most frightening Ruling.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I like many of us, have a lot to learn yet, but I think I am correct in saying that we are meant to adhere to the terms of the Amendment.
  Mr. John Biffen: On a point of order. In your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you take into consideration the undertaking given by the Leader of the House during business Questions this afternoon that, in winding up, he would be dealing, for example, with future Specialist Committees?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be quite in order.
  Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, when you say that will be quite in order, do you mean that it will be quite in order that it can be related to the Queen's Speech, or quite in order that it was the Leader of the House who said it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with a convention that a certain latitude is allowed to an hon. Member in winding up a debate which is not so freely given to others.
  Mr. Mackintosh: This is why I began on the question of the Amendment. I know that the Leader of the House will be winding up, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for the slightly greater latitude which you have been kind enough to give me.
  Be it for regional development or any other purpose, efficiency of Government should be improved, not merely, as the Government have announced, by bringing in executives from Shell, but by improving the efficiency of the House and taking the work of Members of Parliament more seriously and equipping them to do the job.
  I was citing the attitude to the Member of Parliament after dissolution as an example of what the public thinks of Members of Parliament and their work in general. I will now be more constructive
  942
  and point out the deficiencies in the House which are known to the public. The public feel that we are too dependent on the Government. I have always thought it an unhappy situation when a quarter of the occupants of the Government benches hold offices in the Executive, and I welcome a smaller Executive in that it increases the independence of the House.
  I welcome the remarks of the Leader of the House in evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure when he said that a great criticism was that the House came too late into the processes of legislation and administration, and that these matters were often settled in negotiation between the Government and outside pressure groups. He proposed methods by which the House could intervene and bring the general point of view, the public's point of view, to bear in matters at an early formative stage. I hope that in winding up he will give an explanation of how he hopes to do this.
  Parliament is not sufficiently well-informed. One result of the Scottish Select Committee was that we were able to find out the arguments which were taking place within the Administration on the best techniques of regional development. We were able to find out on which matters the Government were clear and on which they were not, and how effective, in the Government's view, was the impact of the i.d.c. policy. We were able to find out the technical arguments for and against grants compared with investment allowances.
  Without this sort of machinery the Member of Parliament cannot be informed about the critical decisions open to Governments and the leeway open to the Government so that he can use his influence in the best possible way. If the present Government are to dedicate themselves to efficiency and improving efficiency, one of the best methods of doing so is to equip the House of Commons to help them in this way. The idea that the chief problem with efficiency in Government is a matter of cost technique and programme planning budgeting and things of that kind is largely mistaken, because Government can improve these matters by internal arrangements. On the whole, our civil servants are hardworking, sensible, honest and dedicated men who do their best and try to keep

  943
  up to date with modern management techniques.
  The chief weakness in Government which I have observed in the four and a half years during which I have been a Member of this House has not been in technical efficiency but in a refusal to re-examine the assumptions on which established policy has been working. Sitting behind me is the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) who wrote a book about the Cabinet, one full chapter of which explains that the Labour Government never re-examined the decision to remain east of Suez but said that the decision to quit east of Suez was taken ultimately by some sort of irrational process, I do not know what, an internal rumination but never explicitly thought out and argued.
  This is the trouble with British government—an ongoing policy tends to drift on without the basis of it being questioned. This cannot be done by business efficiency experts, it can only be done by the sort of equipment this House should have if it is properly organised.
  Mr. Biffen: Would the hon. Gentleman say that there is, therefore, a natural break point in the process of Government at which some of the assumptions governing regional development policy should be pressed?
  Mr. Mackintosh: That is exactly what I am trying to argue and I was saying that the Scottish Select Committee was doing this. It was questioning the assumptions which we otherwise have not got the equipment or machinery to handle if we are simply working from an isolated position on the back benches of the House. Also, many Ministers operating a policy may be too busy to re-examine the fundamental assumptions on which a policy is based. I hope that this Government will consider very carefully the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure for an expenditure committee—divided into subcommittees on each Departmental set of Estimates, on each Departmental sector of policy—to do this questioning and control through the mechanism of financial control.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said in a recent
  944
  debate, when he was on the Opposition Front Bench, that he accepted the proposal for an expenditure committee of this kind. I hope that he will stick to this and that we will have an announcement tonight from the Leader of the House that this expenditure committee, with its sub-committees, will be set up. Although we have now won the agreement that we are to get a White Paper on the rolling programme on expenditure and Parliament has the first chance in its recent history of examining public expenditure. This requires the sort of committee I am describing to look at the breakdown of the items of this expenditure, sector by sector, so that, for instance, we know what effect public expenditure cuts which right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to make will have on particular programmes.
  It will be very satisfactory for right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they can announce public expenditure cuts, but we want the machinery to find out what such cuts would mean in terms of the educational programme, in terms of the overseas aid programme and the health services. It is in the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite too because if they do not find this out and exercise adequate pressure on their Front Bench they will find out from the public at the next election. It is in the interests of all hon. Members that we have this equipment.
  I would also suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should consider the views of the Select Committee on Procedure about a taxation committee. The Select Committee was unable to report on this because of the Dissolution but not only do we wish to scrutinise expenditure we want a committee that can give long-term thought to methods of raising money, to the impact of taxation, that can inform the House about such proposals as a value-added tax and a wealth tax. Only in this way would the House be equipped to exercise its proper function of control and only in this way will it increase its standing in the eyes of the public as an effective, independent check on the Executive, a check which would not require voting against the Government but which would be a means of examination, questioning, getting information, producing arguments which the Front Bench would have to answer and,

  945
  in the process of answering might be influenced to reconsider some of its proposals. These are the directions of change which I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider. This is the time to consider them, at the beginning of the new Parliament.
  If such reforming policies are adopted, there will be tremendous opposition. The Civil Service will object because no one likes being questioned; no senior group of people likes to be forced to re-examine their assumptions. They do not like what they call "ignorant and ill-informed questions" but often it is these questions which get to the heart of the matter, which find out why policies are being pursued, which force men who are doing something to think up reasons why they are acting in certain ways when they often have not done this sufficiently and when the original reasons for the policy may have disappeared in changed circumstances. This is what we wish the Government to do as well as dedicating themselves to efficiency. If the Government are to reform the machinery of government they should ally themselves not merely to men from Shell and big, private concerns—they should take into partnership Members of this House and permit them to do the work necessary to help Ministers. In the process, they will produce not only better government but, I hope, will increase the standing of this House in the eyes of the public.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: Welsh accents, English accents and Scottish accents having been heard in this House, it is only right and proper that the voice of an Ulster Unionist should be heard on this important topic of regional development. Having listened with amazement to the breathless fervour of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), I have a slight inkling of what Irish Republicans feel about the Ulster people. Irish Republicans criticise the majority of people in Northern Ireland for their origin, which is Scottish.
  I regret that I cannot follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman because I wish to speak about Northern Ireland. I should like to pay a well-deserved tribute to my predecessor, George Currie, who represented Down, North for many
  946
  years. He entered this House not long before the Irish Republican Army began once again a ruthless and intermittent campaign which aimed to destroy Northern Ireland by the use of the gun, bombs and explosives. Now we are faced with the same unfortunate situation and we have the gunman casting his sinister shadow across many parts of Northern Ireland. I should like to pay tribute, expressed already in the Gracious Speech, to our soldiers serving in Northern Ireland who, despite the fatigue and strain of their service, patiently protect the peace of our Province.
  In Down, North there are, fortunately, no riots and Protestant and Catholic live happily side by side. We enjoy a degree of prosperity and peace which I and my Unionist colleagues would like to see established throughout the length and breadth of Ulster. The good relations in my constituency and its good name are apparently too much for the opponents of Northern Ireland who never cease in their smear campaign. A short time ago publicity was given to a statement said to be made by a Roman Catholic to the effect that the Roman Catholics in Bangor, which is a progressive borough in the area, were living in terror. In fact, the Roman Catholic who was reported in the Press as saying that did not make the statement at all and he repudiated it. I am happy to say that it was also repudiated by leading Protestant and Roman Catholic members of the Borough of Bangor. That is the sort of nonsense with which we in Northern Ireland are frequently faced. I hope that that incident gives this House some idea of the problem which we face in Ulster. It is not the gunman alone, but the vicious propaganda which people outside Ulster are deceived into believing.
  The Irish Republicans will go to any lengths to damage the fabric of our society and our economy. The dead, the injured and the homeless are a sad monument to their embittered and ceaseless campaign. Republicans are not intent on asserting their rightful place in the community. Their purpose is to usurp power and overthrow the State. They must be made to realise that the views of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion—tolerant, decent, fair-minded—will not

  947
  be changed one iota by bullets, bombs and incendiary devices. On the contrary, such measures have hardened public opinion.
  In view of the fact that the 12th July Orange parade is to take place on Monday, perhaps I might comment on it. It is a matter of regret to me that, when-even that parade is mentioned by political commentators on television or in the Press, it is referred to constantly as the parade which commemorates the defeat of Roman Catholics by Protestants. That is not what the majority of people of Northern Ireland commemorate. They commemorate a battle in which a king who did not believe in democratic government was defeated by a power which asserted the right of the people, and the victory which is commemorated on the 12th—[Interruption.]—even though hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh—
  Mr. H. J. Delargy: We are not laughing. We are sneering.
  Mr. Kilfedder: It was a victory of civil and religious liberties for all in Northern Ireland. That is what that parade commemorates.
  All decent people in Northern Ireland want to see their fellow citizens living in harmony together. We must all pray and work for that. There will be no future for Northern Ireland unless there is peace and unless it has a healthy economy, and they are inter-dependent since the economy depends on having peace in the Province.
  One aspect of Conservative policy which more than any other caused real concern in Northern Ireland was what we tended to regard as the less-than-enthusiastic attitude towards regional development. Happily, confidence was restored by the prompt acceptance of the five-year development plan, for which I wish to thank my right hon. Friends. The psychological effect of that quick response by the newly-elected Government to a plan which could make the difference between lethargy and vitality for the Ulster economy came as a much-needed shot in the arm.
  Under the Ulster Development Plan, it was hoped that 40,000 additional manufacturing jobs would be created by 1975.
  948
  In view of the present sad situation, we all realise that that is an optimistic target. However our unemployment situation is so severe that we must aim high. It is not only making sure that people get employment. It is ensuring the future of Ulster itself.
  Unemployment has always been a major problem in Northern Ireland, which has a rate of about 7 per cent., or four times the United Kingdom average. If long-term sickness were added, the true rate of unemployment would be even higher since sickness benefit is often claimed as an alternative when entitlement to unemployment benefit has been exhausted. Because of the unhappy employment situation, many young people have emigrated or are thinking of emigrating from Northern Ireland. Two or three A-levels, a Higher National Certificate or a university degree is a passport to a one-way ticket for Australia, Canada or the South-East of England. At the graduation ceremony at Queen's University, Belfast, last Tuesday, the Pro-Vice Chancellor complained that 60 per cent. of science graduates went abroad immediately following graduation. These are the persons who are trained at the expense of the Ulster taxpayer. They are lost to the country on reaching the age when they are able to make a contribution to the prosperity of the community because the jobs are not there for them to take.
  The riots also have had an adverse effect on the economy and the wellbeing of Northern Ireland. Only last week, British Insulated Callender's Cables announced the postponement of a major addition to its two Northern Ireland plants. Not since the late 1950s when the great shipbuilding decline threw 15,000 men out of work in Belfast has Northern Ireland faced such a difficult economic prospect.
  The growth of investment which changed the industrial face of Ulster in a decade up to 1967 has been brought to a halt by the recent riots. In that ten-year period, industrial production increased at the rate of about 5 per cent. a year, which is higher than that for the United Kingdom as a whole. External trade grew at much the same rate. By 1967, exports were more than £500 million or about 80 per cent. of the gross domestic product.

  949
  Against that sort of background, it is unfortunate in a way that Northern Ireland has attracted capital-intensive industry rather than labour-intensive industry. Many of the new industries have been costly to set up yet do not employ as many people as the cost warrants. The capital grants offered by the Northern Ireland Government to newcomers to Ulster have played a part in this, though the regional employment premium has helped redress the balance slightly.
  I do not suggest that the capital grants have been unsuccessful. Clearly they have been of the greatest benefit to Northern Ireland in bringing new industries to the Province which play a vital part in its progress and prosperity. What I suggest is that it is more difficult and perhaps more expensive to attract labour-intensive industry to the Province. The total effect of S.E.T. in Northern Ireland has been bad in an area of continuously high unemployment, and several thousand jobs have disappeared under its impact. The abolition of S.E.T. will be a great relief to hard-pressed service industries. Tourism, for example, plays an important part in my own constituency, and, despite what hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, I regret that the troubles which have been highlighted on television and in the Press have discouraged people from going to Northern Ireland, especially to the resorts in North Down—
  Mr. Delargy: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the Press should not report these happenings. Should this news be suppressed?
  Mr. Kilfedder: I have not suggested that. I am saying that the publicity given to the riots in Belfast and other relatively small areas have given the impression to a great number of people in Scotland, Wales and England that there are riots in every street, town and village of Northern Ireland. That is not so. Anyone who has been to Northern Ireland and experienced the generosity, kindness and fair-mindedness of the people will realise that strangers and friends from across the water will find a happy and peaceful reception in the greater part of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Press and television will tell the people of this country that they will
  950
  receive an enjoyable holiday in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Molloy: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that most people in Northern Ireland are kindly, decent and friendly. If he will use his good offices, irrespective of religion, to encourage them, instead of preaching these virtues to the English, Welsh and Scots, to practise them to one another, happiness might return.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Until about 18 months ago the people of Northern Ireland were coming to a stage where bitterness was disappearing. That bitterness was brought back to the scene because of the activities of a few republicans and revolutionaries.
  I come from Donegal in the Republic of Ireland. Hon. Members opposite might credit the Unionist Party for selecting someone not born in Ulster. From all the places that I know, both inside and outside Ulster, Protestants have always wished to live in peace with their neighbours. I think that any fair-minded person examining Northern Ireland and perhaps some parts of England might say that there is a better future for children in Ulster with its good schools and amenities and the pleasant land that makes up Northern Ireland than in other places.
  I return to the question of regional policy. If in rethinking regional policy the Government reduce the amount of money, they reduce the competitiveness of the manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland. If they remove the differential with the rest of the United Kingdom, Ulster will be adversely affected. The ending of R.E.P. would mean the end for many linen firms in Northern Ireland. At the moment, by means of S.E.T. and R.E.P., we have a certain amount of money helping the Ulster economy. I want a clear assurance from the Government that, with the disappearance of S.E.T. and R.E.P., at least the same amount of money will be provided by the Government to help our critical economic situation. I hope that that assurance will be forthcoming this evening.
  I am sorry that Northern Ireland's development plans did not attempt a fundamental appraisal of the consequences for Ulster of Britain's entry into the E.E.C. I do not think that any

  951
  development plan nowadays can be meaningful without a thorough-going investigation into this aspect of regional problems.
  Finally, concerning all development areas. I feel that there must be a greater awareness of the importance of industrial training. I am glad to see that Northern Ireland has been particularly successful in its programme. About 60 per cent. of the working population in Northern Ireland is now covered by Industrial Training Boards. About 40 per cent. of the boys and girls now obtain apprenticeships compared with only 16 per cent. a few years ago. One unique feature of apprenticeship training in Northern Ireland is that two of the industrial training boards, the Construction and the Engineering Boards, directly recruit apprentices, train them at Government training centres or at technical colleges, and then place them in employment. This is the only part of the United Kingdom where this happens. About 2,500 boys have completed training under this scheme in the past four years. It is a remarkable record that only about a dozen out of that very considerable number have not been placed in work. The Industrial Training Board continues to pay and to train those who are not placed until they do get work. This is an excellent achievement with a 7 per cent. unemployment rate.
  I know that the Government receive numerous claims for assistance from various regions. But if we in Northern Ireland do not achieve a reasonable economic target, the results are far worse than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is not only unemployment about which we are concerned, but the peace, future prosperity and the very existence of Ulster.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I hope that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I find it exceedingly difficult when people in Northern Ireland cannot understand themselves. Therefore, I should be in deep water, as an ordinary Member of a northern area of Great Britain, if I attempted to venture on the ground which the hon. Gentleman described in his speech.
  952
  I will, however, make one point. The hon. Gentleman made references to economic conditions in Northern Ireland. I suggest that if he looks at the history books and finds the basic causes, he will arrive at different conclusions from those he imputed in his speech. That is as far as I am prepared to go in commenting on what was said by the hon. Member for Down, North.
  I am the chairman of the northern group of Labour Members of Parliament. Over the past six years I have noted in my part of the country a great transformation. I would not in any sense of wishful thinking presume that we had reached the targets of achievement required to bring prosperity to that area. We cannot change long years of indifference and decades of neglect in merely five years of Government. No Government can do that. But the hallmark of success has been stamped on the Northern Region. I am perturbed not only about policies—this dismays me, because we have heard so little about them—but about these great thinkers, the businessmen, the great financiers, the part-time workers in this House who know all the answers, who have indulged in a week of vagueness, generalities and shifting. Indeed, it is taking so long for Ministers to get used to their seats and desks that I wonder what the civil servants are thinking.
  On Monday my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) asked a Question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology. My hon. Friend congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment. While we all enjoy the courtesies in this House—I hope we are sincere about them—we are, nevertheless, always critical about the Answers that we get. My hon. Friend asked about the effect on firms being attracted to the North-East arising from comments which had been made by the Chairman of the Northumberland County Council. I could not quite see the connection in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, but this is what he said:
  "When the Government's review of regional policy has been completed we shall see how best to attract the jobs that are certainly needed in the North-East."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 300.]
  I felt that it was proper to try to follow the general theme of replies, and that day was quite interesting. I refer now to

  953
  industrial development grants. I am sorry that the Minister of Technology is absent, but I must make reference to him because of his speech today on another matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked the Minister of Technology
  "if he will take steps to evaluate the effectiveness of industrial development grants",
  to which the Minister replied:
  "This is under review."
  A little later another hon. Member asked the Minister
  "if he will introduce legislation extending current support for the mining industry…"
  This is important to us in the northern region. It is an important aspect of our policies, and arises from humanitarian considerations not only for the problems of the industry itself, but of the people who are affected. The Minister of State replied to that question:
  "The hon. Gentleman must await the completion of the consideration which I am giving to this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 304–5.]
  I could go on finding instances of the Government "reviewing", "considering", and "not having made up their mind", and that by itself is dangerous.
  To take my region alone, it is common knowledge that, arising from firm inquiries for development in that region, 42,000 jobs were in prospect. I have a right to ask the Government, and the Government have an obligation to tell me, how many of the inquiries which were firm are no longer so because the conditions under which the inquiries were made, namely, the availability of investment grants and the Government's development policies, are now in doubt. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have suddenly discovered a compassion for people out of work. This is a rather strange, modern facet of the Tory Party. If there were 42,000 jobs in prospect and the unemployment rate in the Northern Region is higher than any of us is prepared to tolerate, we want to know how many of those jobs are now in doubt.
  The Minister of Technology has a reputation in the House for being robust, sometimes blisteringly so. He used to dash to and fro and lash Members of my party when we were the Government. Today, however, he sat on the Government Front Bench a most subdued man, looking awfully worried, and when he
  954
  spoke he hedged from one pathetic paragraph in his speech to the other without giving any answers about anything, without even getting to the point at issue. He seemed to think that we were in the kind of coma in which he finds himself as a reaction to the election, and that we would be unmindful of what he was saying. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned about Government training centres. I remind him that it was the Labour Government who introduced Government training centres in the North, with an output of 3,000 trainees every year. I ask him to compare that with the record of his party which closed Government centres during its term of office. The truth just could not get near the right hon. Gentleman, just as his own leader expected it would not get to the electorate.
  Every time I rise to take part in a debate while the party opposite is in power, and I hope that it will not be for too long, I shall remember that during the last week of the election it was the leader of the Tory Party who put out the story which led to hon. Gentlemen opposite being returned to power on a false prospectus. Perhaps I might tell the House who gave the lie to the story that was put out then. When we were in office we were able to claim that those Members who represented the North came from the same soil as the men for whom we were fighting. When the Prime Minister talked about a national economic crisis he stampeded the country away from the truth. In his first speech in the House the new Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to say that we must not call the situation a crisis. It is no longer a crisis. We just have a little bit of trouble.
  It is against that background that I am prepared to give an undertaking to the party which now has the power to govern. I cannot charge them with having industrial policies relating to the Northern Region with which I disagree. I can only charge them with having no policies at all. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in opposition they were a real milk and water crowd, but time and again when we debated the development areas they used to tell us that unemployment levels were higher than ever before and that we were failing in our duty. They used to tell us that they knew all the answers. In

  955
  fact, they went down to Selsdon Park, enjoyed their caviare and port, and told us that they had produced firm policies to put before the electorate.
  I should like to tell the House what was said by one bright spark in my constituency. According to him, he had all the answers for the problems in my area. In fact, he was so up to date that he announced—and I was very sore about this, because I was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party's port sub-committee for the nationalisation of the ports—that if we nationalised the ports it would be disastrous for Hartlepool. This was the contribution made to the industrial problems of my area by this bright spark. The port of Hartlepool has been nationalised for 23 years. I can understand how the electorate can be confused. Goebbels used to talk about the big lie. The Tory Party talks about many lies so that it cannot go wrong.
  Let us get down to the hard facts about development in the Northern Region. If we on this side of the House do not know what policies the Government intend to pursue, at least they might learn tonight the kind of questions that we shall persist in asking. First, are hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to accept the blatant facts of a situation which can be found in every other development area?
  Fact one—in five and a half years we have introduced 160 new manufacturing trades in the Northern Region. This has never been known before. In all the years that the Tory Party were in power they never got near a fraction of that figure. There are 90 Ministry of Technology trading estates in the region, with 400 employers, creating 98,000 new jobs. This has never been known before. A total of 116,000 new jobs have been created in the region in just five years. An average of just over 20,000 a year, compared with the last five years of the party opposite, when it was just under 9,000 a year. Those are hard facts, from the record.
  Another simple little figure is that £50 million was spent on road construction in the region in the year 1969–70. Anyone travelling in the region today can see the revolution in road building. This was never known in the 13 years of the Tory
  956
  Government. There was £143 million for reconstruction last year in the region.
  The cost of materials will not alter prices in the private sector. The party opposite cannot do it; their paymasters will not let them. There is such a charitable association of industries who gave the party opposite £2 million; they will not let that party control their prices. Remembering that the cost of materials and labour and the rate of construction are constants and should be accelerated rather than reduced, by what test can the Conservative Party reduce that aid without doing harm?
  Captain Walter Elliot: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's figures with great interest. Could he give the total number of unemployed in 1964 and the total now in the development areas?
  Mr. Leadbitter: I will give the hon. Gentleman a fair answer. We all got fed up with the party opposite in the pre-election years of 1963 and 1964 when the unemployment level fell temporarily, but we had 800,000 unemployed in the worst year, 1959, under that party. So in the Northern Region in the basic formula—
  Captain Elliot: Answer the question.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I have answered it. The highest unemployment figures occurred when that party was in office and they cooked up an election bonanza.
  But to get back to the point, the problem in the Northern Region is that, traditionally, it had to rely on a small number of basic heavy industries. They have declined, and the number of men who have been made redundant is very large. Our job has been to inject new, sophisticated, light industries into the region. We have succeeded mainly because we have introduced 116,000 new jobs in five years. But in coal mining alone, in the last three years or so, we have lost 38,000 men. Nobody could keep those uneconomic pits open. We had to counter with new industries.
  In a fair analysis of the North, one comes up with a fair question. If, in five and a half years, one produces 116,000 new jobs, with the policies of this party, is it likely that the same policies will produce the 210,000 jobs

  957
  that we need by 1980? I should have thought that the answer was yes, bearing in mind that one has to alter the formula of treatment in the face of changing events. But generally the policy is right.
  To give a quick example of the most unfortunate constituency in the whole United Kingdom in 1964, there were 4,000 men, or 15 per cent. of the total, unemployed in my constituency. Today, Hartlepools has over 30 new industries or extensions of existing ones, over 3,800 new jobs and a new nuclear power station—the only one in the world being built in a populated area. There is a new central area development, a new college of art, a new college of further education, a new central road development, a large steel industry employing 6,000 men and an extensive industrial trading estate. They are only a few of the developments. That is the record of achievement generally during Labour's years of office.
  I now want to turn to two serious matters. For special reasons the Labour Government introduced the special development area. Their general policy was to develop and improve the infrastructure—to build more schools, more and better roads than the previous Administration, and more and better houses—because for the first time, under the 1969 Housing Act every house that is built must conform to the Parker-Morris standards. Outside this policy they had to introduce a policy to deal with the special problem of mining closures. More substantial aid was therefore given to the special development areas.
  Today we have asked about the Coal Bill. I want to ask about the treatment of the special development areas affected by mining closures. If the party opposite interferes with them it will invite upon itself the wrath of every man and woman in the North. We send sufficient Members of Parliament here to be unafraid of the ebbs and flows of political fortunes. The vicissitudes of political life do not affect the solidarity of the North. We are here to say clearly, "Keep your hands off the special development areas. If you do not you will be exercising a cruelty that is typical of your party, although we hope that since there are some more progressive elements in it they will inject into other
  958
  hon. Members a little sense". We shall not have these places touched if we can help it.
  Secondly, the Labour Government had a Minister for the North. People in the North had the special privilege of being able to go to him immediately, not only to talk about their problems but to see that he sought solutions to them with his immediate Ministerial colleagues. Not once but many times serious problems were solved.
  One example is the Palmer-Hebburn Yard where, under the Labour Government, we stayed the loss of employment for many hundreds of men. Another example is the Furness shipyard, with 4,000 men employed at one point and just over 2,000 at the point of closure. Immediate attention was given to those matters. Under the philosophy of the party opposite—the policy of a free market—those yards could have gone to the wall, although the Furness shipyard was one of the most modern in Europe. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, whose company built the yard, told me privately at the time that it should close, but his company made quite a lot of money out of the construction of the yard. If he were sitting on the Front Bench now I would ask him whether his company has benefited from investments grants paid to the northern region.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I have always understood that private conversations in the House were regarded as confidential to the Members concerned. Did the hon. Gentleman give notice to my hon. Friend that he was going to breach that confidence?
  Mr. Leadbitter: I am talking of a matter that affects people. I am not interested in the sensitivity of the hon. Member. If he is upset about it he can see me behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. I have a loyalty to my people, and when my people are treated in that way I do not expect that kind of conversation to be kept confidential.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member must realise that his colleagues on this side of the House know exactly how in future to treat confidences they give to him.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I think it a tragedy that this Government have decided, while claiming that they are reviewing policies, that they can make a firm declaration about a Minister for the North. Even though they are not the party of instant government, I should have thought they would wait for the review so that they could draw proper conclusions about whether or not their idea about a Minister for the North was correct. This was one of their first actions, and we do not like it. We do not like their attitude. We are not interested in how they feel but about their loyalty to the people of the country. If people in the development areas receive any less good treatment than they had under the Labour Government, hon. Members opposite will get their answer whenever the next General Election comes.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: This has been a very interesting debate, not least because of the very fine range of excellent maiden speeches. I shall long treasure the memory of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) achieving the distinction of being interrupted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when making his maiden speech. This must be almost unprecedented. It showed shrewdness on his part which I much envy because it should surely ensure for him two or three column inches in The Times tomorrow with reference to the rumour that the recess was to be stretched to 17th November.
  I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), particularly in championing of hon. Members' rights. I have been in this House for a number of years and, until recently, the rôle of hon. Members' shop steward was unquestionably held by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I consider that after today I have acquired a professorial shop steward and I am very pleased to have him campaigning on my behalf.
  The line of argument which I wish to employ in the few minutes at my disposal is in sympathy with the approach employed by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) when he saw this debate as one conducted in parallel with
  960
  that of the day before yesterday. He quite rightly related the whole question of regional policy and the Government's relationship with industry to that of public expenditure. A number of hon. Members have debated whether we are in a situation of economic difficulty. I think we are, in the sense—and I think that it is a sense which properly commands our full attention—that we now have a rate of inflation which is desperately dangerous.
  I quote from the Financial Times of 18th June:
  "The Retail Price Index rose in May by a further 0·4 points to 139·5. This brings the rise in the first five months of this year to 5·1 points, equivalent to an annual rate of increase of 8 per cent."
  An annual rate of increase of 8 per cent. applied to someone who retires at the age of 65 and has 15 years of retirement—my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), in an admirable maiden speech, reminded us that half his electors were over 65 and, therefore, living in the period of retirement I have described—would reduce their income to barely more than 30 per cent. of its original value. We would see a large and growing section of the community having wiped out in their retirement the incomes to which they had every reasonable expectation. We would do well to remind ourselves that we should court a whirlwind of social distress if this situation continued unabated.
  One of my happiest memories is of often listening to Mr. Nigel Birch, a right hon. Gentleman who is, alas, no longer with us, when he used to quote Lenin as saying that if one wished to destroy a country one should first debauch its currency. That seems perilously nearer now than any of us had ever imagined would be possible. That it is happening in most major industrial countries in the West merely underlines the tremendous threat that this poses for Western society at large. It must be a responsibility of any government in this country to make dealing with that threat the first priority of its economic policy, and not to be deterred into a fatalistic acceptance that it is a characteristic of Western advanced industrial civilisation. For once that attitude becomes implicit, once it becomes received, we truly witness the decadence of the West and the decline of the West

  961
  in the sense that Spengler might have meant.
  The Government's approach to the problem is shown in the passage in the Gracious Speech that:
  "At home my Government's first concern will be to … curb the inflation. The … enterprise needed to achieve this will be encouraged by … reducing the burden of taxation, …"
  Naturally enough, we must think where those reductions will come. Many hon. Members will know—not least, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant)—that this is a subject to which we have addressed our attention in the past, more particularly last January, when we considered the question of the forward plans for public expenditure. I do not think that anyone reflecting on what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said then will believe that he sees the economies in public expenditure coming, for example, in education. He then said, turning an agnostic eye on expenditure on investment grants:
  "… there is the possibility of a very large saving of money … and the matter which we think should be discussed and on which we intend very soon to put a final view before the House and the country is whether, outside the development areas, it is better to maintain a system of allowances roughly matching the present system of grants—in which case there would be no saving of significance—or not to pay … the standard rate and to use the money for reducing taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1970; Vol. 794, c. 544.]
  I very much hope that when he has concluded his consideration of these matters he will go for a reduction, or the abolition of the standard rate of investment grant outside the development areas and not replace it by a tax allowance. The argument that investment grants facilitate investments is not proven. I know that this question is being considered by a Committee, but the evidence that has been available of, for example, the behaviour of investment in distributive trades where the grant is not paid compared with manufacturing industry, where it is, does not lead me to think that subsidies to investment necessarily in themselves promote a total volume of investment.
  Of course, this leads one immediately into the intimately and parallel related activity of the subsidies to the regions, now sanctified as regional investment policy. Dr. Jeremy Bray, no longer with us, did much by argumentation to
  962
  reveal to us the dubious advantages of investment grants as a system of regional policy. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, whose speech I very much enjoyed, said that this was a time to question assumptions on which regional policies had hitherto been pursued.
  After all, we are here talking about very large sums of money and there are some questions which we owe it to ourselves to ask as a House trying to take an intelligent view of the subject, which we owe it to our constituents, who have sent us here to set out on new courses, and, above all, which we owe to even wider considerations, if the threat of inflation is related, as I believe it is, to the levels of public expenditure, carrying with it the ultimate dangers which I believe inherent. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, we have to be courageous. I should like to question some of the assumptions.
  For example, are the policies designed primarily to be pump priming, to create a self-sustaining growth thereafter? This afternoon we have heard the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) quoting Lord Polwarth and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) quoting Brindley Thomas, giving the most glowing descriptions of the present state of the Scottish and Welsh economies. What are we to deduce from that? Are we to deduce that they are in a position where one can re-examine the present pattern? Surely the answer is "Yes". If we do no more than accept the intelligent advice offered to us by Labour Members, that is what we should do.
  Should we not ask ourselves seriously whether we are to try as a deliberate policy to see that the second industrial revolution, the revolution related to electronics, so far as possible takes place in the industrial environment inherited from the first industrial revolution? It is seriously worth questioning that proposition.
  We ought to ask ourselves what are the dangers of working into our way of conducting Parliamentary business the unhappy aspects of American log-rolling and pork barrelling of competitive regional bidding. This afternoon we have heard speech after speech contrasting the disadvantages for which an area suffered compared with an area just across

  963
  the border. I see this only too well from my constituency which is right alongside a development area.
  Mr. John Rankin rose—
  Mr. Biffen: I will not give way; I am trying to be charitable to the hon. Gentleman and to allow him a few minutes for his speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts), in an excellent maiden speech, pointed out that this is easy. There are not many people who say that such-and-such a region is getting advantages from the Exchequer and that, as a matter of parity of treatment, those advantages should be taken from it. That is not the uncharitable way in which a politician behaves to a politician. We say that we do not want quite as much as the folks across the road, but at least we should be taken part of the way there.
  However, I am this charitable to the hon. Member for Fife, West, that he warned us all not to be too sanguine about the prospect of success for this policy. He was absolutely right. Whatever objective criteria we try to apply, essentially we must make a subjective judgment of the consequences of the policy which has now been pursued for a number of years. The hon. Member for Fife, West was right to say that we should be very modest before claiming success. We know that the policy has increased public expenditure, but whether it brings success is much more debatable. We have only to reflect on the figures provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in a Written Answer on 29th May to see that expenditure on the provision of preferential Governmental assistance to development areas has doubled in three years. I do not regard that in itself as a sign of success.
  The situation demands courageous decisions equivalent to those which were undertaken by Lord Butler when he completely re-examined food subsidies and proceeded to abolish them. I do not advocate the abolition of regional payments, but we need a courageous approach showing determination in examining, testing and applying intellectual standards. When it is known that
  964
  such a study is under way the professional lobbyists, whether corporate or regional, will be in full cry by the autumn. But we on these benches have a responsibility to support decisive and courageous action in terms of public expenditure which alone can give reality to our aspirations and our professed commitments.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) for giving me a minute or two out of his time.
  Mr. Biffen: Five minutes.
  Mr. Rankin: Not five minutes. The hon. Member cannot add.
  Mr. Biffen: Get on with it.
  Mr. Rankin: I will get on if the hon. Member does not interrupt me. I was thanking him for giving way.
  I say right away that I disagree with his opening statement. Unlike him I do not believe in deflation. I believe in inflation, because I have seen deflation as it was operated in my division in 1964. It could not have come upon us in a worse year. In 1964 the country was just beginning to recover from 13 years of Tory misrule and deflation. It was in no position to face up to the circumstances with which the ship-building yard in my division was faced in November, 1964.
  At that time 3,000 men were faced with no work for the simple reason that the owners had decided to withdraw their investment from the yard. The result was that no funds were left to provide wages for the men at the end of the week and there was no money to carry on the yard. There was only solution and that was to turn to the Government. There was no other agency which could come to our aid. The Government provided the money which kept the yard in production. Orders were able to be overtaken, work went on and the men got their pay. That was as a result of the intervention of a Labour Government. When the matter was brought to this House there was one individual on the Tory side of the House who was pulled down by the Minister sitting beside him in case his mouth opened too wide and he spilled the beans

  965
  which the Tory Party at that time wished to conceal. They wanted to present a face to the country as though they were quietly supporting the Labour Government in their attempt to keep the yard going.
  Government policy succeeded and the yard is now functioning satisfactorily. Work is good; orders are there; and wages are being paid to the men, who were faced with the problem in 1964 the solution of which the hon. Member for Oswestry has just propounded. This would have killed the yard completely and brought misery and destruction to Govan. Govan will never forget that, and so long as a Tory presents his face at any time in Govan he will get the reward that was given to the Tory Party when they opposed me a fortnight ago, namely, total defeat.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I wish to begin by offering my congratulations to the maiden speakers who have given the House an indication of the worthiness of the replacements who have come in as a result of the recent Election. It was, I think, the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), on the benches opposite, who showed such a mature approach to this subject that I felt, like the Leader of the House, that I would interrupt a maiden speech. We have at least made history today, when the Leader of the House has interrupted a maiden speech. I hope that when he goes to St. Andrew's he will remember that that is not done when somebody is driving off the first tee in the Open.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) spoke with a fluency and an approach to the subject which would have been commendable from an hon. Member who had been here much longer. My hon. Friend gave us a moving appeal for the retention of community spirit in areas which were breaking up and being replaced. That is a special problem. My hon. Friend emphasised that regional development policy was not purely for the areas which get the benefits directly of regional development.
  It was brought home, too, by other hon. Members that if we are concerned about congestion in the South-East—and the
  966
  hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is surely concerned about inflation—we cannot accept a situation whereby, in doing nothing or doing something that is quite ineffective, we create the drift towards the magnet areas of the Midlands, London and the South-East, because that congestion of people is itself a creator of inflation in those areas. Indeed, to come to terms with that inflation of people will cost us dearly, as it has done in the past.
  We are faced with an increased population in Britain over the next 20 years or so, in addition to the present imbalance. Surely, what we want to do from the viewpoint not simply of the areas where there is a lack of population and a lack of employment is to get together sensible land use planning procedures and to marry the needs of the population to the needs of industry.
  That was the basis of what we set out to do in 1964, when we set up the economic planning councils and followed that in various areas—Wales, the North-East and certainly Scotland—by bringing in local industrialists, local authorities and the universities and setting forward to study the potentials of each area. This has been widely welcomed as the first real approach to the channelling of national planning into the areas and regions. It is too facile for the hon. Gentleman to widen this by an argument related to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) who quoted Professor Thomas, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who quoted Lord Polwarth, and to say that if things are so good in Scotland and Wales we should not be spending so much money on them. The whole argument of the Government during the Election and in the debate has been that the policies of the previous Government had failed and been ineffective: but it does not necessarily follow that we should return to the policy of spending less money.
  The Prime Minister in an electioneering visit to Glasgow was reported by the Glasgow Herald of 11th June, 1970, as saying:
  "Under Socialism there had been stagnation. That was why firms were not coming to Scotland. We would return to a policy in which value for money was provided for industrial development in Scotland."

  967
  The report goes on—and this gives the whole argument:
  "He emphasised the dangers of State intervention in firms and the consequent loss of freedom in decision. He instanced such firms as Rolls-Royce and Cammell Laird which had received Government aid and fallen victim to what he clearly regarded as creeping nationalisation."
  We have not been told in terms the financial result of the Prime Minister's approach, but in September last year when he came to Scotland and was asked whether the Conservatives would spend as much money on regional development, his answer, eventually, when it was dragged out of him, was quite specific:
  "There will undoubtedly be a cut from the point of view of the regional employment premium and we shall concentrate the expenditure on roads, rail, docks, airports, houses, schools, public works, which is where I think it ought to be spent."
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has said that the commitment in respect of the regional employment premium, would be honoured, but the commitment was that it would last until 1974. Is that commitment being honoured? If it is, there will be no saving in respect of it and no concentration on an increase in expenditure on other things. Where will the saving come from? Will it come from investment grants? It is arguable whether changing from investment grants to investment allowances will give any real saving, for this is to be a financial concession in another form. Is it there? Or is it that the Government are returning, in the words of the Prime Minister, "to the policies of the Local Employment Act, which they knew so well," and which everyone seemed to think worked so well? Is that to be the solution?
  I have been a Member of this House for 24 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—Oh, I know, but fortunately my constituents do not think that. I have participated, I think, in every debate we have had on this subject during that time, and I can remember the Conservative Party, when it was in Government, at the election in 1959, saying that when it came back it would deal with the problem of local unemployment and there would be a new Act of Parliament. There was: the Local Employment Act, 1960.
  Of course, there was a new definition. It was "pockets of unemployment", and
  968
  the Government were to concentrate on those pockets of unemployment. We on this side asked about depopulation and said that something should be done for the areas of depopulation, areas which people were leaving, the Highlands, the North-East, the Borders particularly, the South-West. It was the present Home Secretary who said, "No, we cannot do anything about that at all." I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) is listening to this, for that was the principle upon which her party entered. It said, "No. We cannot be like Canute and stop this tide, stop people drifting into the Midlands or drifting into the London area." Is it to that that the Government are going back?
  The fact was that at the time when that Bill was going through the House, unemployment in the development areas was 4·4 per cent. and three years later it was 7·7 per cent. That Act failed, and failed completely. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology knows the whole history of the Local Employment Act. If he or any new Member of the House wants to know something about it, let them refer to the Report of Sub-Committee F of the Estimates Committee which studied the workings of the Act in May, 1963, and said that it was totally ineffective. And at a time when more money needed to be spent the Government were actually spending less and were going to spend less. The sum of money actually to be spent was being reduced in 1964 to £3 million in Scotland.
  This is why we made a new start. This is why we changed from "pockets of unemployment" to the wider areas. It is interesting indeed to see here the hon. Gentleman now in charge of development in Scotland. He will remember the argument at that time; that this was spreading the jam far too thinly. Now, today, the whole argument of the Government is that there is far too much jam.
  Did we have any success? Of course we did. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) showed the transformation which has taken place in the North, the number of new jobs, the number of new factories. There they still have the terrible problem, and to them it has come later than it did to Scotland or even to

  969
  Wales, of the coal mining industry. What is the answer to that? We got no indication today from the right hon. Gentleman as to what are the Government's intentions. What an insult to the mines meeting in their annual conference in the Isle of Man, that the Government say absolutely nothing about it.
  But there is more to it than that. One of the other things which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention today was the special development areas. If any area of the country has benefited from the special development area it is the North, Wales and parts of Scotland.
  What is the Government's intention in relation to the special development areas? I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I hope that he is not away to St. Andrew's as well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman takes the advice which was given to him about when he and the Prime Minister journey to St. Andrew's—that they should go through Fife and see the transformation which has taken place. They will see what he described as stagnation. They might stop over and talk to some of the miners there or go into the computer factories and talk to the ex-miners. They will then see exactly what has been happening.
  The position is quite clear in Scotland. The transformation has been fantastic. Under this policy, there has been a remarkable improvement. In the period 1960–64, the kind of situation to which they want us to return, 832 new projects were born; in 1965–69, there were 1,341. Yet we are supposed to believe that nobody is coming to Scotland—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State had better keep his mouth shut or I will quote him again on the subject of corporation tax. He said that it would drive off the firms from overseas, yet 149 such firms were attracted in 1965–69, compared with 97 in the period 1960–64.
  The right hon. Gentleman had better revise his figures or get his civil servants to get up to date in respect of the fact that I.D.Cs. for which approval has been given and in respect of which the factories are still to be built to provide 55,000 jobs are a present to his Government. It is a bitter tomorrow for me to think that 42,000 jobs are still to come in the North and in Wales.
  The Minister of Technology talked about training. He does not know what
  970
  he is talking about: the Conservatives closed training centres. We multiplied them. He did not refer to the in-plant training supported by the Department of Employment and Productivity, which meant the training of 12,500 people in Scotland last year and 12,000 in Wales. I could give the figures for the other development areas, too.
  I asked the Minister how he would improve the training—and he did not know. Then the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), I think, asked whether they were getting the jobs—and he could not answer that. In fact, 92 per cent. of the people trained in Government training centres get jobs, thanks to the unions, in the industries for which they were trained.
  The trouble is that no one told the Prime Minister the facts when he came to Scotland. The same is true of Wales. I cannot imagine him making another speech. It was probably the same one trotted out again, anyway. But he should know. A Parliamentary Question which is down to him suggests that he should visit Perth. I hope that he does: perhaps he will make another declaration there.
  But I have a quotation here which is good stuff:
  "The extent of the increase in government regional aid during the last decade has been nothing short of remarkable, although too little has been done to publicise the advantages Scotland has obtained. It is certainly necessary to offer firms inducements to attract them into a development area, and to improve an area's infrastructure. But the critical factor in successfully steering industry to Scotland is the restriction of industrial development in the congested areas of England."
  Unhappily the impression has already been given by the flexibility about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke that this lynch-pin of development area policy is being weakened. I give him these words to study. If he is concerned about Scotland or Wales then he ought to fashion special policies of regional development suitable for them because the electors in Scotland, Wales and the North have clearly said what they want and what they prefer. [Interruption.] I will continue with my quotation.
  "Within centrally-determined economic policies, however, there is room for greater flexibility of application, to take account of Scotland's diversity and distinctive needs."
  I base my case on that.
  Mr. Emery rose—
  Mr. Ross: I will—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
  Mr. Ross: I have been here all day. I have not seen the hon. Gentleman here.
  Mr. Emery: I have been here.
  Mr. Ross: I have quoted this deliberately as evidence of the success of the Scottish policies. Who wrote those words? The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in a report of the Scottish Constitutional Committee, entitled "Scotland's Government", to the Conservative Party, to the Prime Minister—the same man who talks about Scotland being stagnant. He was the man who set up that Committee, the man to whom it reported and the man who says the Conservatives will make this the basis for future development. And he talks about honest government! Where is there honesty in that, when he goes around Scotland, as he went around the rest of the country, giving a misleading and false picture.
  I come to the question of what is felt in Scotland, as in Wales and the North, about I.D.Cs, about advance factories, about investment grants as opposed to allowances and about R.E.P. I should like to draw attention to the fact that we have just had a report from the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It came out in favour of the present policies because they were successful. That Report is in the Library, and I draw attention to the reference to the fact that the C.B.I. in Scotland prefers grants to allowances. Sir Robert Maclean, of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), made it clear that what we require—[Interruption.] This is true of the other development areas—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) must contain themselves.
  Mr. Ross: On 19th January of this year, Sir Robert was asked by a Specialist
  972
  Committee of this House which of the incentives for development he thought were the most important. He replied:
  "I would not care to distinguish between the force of these three incentives, the three incentives being R.E.P., the availability of a factory, and different rate of grants. They are like the three legs of a stool. If you knock any one away, the whole may collapse."
  We require all three, but we need more than that in respect of regional development.
  The major basic industries of the country—coal, steel and transport—must be equally concerned with the regional rôles that they have to play. Anyone who knows about the current developments in steel should be conscious of the need to ensure that, nationalised as it is, the steel industry should keep in mind the responsibility that it has to people who have been in that industry for generations. A decision there can wipe out a community. That is why we place emphasis on the need for humanity and respect towards the industry.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will appreciate the importance of this to Scotland. Decisions will be taken in a few years which will affect the future of the Scottish steel industry and, if he is not seized of the importance of this, Scotland will suffer.
  Regional development goes a long way beyond just the Local Employment Acts. I have quoted what the Prime Minister said. He seemed to object to Cammell Laird being helped and saved. Cammell Laird means a great deal to Merseyside. It also means a lot to the place represented in this House by my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). One of the subsidiaries of Cammell Laird is Scottish Aviation at Prestwick. In respect of that, the Government interfered further and ensured that an order from the Swedish Government was completed in Prestwick. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that this kind of intervention should cease, be it in respect of Cammell Laird, U.C.S. or Linwood, where the I.R.C. had to intervene when Chrysler seemed likely to be taking over that sector of the car industry? This would have resulted in its being 100 per cent. under American control?

  973
  The Government must accept their responsibilities in respect of the whole health of the nation, and that means industrially in the areas as well. Recently, we have seen an old face coming back looking younger than before but still perplexed with the problems of Northern Ireland. He, too, should appreciate that they are not just the problems of one area and that only by United Kingdom effort will they be solved. That is why I fight nationalism. I only wish that the Conservative Party had fought it, too.
  This is a United Kingdom concern and the Government must accept their responsibilities. They must intervene and muster effective policies to meet the need. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite set out merely to save money to satisfy the C.B.I., not in Scotland or in Wales, but in the South, I assure them that they will fail the nation. I sincerely hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen appreciate that the politcal strength that has come from Wales, from Scotland, and from the North is such that we demand satisfaction in this respect.
  The Government have said nothing about their real intentions, as they have said nothing about the whole of the Queen's Speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The kind of stuff to which we have been listening is rubbish. The Prime Minister said that we should wait. Yet he was proclaiming his policies in Scotland in September last year. Has he not fashioned them yet? The fact is that this is the Government of Edward the Unready.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): This, I must admit, is a moment of truth for me. For six years I have sat silent in that corner seat over there—at any rate, officially silent—criticising other Members' speeches in the certain knowledge that I should not be tested. But now, alas, has come the day of retribution. I have to face the critics.
  My anxiety is increased by the knowledge that this particular speech, winding up six days of debate, is a particularly difficult one. Quite frankly, my predecessors, to whom I have been lucky enough to speak in recent days, have reminded me of it. They have given me
  974
  various pieces of advice as to how best I should carry it out, but they have been equally depressing. They have made clear that it is, on the whole, a totally impossible speech. Indeed, I saw it described in the Press the other day, in terms which I admit are rather nostalgic to me this week, as one in which it was hard to beat par.
  However, long silence in this Chamber gives me a fellow feeling for those new Members who made their maiden speeches in this debate. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was right that I did, alas, fail to appreciate that I was interrupting a maiden speech, but I think that I interrupted the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) with a kindly and helpful reference.
  The number of hon. Members who wanted to take the plunge presented you, Mr. Speaker, with a particularly difficult task. However, by your choice, you have enabled us to hear with great interest the first contributions of many of our new parliamentary colleagues. I should like to mention them all by name, but I am afraid that would take a long time, and there might be those who would think that I was thereby seeking to evade further discussion of the debate. Therefore, I would simply like to congratulate them all on taking this first important step in their parliamentary careers. I am sure that all of us who had been in the House in previous Parliaments welcome them, and indeed all new Members, into this rather curious community, the House of Commons, and I expect they will find it as curious as ever in the next 25 minutes. I say "community" because, despite all the arguments and properly passionate disagreements across the Floor of the House, there is, and in my view certainly should be, a corporate spirit here, and if as a result of our public or private exchanges in this spirit we sometimes succeed in modifying each other's views, then surely that is the purpose of Parliament and, indeed, of democracy.
  In this context I think it is worth saying that this is a debating Chamber. We must all be prepared to listen to expressions of view with which we do not agree. Therefore—and I think that this view will be shared by both sides

  975
  of the House—I hope that the sensible Parliamentary custom of listening at least to the speech after one's own will continue to be observed.
  As this is my first speech as Leader of the House, I think it would be right for me to say something about my approach to the job. It is, of course, true that I have lived in the world of the usual channels for longer now than anyone else in this House. Like the Lord Aylestone, for whom I have great admiration, I am now the classic example of the poacher turned gamekeeper. I have worked with three Leaders of the House and three Government Chief Whips.
  I know that the sensible conduct of parliamentary business depends upon mutual trust and understanding between those who are responsible for arranging it.
  Mr. Fred Peart: Absolutely right.
  Mr. Whitelaw: In this regard, I can only hope that in time I may inspire something of the confidence which I certainly had in my predecessors, including particularly my immediate predecessor, during the last six years. I also recognise that the Leader of the House has a special duty to all minorities and to all individual hon. Members.
  The House, I think, also has a right to know my views on Parliamentary procedure and the committee system which has been developed in recent years. I believe that the House of Commons as an institution is so much greater than all of us, its individual members. Our predecessors have handed down to us a parliamentary tradition which is the envy of many countries all over the world. This certainly does not mean that we must shrink from changes in our procedures. But it surely does impose upon us all the duty not to rush into reforms. Frankly, however, I have never thought that the House of Commons as a whole is in much danger of that. On the contrary, many of our new Members may consider that the real risk is too ready an acceptance of things as they are. Personally, I am keen to make changes, and I have some ideas of my own.
  976
  In that spirit, I want to approach the consideration of the various reports now before the House. There are reports of the Select Committee on Procedure—varying from proposals of fundamental importance, like the reports suggesting a Select Committee on Public Expenditure, to those dealing with narrower subjects, like the handling of Ten-Minute Rule Bills. There are reports by other Committees which affect the way that the House conducts its business, such as that by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. The previous Administration had some of these reports before them for a considerable time and have not put forward any proposals.
  I accept at once that before we act we must be sure that whatever changes are made are practical improvements and that they command a wide degree of consent in all parts of the House. For that reason, my basic approach will be to put before the House proposals which will have been carefully considered and worked out, rather than rushing into immediate action.
  I should say now, however, that on one thing I have very strong views. The Floor of the House must be the centre of Parliament. This is the place where true debate must take place. In my opinion, we must avoid developments which will lead to a position like that reached in the United States Congress, where Committees are all-important and the Chamber itself of little account. I have noticed that in recent years—I think that we have all seen this—there has been a tendency for attendances at debates in the Chamber itself to decline. I regret this and I hope to see the tendency reversed.
  Nevertheless, I am sure that the increased opportunities of scrutiny of the Executive which have been introduced in the past few years must continue. I believe that such scrutiny is an essential part of Parliament's rôle in the modern world. Indeed, penetrating parliamentary criticism of the Executive is vital for the health of both Government and Parliament. I recognise that this can best be achieved by some form of Select Committee system. We might make our principal aim the one so clearly expressed many years ago by Lord Campion, which was "to devise a committee system which,

  977
  while retaining the essentially subordinate and advisory character of committees, might make the House of Commons"—this is the important point—"more generally capable of informed criticism".
  Right hon. Gentlemen opposite told the last Parliament that they had embarked upon a comprehensive review of the results of the specialist committee experiment. We propose to continue with this comprehensive review. We shall also take into account the extremely important proposals for a Select Committee on Expenditure, and also the evidence published recently by the Procedure Committee on the possibility of a Committee on Taxation. When the House returns after the Summer Recess I hope to be able to put forward, perhaps as a Green Paper, proposals on the future of the Select Committee system.
  Naturally, on a matter like this, it would be right for the House to have an opportunity to express its own views on the proposals and for the Government to take this into account before any new system is instituted. In the meantime, I would propose to the House that we set up immediately only the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Procedure and the Committees concerned with the efficient working of the House.
  I can, however, give an assurance to my hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and those other hon. Members who have spoken to me on the subject that all the hard and valuable work done by other Select Committees last Session will not be wasted but will be made available to whatever system of Committees the House eventually adopts.
  There is one other matter of particular interest to back benches—the allocation of Private Members' Time. The House will have noted my Motion last Friday which has the effect of delaying until after the recess the allocation of days for Private Members' Time. I thought that, in the circumstances of this new Parliament, new Members in particular would find it useful to have a little time to consider what subject they wish to put forward before balloting began. I should however make it plain that I intend proposing to the House that the same amount of time be allocated to
  978
  Private Members as in the last Session. On the question of the division of Private Members' Time between Bills and Motions, I have an open mind. I intend to take soundings on this.
  Finally, in this part of my speech about the business of the House as a whole, I take this opportunity of saying quite clearly that I do not wish to be judged as Leader of the House on the total number of Bills introduced and of Acts passed in a Session. I am much more concerned about the quality of the legislation than its quantity.
  For many of the developments about which I have spoken we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Coventry East (Mr. Crossman). He was much criticised by some hon. Members when he was Leader of the House. I do not accept that view. I think that he was right to stimulate the House with new ideas and with his considerable intellect. He introduced many reforms, some of which will survive and will rightly be attributed to him.
  In that connection, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to regale us on these subjects in the columns of the New Statesman. Perhaps I may suggest to him that we on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I should make it clear that I warned the right hon. Gentleman that I was going to refer to him this evening.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: He is in the Press Gallery.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I may suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House are awaiting his memoirs with keen anticipation. I hope that he will not keep us waiting for too long. Perhaps he will give us a preview in some articles. When he does he might help us over some of the issues that have been raised in this debate. For instance, he may be able to tell us which of the Ministers in the Cabinet, in December 1967, were in favour of a limited sale of arms to South Africa, and what were their arguments. He may also be able to give us an account of that remarkable Cabinet meeting last year, at the time of the surrender over the Industrial Relations Bill. We have been led to understand that after a good talking to from the Chief Whip

  979
  the Cabinet all deserted the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), even to the extent, it is said, that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore)—
  Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Whitelaw: I shall give way in a moment, but not now.
  Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I understood that we were debating an Amendment. I wonder when the right hon. Gentleman is going to come to order.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a point of wonder—not a point of order.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the Amendment, but I want to make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that it is my job as Leader of the House to wind up the whole debate. I have been asked specific questions about parliamentary procedure by many hon. Members opposite, and that I have said I shall do.
  Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Member is raising a point of order, but I appeal to the House, having heard one side, to hear the other.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Before you resumed your seat, when my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) was speaking, he was interrupted by your predecessor and told that we are debating an Amendment. It was made exceedingly difficult for my hon. Friend to carry on with what he was then saying. I understand that he was advised from the Table that my hon. Friend was out of order in what he was saying. As it happened, what he was saying was something of the nature of what is being said now. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Lawson: I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether
  980
  different rules apply to Front Bench spokesmen.
  Mr. Speaker: The point of order is simple to answer. On the last stage of the debate on the Address, although we may be debating an Opposition Amendment, we can debate what is in the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Whitelaw rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Rub it in, Will.
  Mr. Whitelaw: If I am given the opportunity, I will now do what I perfectly correctly sought to do—first, spend some time replying to the whole debate, which is my duty, and then reply to the Amendment, which I am very pleased to do. [Interruption.] Yes, I am perfectly entitled to do that.
  In answer to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), when the day comes that I am to be told by him what I am to do I shall find it a very sorry day indeed.
  We have been debating today—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ten minutes to go."] If hon. Members allow me, I shall be able to go on. We have been debating regional policy on what I can describe only as a pretty woolly Amendment. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Technology—
  Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear that speech.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I did. My constituency is in the North and I know the problems there. Anyone would think from the tone of the Amendment and of many speeches by hon. Members opposite that regional policies and development areas were invented by the former Government and that we on this side of the House never did anything about the problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and, indeed, care less. Of course the facts show that that line of argument is plain nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary who first introduced differential treatment of depreciation allowances in the development districts in his Budget of 1963. That was a very important development.
  Most important of all from the point of view of this Government's attitude to the development areas, the Prime Minister was the first Secretary of State

  981
  for Industry, Trade and Regional Development in 1963. He knows the problem at first hand. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did he do?"] I will tell you what he did. He was responsible for the introduction of many firms which are providing valuable employment in some difficult areas today. So I hope we can have an end to some of the rather arrogant talk from the benches opposite claiming a monopoly of interest in regional policy. We are all rightly committed to policies which will spread employment opportunities throughout all areas of the country. The argument should properly centre on how best those aims can be achieved. In this connection, for all the talk, the party opposite has to face the unpalatable fact that the level of unemployment in the development areas today is higher than it was in those areas in the comparable month of 1964.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology said, the party opposite always seems to judge its contribution to the development areas by the amount of money it spent there. What is required is to ensure full value for the money spent in creating now jobs, new facilities, communications and amenities in the regions. That is what we want to do.
  We have also heard quite a lot in the debate about the number of Ministers, particularly at the Welsh Office. Again the party opposite uses a rather curious criterion for the success of its policy. Its philosophy always seems to me to be, "If in doubt appoint another Minister, another Commission, or another Board". We on this side think differently. We said in our election manifesto that we would cut the number of Ministers. We have carried out that pledge. We have reduced them by 17. We have saved £85,000 in Ministerial salaries. [Laughter.] The party opposite would be very unwise to laugh about that, because when we have
  saved that money and all the other money that goes with it we shall be a more effective Administration at the end of the day, and that is what matters.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock did his best to spread alarm and despondency about the prospective effect of our policies on the Scottish economy. I can only think that he neither listened to the Queen's Speech nor read our Scottish manifesto. Having heard his speech, I can come to only one rather interesting conclusion. When the party opposite first came to power the right hon. Gentleman was invited to speak in the debate on the Address as Secretary of State for Scotland. Remarkably enough, he was never asked to do so again, until after the party opposite had lost the election.
  We have now come to the end of the first debate in this Parliament on the Address and the first Queen's Speech of this Conservative Government. In as far as we are all involved in politics because we want to serve our country and its people, so we belong to particular political parties because we believe that policies based on their principles will be best for Britain's future. Therefore, we Conservatives are naturally delighted that the British people have given us this great opportunity to care for all their interests. We on this side know that the Conservative Party has behind it a fine tradition of service to our country over generations. This Conservative Government will uphold those traditions as they face the future. We shall not be swayed by merely sectional interests. We shall govern in what we believe to be the best interests of all the people. So it is with confidence and determination that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 315.

  Division No. 2.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Baxter, William

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

  Albu, Austen

  Beaney, Alan

  Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch&Finsbury)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Buchan, Norman

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Ashley, Jack

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ashton, Joe

  Booth, Albert

  Carter, R. J. (B'mingham, N'field)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Barnes, Michael

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Clark, D. G. (Colne Valley)

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Cocks, M. F. L. (Bristol, S.)

  Cohen, S.

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)

  Paget, R. T.

  Coleman, Donald

  Janner, G. E.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parry, R. (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cox, T. M. (Wandsworth, C.)

  John, B. T.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cronin, John

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

  Pendry, T.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Johnson, W. H. (Derby, South)

  Pentland, Norman

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prescott, J. L.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, G. (Carmarthen)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, S. B. (Flint, East)

  Probert, Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Rankin, John

  Davies, D. (Llanelly)

  Judd, Frank

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, G. B.

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Kerr, Russell

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davis, S. C. (Hackney, C.)

  Kinnock, N. G.

  Richard, Ivor

  Deakins, E. P.

  Lambie, D.

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lamond, J. A.

  Roderick, C. E.

  Doig, Peter

  Latham, Arthur

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lawson, George

  Roper, J.

  Douglas, R. G.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rose, Paul B.

  Douglas-Mann, B. L. H.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Driberg, Tom

  Leonard, Dick

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sillars, James

  Ellis, R. T.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silverman, Julius

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Skinner, D.

  Evans, Fred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)

  Small, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, J. (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McCann, John

  Spearing, N. J.

  Fisher, Mrs. D. M. (B'ham, L'wood)

  McCartney, H.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  MacColl, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Foley, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

  Stoddart, D. L. (Swindon)

  Foot, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Ford, Ben

  Mackie, John

  Strang, G. S.

  Forrester, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Freeson, Reginald

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Taverne, Dick

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Gilbert, J. W.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ginsburg, David

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

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

  Golding, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tinn, James

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marquand, David

  Tomney, Frank

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Torney, T.

  Grant, G. (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tuck, Raphael

  Grant, J. D. (Islington, E.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Urwin, T. W.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Meacher, M. H.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mendelson, John

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wallace, George

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Watkins, David

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Weitzman, David

  Hardy, P.

  Molloy, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  White, J. (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitehead, P.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Whitlock, William

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Moyle, Roland

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Murray, R. K.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Horam, J.

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, A. (Hamilton)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Oram, Bert

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Woof, Robert

  Hughes, M. (Durham)

  Orme, Stanley

  Hughes, R. (Aberdeen, North)

  Oswald, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Hamling.

  Hunter, Adam

  Padley, Walter

  NOES

  Adley, R. J.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Astor, John

  Baker, W. H. K.

  984

  985

  Balniel, Lord

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Gardner, Edward

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Bell, Ronald

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Benyon, W. R.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Biffen, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Madel, D.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gorst, J. M.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Blaker, Peter

  Gower, Raymond

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Body, Richard

  Gray, J. H. N.

  Mather, D. C. M.

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Green, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, K'ptown)

  Grieve, Percy

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Braine, Bernard

  Grylls, W. M. J.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bray, R. W. T.

  Gummer, J. S.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hall, Miss J. V. (Keighley)

  Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberd'nshire, W.)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hannam, J. (Exeter)

  Moate, R.

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

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Molyneaux, J.

  Buck, Antony

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Money, E. D.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Monks, Mrs. C. M.

  Burden, F. A.

  Monro, Hector

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Haselhurst, A. G. B.

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hay, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hayhoe, B.

  Mudd, David

  Channon, Paul

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Murton, Oscar

  Chapman, S. B.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hicks, R.

  Neave, Airey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Clark, William (East Surrey)

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

  Normanton, T.

  Clarke, K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, S. J. (Southampton, Test)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clegg, Walter

  Holland, Philip

  Oppenheim, Mrs. S.

  Cockeram, E. P.

  Holt, Miss M.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Osborn, John

  Coombs, D. M.

  Hornby, Richard

  Owen, I. W. (Stockport, N.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Cordle, John

  Howe, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Peel, John

  Cormack, P.

  Howell, R. (Norfolk, North)

  Percival, Ian

  Costain, A P.

  Hunt, John

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Critchley, Julian

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Crouch, David

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Crowder, F. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Curran, Charles

  James, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dance, James

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

  Davies, J. E. H. (Knutsford)

  Jessel, T.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. J. A.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Dean, Paul

  Jopling, Michael

  Raison, T. H.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Dixon, P.

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Redmond, R. S.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, P. (Dover)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dykes, H. J. M.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Eden, Sir John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Edwards, R. N. (Pembroke)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kirk, Peter

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff, N.)

  Emery, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts, W. (Conway)

  Farr, John

  Knox, D.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lambton, Antony

  Rost, P. (Derbyshire, S.E.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. P. E.

  Lane, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fidler, Michael (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Finsberg, G.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sharples, Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Fookes, Miss J. E.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Shelton, W. J. (Clapham)

  Fortescue, Tim

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

  Simeons, Charles

  Fowler, P. N.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fox, J. M.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  Loveridge, J.

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

  986

  987

  Soref, H.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Warren, K.

  Speed, Keith

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Spence, J. D.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Sproat, I. M.

  Tilney, John

  White, R. (Gravesend)

  Stainton, Keith

  Trafford, Dr. J.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Stanbrook, I. R.

  Trew, P.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart-Smith, G.

  Tugendhat, C.

  Wilkinson, J.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Stokes, J. H. R.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Stuttaford, Dr. I. T.

  Vaughan, Dr. G. F.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Sutcliffe, J. H.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Tapsell, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Worsley, Marcus

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Younger, Hon. George

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Taylor, R. (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wall, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tebbit, N.

  Walters, Dennis

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Temple, John M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address to be presented Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom
  988
  of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  PUBLIC TRANSPORT (MANCHESTER)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I should like to preface my comments this evening by the traditional courtesy of congratulating the Minister on his appointment and then to move on to the subject of this Adjournment debate.
  This debate takes place against a background of increasing public concern in the greater Manchester area about service inadequacies, escalating fares and developing trends associated with the provision of public transport in the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire passenger transport authority area. It takes place at a time when a former chairman of Salford City Transport Committee feels so frustrated that he is calling publicly for the reconvening of that committee and one commuter advances the wholly remarkable proposition that the mechanical condition of buses which serve the north side of Manchester, in the area of my constituency, is such that he and his fellow commuters have on occasion been obliged to get off and push.
  I should like to say at the outset, certainly as a former chairman of Manchester Corporation Transport Committee, that I am not unmindful of the inherent problems associated with the provision of public transport or unaware of what the challenge of the private motor car has meant to public transport in Manchester over the years. Nor, might I emphasise, do I lack confidence in the abilities of the present director-general of the S.E.L.N.E.C. P.T.A. My Parliamentary colleagues and I would, however, be failing in our duty if we did not seek to reflect the increasing concern of our constituents about these matters.
  In a letter dated 18th May last, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary conceded that there had been what were termed temporary difficulties in bus services catering for the Newton Heath, Clayton, Bradford, Failsworth and Open-shaw
  990
  areas of my constituency, but he went on to express the view that normal standards of bus services to those areas were high. My only comment on that statement is that that is not a view which is shared by my constituents. In my opinion, it would be in the interests of the travelling public in Manchester and the S.E.L.N.E.C. P.T.A. area if we had more public discussion—a great debate, if you like—on public bus and commuter services in the greater Manchester area.
  I stress that, ideologically, I was, and am, a firm advocate of the need for amalgamating public transport undertakings in the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire area. I must confess that I had not envisaged that S.E.L.N.E.C. would, politically speaking, be quite so Tory-dominated, with a Tory chairman and a sizeable anti-Labour majority on the Passenger Transport Authority. In practice, it has turned out very much like putting a gang of atheists to organise a Christian revival. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, but I question whether the present Tory members of the Passenger Transport Authority believe in private enterprise or in a public service industry succeeding.
  However, by far the most pressing area of concern in Manchester at present is the proposed 3d. peak hour surcharge which, it is rumoured, will be introduced in the next week or so. It will, in effect, be a poll tax on those citizens of Manchester and Salford who are obliged to travel to work in peak hours. How many workers, how many people, can determine the hours at which they must attend for work? Yet these are the commuters who will be burdened with a further 5s. to 6s. per week in bus fares in travelling to and from their employment. This added imposition comes on top of the general fares increase which was introduced in February last, only a matter of months ago.
  It can be argued that S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority is facing a formidable financial problem and an estimated deficit on its bus operations of £2,587,000 for the year 1970–71.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and also for initiating this debate. Is he aware that in areas such as the Blackley area of the city the

  991
  position is that many workers have to take as many as three buses to go to and from their places of work, and that they will be paying the poll tax not once but perhaps six times a day?
  Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has certainly made a particularly valid point.
  In seeking to deal with the problem of the 3d. peak hour surcharge, I would say that I think it was neither just nor equitable for the S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority to restrict the imposition of the 3d. peak hour surcharge to the central division of its operating area. In my view, the burden of producing the additional income required should have been spread evenly throughout the whole of the Passenger Transport Authority area.
  It may be said that this point was considered by the North-West Traffic Commissioner, and I am mindful of the limitations of Ministerial responsibility in regard to that. It could be said that the Commissioner considered the point when he considered and rejected some of the objections to the fare increases and the 3d. peak hour surcharge earlier this year, but since the hearing presided over by the Commissioner there has been a highly significant and important development.
  In January this year S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority announced that it had decided not to precept on local authority rates. One assumes that this was a factor taken into consideration by the Commissioner. In June this year, after the Commissioner had made known his decision, S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority, in a joint policy statement, indicated that it was now in favour of a selective precept on local rates. This poses the question, would the judgment of the North-West Traffic Commissioner have been different had he known of the Passenger Transport Authority's view on the precept was to change somewhat dramatically after he had made known his decision?
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I would ask my hon. Friend if he could tell the House on how many occasions the S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority has met. It is charged with very serious responsibilities.
  992
  Can he say how often it has met to discharge those responsibilities?
  Mr. Morris: This is an important question, because it illuminates the gulf between the Passenger Transport Authority and the Executive. My information is that since its establishment in November of last year the P.T.A. has met only on five occasions, and this does not give grounds for public confidence in the level of liaison.
  Is public transport in the greater Manchester area to suffer a general increase in fares, a 3d. peak-hour surcharge and a precept on local rates, all within a matter of months? What is the Minister's view about the provisions of the Transport Act which will oblige S.E.L.N.E.C. to contribute to any financial loss on the operation of railway services in the S.E.L.N.E.C. P.T.A. area after 1st April, 1971? Does he propose to follow the lead of his predecessor by again deferring this statutory obligation?
  One could take the view that bus fare increases are inevitable. We could be tempted to ignore the facts that in Manchester between 1960 and 1969 there have been seven fare increases; that the 2d. fare of 1959 now costs 6d. and the then 6d. fare now costs 1s. or 1s. 3d.; and that the imposed economies in the frequency of service have produced a situation that whereas in 1959 buses in Manchester ran 47 million miles they now run 36 million miles. What the Minister will ignore at his peril is the statistics which show the number of passengers carried. In 1949 there were 500 million; in 1959, 411 million; by 1969 the number had plummeted to 252 million—a vicious spiral of diminishing returns. The more the frequency of the service is cut back, the more the fares are increased, the more certain it is that the bus passenger will resort to the use of the private car.
  Stabilising the present level of fares is one thing, but frequency, convenience and reliability of service are equally essential. The real danger is that the level of fares is accelerating the switch to the private car.
  A precept on local rates is obviously an area of revenue-raising which will have to be considered for the future—
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The local rates are the responsibility of the local Conservative

  993
  Council in Manchester. Is not it remarkable and perhaps to be commented on that neither of the Conservative Members of Parliament for the City of Manchester have taken the trouble to attend this debate which is so important for their constituents?
  Mr. Morris: That point will no doubt be noted. How much of S.E.L.N.E.C.'s crippling burden will the greater Manchester commuter and ratepayer have to shoulder? Recently London's public transport was assisted to the extent of £2 million. What about the major provincial centres such as Manchester and the North-West? Irrespective of what one may feel about the need to innovate an experiment with new forms of public transport, it was perhaps unfortunate that S.E.L.N.E.C. chose this time to introduce the Hale Barns "Executive" coach service. To pander to the elitism of the Hale Barns executive, to discriminate in his favour, when there are so many other inadequate bus services in the P.T.A. area is wholly questionable. One is mindful that the travelling public in the Hale Barns area already enjoy two fast means of access to Manchester by rail. I accept, however, that this is a peripheral point. I am prepared to await the outcome of this so-called innovating experiment.
  On my main point, I ask the Minister to consider—
  Mr. David Clark: My hon. Friend talks about the commuters from the south end, Hale Barns. But there is a problem at the north-eastern end where we find certain small authorities within which there are no concessionary fares given to old people. For example, the urban district of Saddle-worth in my constituency claims that the terms and conditions asked and demanded by the S.E.L.N.E.C. are too high for it to accept. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
  Mr. Morris: I am aware of the close and continuing interest which my hon. Friend takes in these matters, that is a point which merits serious consideration.
  Mr. Michael Fidler: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of the local authorities, including the Bury local authority, had to give up profitable transport undertakings to the S.E.L.N.E.C. and are now
  994
  experiencing much increased fares, worse concessions for the elderly, and far less frequent services at greater cost? Will the hon. Gentleman take this into consideration? Will he also tell me how much this is due to what is virtually the nationalisation of local authority transport?
  Mr. Morris: The point made by the hon. Gentleman poses a question. If indeed these problems exist, then the P.T.A. ought to be meeting more often. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) makes a particularly valid point about the political control of the P.T.A.s concerned. The only point which comes to mind about the transfer from certain local municipal transport undertakings is that I wish that some had transferred their financial reserves to the new P.T.A.s.
  To revert to my main point, I ask the Minister to consider convening a conference of representatives of all local authorities in the S.E.L.N.E.C. P.T.A. area to consider the long-term financial problems associated with providing public transport in the greater Manchester area. This is an urgent issue. I leave the Minister with the thought that action is necessary, and we hope to see it taken very soon.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Michael Heseltine): First, I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) for his kind remarks about me personally, which I greatly appreciate.
  I also say that it is a great privilege for me to come to the Dispatch Box with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair. Perhaps we may be forgiven for thinking that we are back in Committee on the Transport Bill considering our respective positions.
  However, it is not just the juxtaposition of ourselves that reminds me of that. These arguments have a familiar ring. I remember spending a great deal of time in 1968 listening to the arguments about the establishment of P.T.A.s and the benefits which would come, and arguing, with all the persausion that I could, that the local authorities in the areas affected were likely to find problems if the P.T.A.s were imposed on them against their wishes.

  995
  The hon. Member for Openshaw will remember the Guillotine Motion—I think that he voted on it—that imposed the P.T.A.s on the local authorities in his area against their wishes. It is interesting that he should be asking this Government, after only a fortnight in office, to call a conference of the very local authorities which he was then prepared to disregard to try to achieve action.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I made it clear during my speech that I am an advocate of the amalgamation of these municipal transport undertakings. What I am asking for is a conference to consider the long-term financial problems with which the S.E.L.N.E.C. P.T.A. is beset.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will remember that it was for that reason that P.T.A.s were set up. One of the great arguments was that there was a problem in the provision of urban transport in this area and in others which could be solved only by the establishment of a local authority in the form of a P.T.A. The P.T.A.s were set up for precisely that reason, and it seems strange that, having established them, the hon. Gentleman should wish to reverse our proceedings and call all the local authorities together to come to a solution which would be imposed upon P.T.A.s.
  We must get into perspective the relationship which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends created between the P.T.A.s and this House. The argument used at the time by hon. Gentlemen was that these decisions about which the hon. Gentleman has been talking and questioning should be taken by local people, and it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is being less than fair now in criticising certain of the things that are happening, largely on the ground that it was the will of the local people that they should be run by Conservative-controlled councils.
  The problems of local transport are vastly bigger than any political discussion or division, and the hon. Gentleman, with his experience of transport undertakings, knows that there are certain long-term trends which have greatly accentuated the problems. I had hoped that he would tell the House what he would like to see happen, and what the action to which he referred should consist
  996
  of. Had he done that, it would have been possible for me to take a view about whether that action would help. In the absence of any concrete proposals from the hon. Gentleman—his only reference was to Conservative councils not being interested in public transport—I can only tell him that almost every matter that he mentioned is for the P.T.A. and the P.T.E. These things are in the hands of local people, and if the hon. Gentleman has any complaints the proper place to air them is in Manchester itself.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I dispute that. When the G.L.C. took over the running of the transport undertaking in the Greater London area the Government wrote off most of the debt and subsidised the council. What we in the S.E.L.N.E.C. area are saying is that we want Government finance to keep down prices, which the Government are supposed to be pledged to doing.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Government finance will be available once the capital schemes are put forward. They have not yet been produced. The Manchester transportation survey is still not available. It will not be available until the autumn. The rapid transit scheme and other ideas will be considered and examined by local people, and if the P.T.A. and the P.T.E. decide to ask the Minister to approve these schemes, it is in their power to do so, and the Minister will then have power to make a 75 per cent. grant towards the financing of the schemes. Until the P.T.A. for S.E.L.N.E.C. tells the Minister "This is what we want to do", the Minister cannot finance schemes which nobody has asked to have financed.
  Mr. Kaufman: Is not what the Minister saying totally against the policy of his party? The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said that they will tackle the spiral of rising prices by intervening in rising prices in the public sector. These are fares in the public sector. Instead of arguing with my hon. Friend about who should put forward proposals, what is the Minister going to do to keep down these rising prices?
  Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has only come into the House at this last election—and I welcome him as an old friend from our

  997
  Oxford days—but he will appreciate that the problems of passenger transport in the S.E.L.N.E.C. area are the result of the policies of the previous Government. He will be aware that the two principal contributing factors to rising fares are the wage increases which were granted recently, which led directly to increased fares—because wages represent 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the total cost—and the legislation introduced by his Friends when they were the Government to curtail drivers' hours, which greatly increased the difficulties of recruiting sufficient staff to provide the services. These increases, therefore, are the result of the policies of the last Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is fair. The Conservatives have been in power for only a fortnight and it will take more than a fortnight to cure the problems of the last six years.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative majority on the P.T.A. has been in power from the outset? Will he come to terms with the important proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris)? Will he accept that it is just not good enough gratuitously to increase one of the most important aspects of the cost of living at a time when the Government, admittedly newly-elected, have been talking in such strong terms about holding down prices in the public sector?
  Mr. Heseltine: But the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the costs have already risen and, therefore, the problem is facing S.E.L.N.E.C.—and it is entirely a problem for that body and not for the Government—and it must put forward its proposals. I was waiting to hear what proposals the hon. Gentleman had. The increase has been the subject of an inquiry by the Traffic Commissioners who, as far as I am aware, have accepted the fare increase and the surcharge which may be put on peak-hour travel. The local people have to decide the means of dealing with the increase in costs, but the only suggestion from the hon. Gentleman was that perhaps it could be a matter for precepting on the rates. That is just another way of increasing prices.
  Mr. Rose: Is there not a fundamental difference of philosophy here? What my
  998
  hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) is arguing is that by forcing people off public transport into motor cars and thereby increasing congestion and increasing accidents and delays on the road, one is incurring a greater cost to the public than by levying a small amount from the rates, which would allow costs to be kept down and allow people to use public transport more and to have a more civilised form of existence in our present polluted urban environment?
  Mr. Heseltine: This may be a philosophy of public transport which commends itself to the people of Manchester, but the fact cannot be ignored that it is for the people of Manchester to decide. The hon. Member for Openshaw went on to knock one of the most imaginative schemes introduced by S.E.L.N.E.C.—[Interruption.] I listened to the hon. Member with great patience. The scheme was to try to combat the very people most likely to want to use their cars in the congestion. This is precisely the sort of scheme with which transport authorities should experiment. It was a relatively small experiment which, along with the Trans-Lancashire Express, was exactly the sort of innovation in the bus industry which it was said would follow from the establishment of P.T.A.s.
  One must realise that this is a very small part of the activities of the S.E.L.N.E.C. P.T.A., but, nevertheless, it is precisely the sort of imaginative approach which one hoped would follow from the establishment of P.T.A.s. It is silly to try to knock it, because if public transport is to offer a valuable service and a quality service, it must be allowed to introduce new services without hon. Members opposite trying to make party political points out of it.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: But in this case it was to provide a luxury service in an area which already has a very good fast rail service. If the rail loses that traffic, the local rates will have to bear the burden.
  Mr. Heseltine: It is entirely a matter for the local people to decide. I must go on making this point. I have actually sat through a whole committee meeting of the Passenger Transport Authority in S.E.L.N.E.C. One learns a great deal about the problems of Manchester by

  999
  doing that, and I commend it to some hon. Members opposite. The fact of the matter is that these decisions are taken by the local people. If hon. Members opposite have alternative and positive suggestions, they should make them to the P.T.A., and I am sure that they will be welcomed and well-received.
  There is no doubt that Mr. Harrison is a man determined to push all opportunities to expand the service which he makes available, and I have no doubt that he has brought a breath of fresh air to the bus industry in this country. A very fine man has been found to do that job. It would be much more helpful if Labour Members would try to find ways in which to make suggestions about what to do about a problem which is worldwide—congestion in the cities. I am sure that in the course of the ensuing years we shall talk about the provision of public transport services, but I do not believe that the small nigglings which we have
  1000
  heard from the hon. Member for Openshaw will make much contribution to a solution of this major problem.
  The Minister is of course now looking at the policy, as one would expect, but at the moment we are administering legislation which was guillotined through the House of Commons by the Labour Party when in office.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris indicated dissent.
  Mr. Heseltine: It was, and the hon. Member played a major part in guillotining it. He—
  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 a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Price Increases (Notifications)
  Price Increases (Notifications)
  Annual Census of Employment
  Annual Census of Employment
  Unemployment (Faversham)
  Unemployment (Faversham)
  Unemployment (North-East Kent)
  Unemployment (North-East Kent)
  Factory Closures (South-East London and North-West Kent)
  Factory Closures (South-East London and North-West Kent)
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  Professional Services (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Professional Services (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Prices
  Prices
  Government Training Centres (Scotland)
  Government Training Centres (Scotland)
  Docks (Industrial Dispute)
  Docks (Industrial Dispute)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  300 Gev Proton Accelerator
  300 Gev Proton Accelerator
  Pre-school Playgroups
  Pre-school Playgroups
  Schoolchildren, Huddersfield (Zoning)
  Schoolchildren, Huddersfield (Zoning)
  11-plus Examination
  11-plus Examination
  Teachers of Autistic Children
  Teachers of Autistic Children
  Polytechnic, North Lancashire
  Polytechnic, North Lancashire
  Welsh College of Agriculture
  Welsh College of Agriculture
  Comprehensive Schools (11-Plus Examination)
  Comprehensive Schools (11-Plus Examination)
  School Leavers (Rother Valley)
  School Leavers (Rother Valley)
  Rushcliffe Comprehensive School
  Rushcliffe Comprehensive School
  Teachers of Mentally Handicapped Children
  Teachers of Mentally Handicapped Children
  Llanrwst (New Library)
  Llanrwst (New Library)
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Grants
  Grants
  Education (Handicapped Children) Bill
  Education (Handicapped Children) Bill
HOME DEPARTMENT
  General Elections (Postal Votes and Proxies)
  General Elections (Postal Votes and Proxies)
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Local Authority Elections
  Local Authority Elections
  Prison Inmates
  Prison Inmates
  Misuse of Drugs Bill
  Misuse of Drugs Bill
  Illegal Gaming
  Illegal Gaming
  Immigration and Race Relations Policy
  Immigration and Race Relations Policy
  East African Asians
  East African Asians
  Vehicles (Road Fund Licences)
  Vehicles (Road Fund Licences)
  Yellow Band Motoring Offences
  Yellow Band Motoring Offences
  Members' Parliamentary Questions (Information)
  Members' Parliamentary Questions (Information)
  Baby Seals, East Coast
  Baby Seals, East Coast
TECHNOLOGY
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Unemployment, Mexborough
  Unemployment, Mexborough
TRANSPORT
  Motorways (Central Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Central Crash Barriers)
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  South Africa (Supply of Arms)
  South Africa (Supply of Arms)
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow (Housing)
  Glasgow (Housing)
  Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1970
  Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1970
  Consultants
  Consultants
  General Medical Practitioners
  General Medical Practitioners
DEFENCE
  East of Suez
  East of Suez
  Fixed-Wing Flying Training
  Fixed-Wing Flying Training
  Dockyards (Apprentice Group Instructors)
  Dockyards (Apprentice Group Instructors)
  Far East Forces
  Far East Forces
  UNITED STATES POST APOLLO PROGRAMME (EUROPEAN COLLABORATION)
  UNITED STATES POST APOLLO PROGRAMME (EUROPEAN COLLABORATION)
  PRICES
  PRICES
  GOVERNMENT POLICY STATEMENTS
  GOVERNMENT POLICY STATEMENTS
  STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (TELEVISION BROADCAST)
  STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (TELEVISION BROADCAST)
  MEMBERS (OUTSIDE FINANCIAL INTERESTS)
  MEMBERS (OUTSIDE FINANCIAL INTERESTS)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Circular 21/70
  Circular 21/70
  Public Inquiry, Salisbury
  Public Inquiry, Salisbury
  Whitehall Redevelopment Proposals (Inquiry)
  Whitehall Redevelopment Proposals (Inquiry)
  PORNOGRAPHIC LITERATURE
  PORNOGRAPHIC LITERATURE
  ARRESTED PERSONS (TRIAL)
  ARRESTED PERSONS (TRIAL)
  RECORDERS (MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF COMMONS)
  RECORDERS (MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF COMMONS)
  LEGAL WORK AND COSTS OF LITIGATION
  LEGAL WORK AND COSTS OF LITIGATION
  LEGAL SYSTEM
  LEGAL SYSTEM
  BLOOM TRIAL (COSTS)
  BLOOM TRIAL (COSTS)
  CUBE CUTTING
  CUBE CUTTING
  NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (ALLEGED DRUG AND SEX PARTIES)
  NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (ALLEGED DRUG AND SEX PARTIES)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tanzania
  Tanzania
  Malta
  Malta
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Chairman)
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Chairman)
  Overseas Aid Programme
  Overseas Aid Programme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance Bill
  National Insurance Bill
  Hearing Aid Batteries
  Hearing Aid Batteries
  Medical Certificates (Cumnock)
  Medical Certificates (Cumnock)
  Pensions (Payment by Cheque)
  Pensions (Payment by Cheque)
  Social Services (Abuse)
  Social Services (Abuse)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Birmingham Airport
  Birmingham Airport
  Roskill Commission
  Roskill Commission

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

ROLLS ROYCE RB.211–50A ENGINE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated launching cost of the—50A development of the RB.211 engine; what proportion of this is requested by the Rolls Royce company from the Government; what method of repayment of this requested aid is being considered, and when a Government decision about financial aid for this project can be expected.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, the estimated launching cost of this—50A engine is about £60 million. As I told the House earlier this week, the total launching cost for the BAC 311 aircraft equipped with this engine is around £200 million. The proportion sought as launching; aid for the engine, and the method of repayment, are currently under negotiation with Rolls Royce and it would be premature to disclose details. A decision will be made as soon as possible.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for clarifying a matter which was left a little vague after what was said on Tuesday. If the figure is of the order of £60 million, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is quite satisfied that it would not be better to invest rather more and go for the—50 engine, which is a larger engine, in the first place and has a far greater potential for development?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Yes, my Lords, we have; consulted the Rolls Royce company about this matter. They now regard the—50A engine—which incidentally has now been renamed the—61 engine, just to make it a little simpler—as the best proposition.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I further ask the noble Earl whether the loan arrangements which were made between the Rolls Royce company and the I.R.C. are unaffected by the new Government's policy towards the I.R.C., and can he give an assurance that the future financing structure of Rolls Royce is now satisfactory?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is not proposed to interfere with the arrangements already made between Rolls Royce and the I.R.C. In so far as the financial position of Rolls Royce is concerned, they have encountered cash problems, but they have made plans to resolve them.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, what is the reason for the dash in the description?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Well, my Lords, it looks more like a hyphen but it is described as a dash.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, what is the significance of it? Why cannot it just be "50A"? Why is it "—50A"?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Because, my Lords, the full name of the engine is the RB.211 and there are various engines in the series, and the RB.211–50A is the one which is favoured at the moment.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if the dash is minus, why not make it a plus?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that from the questions asked by himself and his colleagues when in Opposition, the Tory Government would support any dashed engine?

THE SUMMER RECESS
3.13 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that, subject to the progress of business, it is anticipated that the House

279
will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday, July 23. I hope to be able to make a further statement in the near future about the probable duration of the Recess.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the usual Motion which is regularly moved at the beginning of every Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that in the present Session the following classes of Bills shall be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament:

(1) All Consolidation Bills, whether public or private;

(2) Statute Law Revision Bills;

(3) Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto;

(4) Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions, together with any Report containing such recommendations;

(5) Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with the Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except in so
280
far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such Bill.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider ail Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Atholl,

M. Willingdon,

E. Kinnoull,

L. Airedale,

L. Archibald,

L. Auckland,

L. Cawley,

L. Crawshaw,

L. Faringdon,

L. Jessel,

L. MacAndrew,

L. Meston,

L. Molson,

L. Peddie,

B. Plummer,

L. Royle,

L. St. Helens,

L. Silsoe,

L. Stow Hill,

L. Strang:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
3.15 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Thursday last by Lord O'Neill of the Maine—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty' has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it falls to me to pick up this debate more or less where it was last night and to launch it on its third day. The last speaker last night was the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and he had kind words to say about me. Since he is occupying my very chair in the Department I recently left, I should like to return his kind words and wish him every possible success in his career as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing. I know what an arduous spot that is. Towards the end of his remarks last night, the noble Lord had some things to say about housing figures. I know we discussed housing yesterday, and I do not wish to reopen the debate on that subject to-day, but since he was the last speaker yesterday perhaps the House will bear with me for a moment if I take up his points very briefly.
Of course, it is true that, under the Labour Government, fewer houses were built in 1969 than had been in 1968. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave the figures, and I believe he gave them correctly. Nevertheless, he would not dispute, I think—nobody could—that in five years the Labour Government completed 2 million houses, whereas in their last five years the Conservative Government completed 1·6 million houses. I think it is fair to compare the longer period rather than the shorter. There was a dip in 1969—of course there was. However, I think it is interesting to look at what has been happening in certain other countries. What countries shall we take? I suggest we might take as being roughly comparable to us in some ways
282
France, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, even the Soviet Union. If we look at all those countries we find that in every single one there has been in the last three years a dip in the out-turn of new houses. If we look at Sweden, we find that, although there has not yet been a dip, one is expected this year. We find, therefore, that what has happened in this country is exactly what has happened throughout not only the Western World but the advanced world as a whole.
I believe myself that this is due to a combination of three factors: to high interest rates—and there is nothing that any national Government can do alone about that; to the restrictions on Government expenditure, in which noble Lords opposite supported my Party when we were in office; and, thirdly, to the arrival on the scene at just the moment we are talking about of a large majority of Tory-controlled local councils in the country. In what order of importance to rate those three factors I would not presume to say. So much for housing.
I should like to devote the rest of my, I hope, short speech to the question of our environment and its pollution. I see that the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord O'Hagan, have Motions down about this subject, and I expect that the whole House will welcome the debates which will be the result of these Motions or some combination of them. But the environment and its protection is referred to in the gracious Speech. There is a general observation upon it—very general. I do not complain about its generalness; one has to be general at short notice.
I should like to start by reminding the House of some very bold and forward remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in a debate on February 4 of this year. He said:
"I am advocating an expensive and equally challenging onslaught on pollution, not to ensure our progress but this time to ensure our very survival itself.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT; col. 734.]
And, again, he said:
"What is required in this age of white-hot technological revolution is not so much further discussion but action now by the present competent authorities."
Furthermore, he said:
"… let us act now, and on a European and international scale. If we are to survive we must control our environment."

283
I do not suppose there is any noble Lord who would disagree with those words and I want now to ask the Government how their policy is shaping up. I know it is early as yet, but I hope that they will be able to tell us something about it.
The first action that I know of by the Government was that they abolished the overlord position of the Secretary of State for Regional Planning and Local Government, who had been charged by Mr. Wilson when Prime Minister with co-ordinating the duties of the ten Ministers with statutory functions to control the pollution of our environment. Mr. Eldon Griffiths was appointed to the Government with a remit to be, in some sense, "Mr. Environment". I am sure the House would like to know in what sense he is going to undertake this task. Is he, from the chair of another Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to coordinate Cabinet Minister with separate statutory functions? It can hardly be that. Is the co-ordinating then to be done by Mr. Walker, as Minister of Housing and Local Government and as a Cabinet Minister? Is he to co-ordinate the functions of other Cabinet Ministers who have statutory functions and who are his co-equals in the Cabinet? We found that such an arrangement was not satisfactory and that it was better done by a senior Cabinet Minister who would be above the band of equals who actually held the statutory functions—and it must not be forgotten that they are ten in number.
What has happened to the central pollution control unit which was in Mr. Crosland's office—a unit of scientists who were to provide the expertise to enable him to co-ordinate? That job is no longer there, so to whom is that unit reporting? This also relates to the question of the person who is doing the co-ordinating. Shortly after the brave words which were uttered by the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, the late Government introduced a White Paper called The Protection of the Environment—The Fight Against Pollution. That was in May of this year. This White Paper set a target date for the clearance of derelict land throughout the country and a target date for the halving of traffic noise, and it was the same date in each case. It was 1980.
284
Does that date stand? The White Paper said that certain named new forms of industrial air pollution were to be brought under control and that new and lower levels for the legal emission of grit and dust from furnaces were to be introduced.
It said that all new cars made in this country would have to be built with pollution suppression devices. Do these things still stand? It said that a new standard would be introduced for road diesel engines which would be the tightest in Europe for exhaust smoke and that an annual instrument check would be introduced to see that this standard was observed. Will these things be done? It also said that an annual noise check would be introduced for heavy lorries and that new aircraft would have to be not more than half as noisy as existing aircraft of the same size, and, moreover, that existing aircraft which are already flying might have to be fitted with quieter engines. That is the question of retrofit, and the wording of the former Government's White Paper was that they were examining the possibility of requiring that existing aircraft be retrofitted with quieter engines. Are the present Government continuing to examine that? The White Paper proposed that Concorde, when it becomes operational, and other supersonic aircraft should not be allowed to make sonic booms over this country—that is to say, sonic booms which could be heard on the ground. The language of the White Paper was that draft proposals for this plan would be published for discussion. Will they now be published?
The White Paper said that the use of pesticides and antibiotics in agriculture would be brought from a voluntary control system, where it now rests, under direct statutory control. There is nothing about that in the Queen's Speech: is it going to be done? The White Paper said that the water industry was going to be reorganised—I expect that is going to be done—and it freed river authorities once again to undertake the positive purification of our rivers. I do not imagine that there would be any proposal to go back on that. It promised a national clean rivers programme to be devised next winter after receipt of the results of certain research inquiries now in progress. I hope that will be done. It released an extra £17 million immediately for spending on rural sewerage. I hope the House

285
can take it that that money will not be clawed back in some attempt to reduce central Government expenditure.
It undertook to introduce legislation to tighten the law in regard to accidental pollution, the results of carelessness or even of bad luck. There is nothing in the Queen's Speech about that: are we still to hope for it, and if so when? The White Paper said that two International Conventions on oil pollution would be ratified, and I am very glad to see that a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on Monday of this week to ratify one of them and give effect to it in British law. Lastly, the White Paper promised that penalties right across this field would be broupt up to date and increased, because they are out of line with the realities of modem economic life.
May I now come back to the question of oil pollution of the sea? I have recently had the great honour and the good fortune to be elected as chairman of the Oil Pollution Committee, in which I hope to be able to uphold the hard work and standards which were set by my predecessor as chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and by his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and, going right back, by his predecessor, Mr. James Callaghan. I know, as anyone who has studied the problem knows, that the key to this problem of oil pollution by tinkers, and indeed by ships in general, is insurance. At the moment the compulsory level of insurance liability on tanker owners is limited. The recent draft convention raises it, but it does not raise it to the maximum. We still face the fact that there can be another "Torrey Canyon" wreck and the ship in question need not be insured in such a way that the shipowner could reimburse all sufferers to the full extent of their loss. The; International Maritime Consultative Organisation is still seized of this and I would ask the new Government to take a very forward line in the discussions, in the hope of bringing that arrangement up to compulsory full cover for the greatest risk and to the highest certainty of liability which can be introduced without manifest injustice.
There is some urgency about this, because the situation is already getting a little out of hand. In October of last year the Canadian Government, at a
286
meeting of IMCO in Brussels, asked for high levels of insurance liability. It did not get them. It went home and it introduced domestic legislation extending national control over the waters of the Arctic to an extent which has never been seen before in the history of the world. Such a thing goes right against our traditional concepts of freedom of the seas, but we must recognise that there is now a conflict between the age-old concept of unfettered freedom of the seas and the new danger of gross and massive pollution by oil and other foul chemicals. I say the situation is urgent because we have already seen one advanced civilised Government, and one responsive to world opinion, getting the bit between its teeth and introducing a national law which shocks our traditional susceptibilities.
This Canadian action has in its turn precipitated the publication of a new American policy. On May 23 President Nixon sent a statement to the Congress of the United States of America entitled Ocean Policy for the Future. This is still vague: and it can be pulled around and negotiated with by the friends of America. I hope the Government will do that and, together with the Americans, will devise for adoption by the whole world a system of international control of the oceans and of their exploitation and of their pollution—and indeed of their military use—which will be responsive to the needs of mankind as a whole and not simply to the needs of those countries which have large tanker fleets, or to the needs of those countries which eat a lot of fish or which rely for their economic life on catching a lot of whales, or which need to dispose of a lot of radioactive waste into the deep oceans We need a true world system here and we need it soon if chaos is to be avoided—take, for example, the Canadian action.
It is now a commonplace that we have only one environment and it is international, and we cannot control it adequately by purely national means: it is cropping up everywhere. Only last month the Foreign: Ministers of the Warsaw Pact countries met in Budapest and proposed that at the all-European conference which the European Communist countries have been asking for for a long time there should be a discussion not only on military matters and

287
security but also on the international environment and its pollution. I hope the Government will listen closely to these statements coming from behind the Iron Curtain, to see what the nuances are. Is it possible that the smaller East European countries are keener on talking about the environment than the Soviet Union is? I do not know. But, if so, this would be an interesting fact which could be used in our general search for a form of détente and bridge-building which would not give offence to or betray the identity of the people of Czechoslovakia.
It is interesting in this context to note that of all the international organisations concerned with environmental pollution control, and there are very many, the one which is perhaps furthest ahead, though on a narrow front, is the E.C.E., the Economic Commission for Europe. This has nothing to do with the E.E.C., this is a United Nations regional economic body covering the whole of Europe, East and West. It has already formulated standards to control the pollution of motor car exhausts. This has been done on an East-West basis, and there is no need to point out the political interest in any technical thing done on an East-West basis. The E.C.E. is next year to hold a conference in Prague about these matters, to which of course we and the Americans are invited as full members. I hope the Government will take that matter seriously and go along and be helpful.
I think that in the future most of the technical economic work on pollution control will have to be done in O.E.C.D., because that is an organisation with a very strong secretariat well qualified to do it. I hope that here, too, the Government will remember that the O.E.C.D. does not contain the advanced, economically developed countries living under the Communist system of government, and although it is a good organ for economic arrangements and agreements between advanced Western and neutral countries it is not a good one for such arrangements which would embrace the Eastern European countries. This is a question of foreign policy which has to be neatly balanced off between the
288
countervailing advantages of different organisations.
The one organisation and one meeting there can be no doubt about is the one proposed by the United Nations itself to 'be held in Stockholm in 1972. Everybody is going to be there. It is to discuss the entire conservation and exploitation of the natural environment of man by man. This will have to be discussed by 117 nations, or whatever the number is; I expect each nation will want to send a good many delegates. It will be an enormous meeting, but such meetings are by no means doomed to confusion if the advanced planning is done firmly and well by a group of countries—and such a groups exists—who are interested in it. Such meetings can be of very great use to the whole future of mankind. I know that the new Government will maintain and confirm the decision on priorities which was taken by the outgoing Government, that this 1972 meeting was the right one to go for to make a real splash, a British splash among other national splashes, and to get a real new understanding and, so far as possible, co-ordinated policy towards our limited physical surroundings, a policy which is going to have to govern the rest of the sojourn of the human race on this earth.
3.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time from the Dispatch Box on this side of the Chamber, I find myself wishing that the same indulgence was extended towards maiden ministerial speakers as to other maiden speakers. After no more than two weeks in office, even the most demanding of your Lordships will not, I am sure, expect me to have mastered all the varied responsibilities of the Home Office. Even if, in time, I am able to achieve this state of knowledge, I expect there will be many occasions when I shall find myself echoing some words of Edmund Burke:
"Those who would carry on great public schemes must be proof against the worst delays, the most mortifying disappointments, the most shocking insults and, what is worst of all, the presumptuous judgment of the ignorant upon their design."
When my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, opened the Home Affairs Debate in another place on Friday, he

289
spoke about the principles he intended to follow in administering the Home Department. So many of the problems of the Home Office—crime, demonstrations, penal policy, prisons: all of enormous importance—are necessarily restrictive and of a negative character. But my light honourable friend made clear that it is his determination to try at all times to be positive, to give a lead in influencing social policy, and in seeking to eradicate the causes of problems rather than be faced with their consequences when they have already taken root.
This approach is certainly one that I shall always attempt to follow in this House. I am sure that it will be far from easy, since many decisions of Ministers on matters such as immigration control, aliens, penal policy and so on, are in effect the application of regulatory legislation passed by Parliament. Many, if not all, of these decisions, it seems to me, from my short experience, involve the reconciliation of conflicting interests—for example, the conflict between the individual immigrant, or would be immigrant, his family and his friends, with the wider implications for the society he has already entered or is now seeking to enter. So there have to be regulations (a better word, I believe, on the whole, than rules), but their application must always be fair and humane and carefully considered.
In all of this, I am particularly fortunate to have a model right in front of me, on the other side of the House. In five years at the Home Office the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gained the admiration and respect of all of us, those on our Benches as well as on his own, and showed experience and patience, and great good judgment, in carrying out a very difficult job. If I can measure up to the standard that he set, I shall be very content.
In to-day's debate I thought it might be helpful if I were to speak at the outset about the main Home Office subjects contained in the Queen's Speech, while my noble friend Lord Aberdare will intervene later on to say something about the references to education, health and social security. I think he is also perhaps going to be brave enough to say something in answer to that enormous comprehensive list of questions on the environment which we have just
290
heard in that very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Then the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will conclude the debate, replying to the main points raised by noble Lords, whether in to-day's discussion or on Tuesday or Wednesday.
My Lords, the most immediate problem facing the Home Secretary is the ominous situation in Northern Ireland. As noble Lords know, my right honourable friend Mr. Maudling took the earliest opportunity to visit Ulster shortly after his appointment, and last Friday he reported to the House of Commons his conclusions on his trip. I do not want, nor do I think it would be appropriate, to embark on a long discussion of Northern Ireland affairs; but I think it right that I should say a few words about one or two aspects of this problem.
It requires little insight to say that the most urgent need is the restoration and maintenance of public order in Northern Ireland, and I must emphasise, on behalf of the Government, that the Army will remain in Northern Ireland for as long and in sufficient numbers as is necessary to deal with the situation there. Public safety and the achievement of a state of genuine freedom under the law are the paramount considerations, and we shall continue to discharge our obligations to protect all citizens of Northern Ireland for as long as is necessary. I should also like to make it quite plain that the Government are pledged to the objective of supporting the Northern Ireland Government in their determination to secure peace and harmony in Ulster on the basis of justice and equality for all its citizens. The Northern Ireland Government have introduced and persevered with a programme of reform against the forces of bigotry and reaction, and we shall encourage them to press this programme through to completion. I should like to echo, as I think other noble Lords would, the tribute which was paid by the Home Secretary in another place to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, the successor of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, for his staunchness, steadfastness and sturdy determination to serve the people of his country.
That brings me to the third point that I should like to make at this stage. We

291
appreciate the extent to which economic difficulties contribute to some of the basic causes of unrest in Northern Ireland. Ulster itself suffers from natural economic disadvantages, and it has been the objective of the Development Programme, recently published in Belfast, to seek to offset some of these disadvantages. The objectives of the programme are the creation of more opportunities for employment in Northern Ireland and the improvement of living conditions. As one of the first acts of this new Government we were very glad to be able to endorse immediately and in full, the proposals of the Northern Ireland Government, which will involve the injection into the Northern Ireland economy of £75 million over five years, in addition to the programmes already agreed.
My final word on Ulster is this. The last two weekends have seen a renewal of violence in Northern Ireland worse than any experienced in these last months of turbulence and disorder. Tragedy hit Belfast: casualties were inflicted on civilians, on the police and on the Army. But, worst of all, no fewer than seven people lost their lives in the week-end of June 26–28, and six more last week-end. I cannot find words strong enough to express my detestation—detestation which I know is shared by every Member of this House—of this wanton and totally unjustified outburst of strife. In this situation we must keep our heads: we must give our encouragement and our full support to the Army, to the Northern Ireland Government and to the vast majority of people in Ulster, fearful and apprehensive as they are, who at the same time are anxious to live in a peaceful and orderly society. It is only by building on these elements, coupled with the measures that I have described, that the disastrous era of escalating violence can be brought to an end.
My Lords, I noticed with interest in a leading article in The Times of June 19, the day after the General Election, that first priority in the list of problems facing the new Government was given to immigration and race relations. No one can doubt that the question of how immigration from the Commonwealth is handled is of tremendous significance for the future of British society. What is more, here is something, unlike so many
292
other issues in politics, which is under our own direct control.
Both major Parties have now come to the conclusion that in practice there should be no further large-scale immigration from the Commonwealth. It is an historic change, and we should not make any mistake about recognising it as such. Over a single decade there has been a complete change from an open-door policy, based on the idea that Britain is the Mother State of a Commonwealth of Nations, to one that now in a year admits of the issue of no more than about 4,000 or so work vouchers to heads of families from the Commonwealth. Yet it is a trend that has resulted from profound changes in the nature of the Commonwealth as well as in British society. That it has been accomplished so relatively smoothly is, to my mind, a considerable tribute to the innate soundness of our much-criticised political process.
It is a change, moreover, in which the political Parties have been closely in accord with the public mood; and that, after all, is what democracy is about. I believe that over the last few years the slowly changing emphasis in immigration policy has been supported, although with varying degrees of enthusiasm, by public opinion, overwhelmingly so in the case of public opinion as a whole, while a majority, although not all, of informed public opinion would probably also accept the need for restriction.
At the same time, anyone who is concerned with relations between the races will want to insist that the immigrants and their families who have already made their homes here must be treated in exactly the same way as any other citizen of this country. We cannot accept that there should be a different standard of housing, a different standard of education and a different standard of job opportunities. The Prime Minister has on many occasions made it clear that the aim of our policies on immigration and on race relations is to achieve full equality for the immigrant in the life of Britain. In justice to all those, of whatever colour, who are already living here, we must try to set the public mind at rest on this issue of immigration so that there can be no further excuse for exciting passions, and so that there need be no further cause for apprehension on the part of the existing immigrant community. There

293
is to be no harassing of them, no forced repatriation, and they will continue to have the right to bring in their close and genuine dependants.
For the future, as the Home Secretary explained in another place on Friday, the Commonwealth citizen who wishes to come here to work will need to obtain a work permit for a particular job in a particular place. Permits will be granted only where local labour is not available, and for a maximum of 12 months in the first instance. Extensions of stay after that time will be considered on their merits, and will be granted only if the applicant remains in approved employment or obtains other approved employment. There will be no right to permanent settlement here and, as with aliens, applications for permanent settlement will be considered at the end of four years in approved employment. Nor will there be a right to acquire citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but applications will be considered, on evidence of good character, after five years' residence. Future Commonwealth entrants for employment will have no absolute right to bring dependants, and here also we propose to assimilate along the lines of the existing arrangement for aliens.
Apart from our general policy on future immigration from the Commonwealth there is a special problem over the entry of United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa. My right honourable friend has already made clear that this is a matter to which he is giving his personal attention. At this stage I do not think that I can go beyond that. It is a large and complex subject. It is one about which few of us can be happy, with conflicting obligations towards the passport holders, towards the community here, to those in East Africa who are following the procedure and awaiting entry, and to those who have ignored it and sought to enter without the proper documents. I know that this is a subject on which a number of noble Lords feel strongly, and I shall listen to whatever is said in the debate with close attention.
May I say that I am extremely sorry that it was not possible for me to be here yesterday afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, raised issues on immigration policy. I had to deputise at short notice
294
for the Home Secretary on an urgent engagement. I have seen what they said, their comments have been noted, and they are certainly points that will require careful consideration and reply when the legislation has reached a stage at which it is possible to debate what categories of potential immigrant will be covered from the Commonwealth, and in what way.
While on the subject of immigration control, I think the House will be interested to know that an appeal procedure has now been established under the provisions of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, and the related Aliens (Appeals) Order 1970. These rights of appeal are being introduced by stages, and the first stage commenced on the first of this month. Accordingly, since July 1 there has been a statutory right of appeal available against some 70 per cent. of the decisions which are ultimately to be open to appeal. The decision; against which an appeal now lies include the refusal of an entry certificate to a Commonwealth citizen or a visa to an alien overseas, and any decision which has the effect of requiring a person already lawfully admitted to leave the country. The introduction of these statutory rights of appeal for passengers to whom entry has been refused on arrival at a seaport or airport has been left until a later stage. It is a phased programme, and the reason for it is simply a practical one to avoid interference with the operation of immigration control at the ports during the summer and the autumn, when the through-put of passengers, and the number to whom entry has to be refused, is at its peak.
Advice and assistance for people who have these rights of appeal will be available from the Immigrants' Advisory Service, a voluntary organisation which has been set up by a number of existing bodies with an interest in the welfare of immigrants. I am sure that noble Lords will want to welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, as Chairman of this new organisation. The Service is receiving a grant-in-aid from the Home Office under Section 15 of the Immigration Appeals Act, currently at the rate of £75,000 a year. But, while it is receiving this substantial financial help from public funds, I should stress that the Service is entirely independent of

295
Government and is there to try to assist immigrants who have a right of appeal to pursue their appeal in the most effective and proper manner.
My Lords, those are some of the ways in which even in the application of regulatory legislation it is possible to take a positive approach. This is even more so, of course, when moving on from immigration policy to race relations, and here the Government place the greatest emphasis on promoting to the full the interests of the existing immigrant community in Britain. They have been accepted as full members of our community; they are making an important contribution to our economy (just how important this is was highlighted last weekend in the Sunday Times in the references to the survey by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research); and their children are growing up and are receiving their education here. It is, therefore, essential that the work of promoting better community relations should continue, and I should like to make absolutely clear the priority which my right honourable friend attaches to this. I do not think this is the occasion, in a general debate of this sort, when it would be appropriate to expand on this matter in detail, because I am sure that it is one to which we should return again in due course.
In the meantime, I would commend to your Lordships the Reports published in the last two weeks of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission. These indicate what progress has been made, both in seeking to remove and eliminate discrimination and in improving understanding between the different communities. Neither Report is complacent. Both of them make quite clear just how much remains to be done. The work of eradicating and undermining discrimination, fundamental though it is, we should remember is only part of the task. None of us can feel satisfied until we have ensured that these fellow citizens of ours are able to play a full part in the life of this country.
Perhaps I may mention one final point before passing on from this section of the Queen's Speech; that is, the undertaking to continue assistance to areas of special social need. The urban programme has done valuable work, and has
296
been generally welcomed by local authorities and voluntary organisations who have been providing community facilities. While it benefits all citizens living in areas of social need, it can also take special account of the needs which arise in areas in which large numbers of immigrants have settled. Now that two years of the programme have been completed this will clearly be a convenient stage for the Government to review how its resources can be most effectively deployed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on from this point, if this is all involved with the question of what legislation the Government may have in mind on immigration, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that there will be full consultation with the Governments in the Commonwealth, particularly those who will be involved, so that there can be no bitterness or misunderstanding between us and the Commonwealth countries? Could he also assure us that, through the Governors in our various Colonies, the views of the Colonies will be considered at the same time? Could the noble Lord also say Whether it will be possible, before legislation is introduced, for a White Paper to be published so that we may understand fully what the Government have in mind?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the tone of the noble Lord's remarks. I do not think he would expect me to be able to give him an absolute undertaking on that point here and now, but the need for consultation is of course understood. As he will know from his own experience, there is a great deal of consultation at day-today working levels between the High Commissions in London of those countries mainly concerned and the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I should like finally to turn to one matter referred to in the Queen's Speech about which we on these Benches cannot be so friendly with noble Lords opposite; that is, the words on the top of the last page:
"Effect will be given to the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions for the redistribution of Parliamentary seats."
Nobody will be surprised to hear those words. In the long debates on this subject in the last Parliament, we on this

297
side of the House, with very strong support from the Cross-Benches, made clear that we were in favour of the immediate implementation of the recommendations contained in the Reports of the Boundary Commissioners, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not take immediate steps to implement those Reports now. Certainly the country expects us to, and we should be failing them if we did not act on them at once.
I think that here in this House we can take a modest satisfaction in reflecting that it was the Amendments carried in your Lordships' House to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill last July which obliged the previous Home Secretary to drop his ill-starred Bill when it returned to the House of Commons last October. At that time your Lordships' House carried out its constitutional duty of forcing the Government to have second thoughts on a matter which we considered to be of fundamental constitutional importance.
As a result, the then Government had to resort to the quite extraordinary and unworthy device of actually laying the Orders in the House of Commons, and then asking their own supporters to vote them down. Those were the steps that were taken—the almost unique and very shabby steps—by the last Government to evade their duty of seeing that the Boundary Commissioners' recommendations were accepted. It now falls to us to fulfil that duty: and that we intend to do before the Recess. I hope—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask him this question? I do not quarrel with what he has said about having a mandate to proceed with this, and, clearly, another Election is still some way away. But since it is our case that the action we took was based on the proposed local government reform and the Maud Commission Report, and as I see in the gracious Speech that consultations are to take place about a possible reform and it looks as if Maud is out of the window, can the; noble Lord say how those consultations are to take place, with whom and to what extent Parliament will be consulted?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we are discussing the constituency boundaries.
298
There will always be a plausible reason for not taking action. Governments will always be able to find a plausible reason, and once they get into the habit of delaying the implementation and acceptance of the Boundary Commissioners' reports, Party political considerations are bound to intrude. It is too much to ask Members of Parliament, when their own political survival may be involved, to be judges in their own cause. The only way to avoid this—and this was settled in the 1940s—is to have an independent Commission, headed by the Speaker (in practice by a High Court Judge), who are trusted by all Parties and whose recommendations will be accepted. Therefore I think that questions of reorganisation of local government really have to be put on one side. That was the reason given; it might have been another reason. But once there is any opportunity to put these recommendations on one side, I think that the system will break down.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not quarrelling with what the noble Lord has said, but I asked a specific question. In the gracious Speech reference is made to the fact that there will be consultations about local government reform. If the noble Lord cannot answer, then I shall be quite willing to wait until the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack replies. I asked the question only because in many ways it is pertinent to the point which the noble Lord himself raised.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. Of course there will be consultation. There has been continual consultation, and this will go on, about changes in the organisation of local government. If one looks at what happened in Greater London, for example, one sees the ritual that was gone through. I cannot believe there is another country in the world that has gone through such a careful detailed process of consultation with those whose interests are involved.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, no!
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. This is a fair point. The noble Lord has referred to one part of the gracious

299
Speech, and I am referring to the next paragraph, which states:
"Proposals will be worked out in full consultation with all concerned, for local government reform in England, Scotland and Wales."
I will not press the noble Lord, and if he is unwilling or unable to answer I am quite ready to leave it to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. All that I and the House would like to know is with whom consultation will take place.
LORD WINDLESHAM: With local authority associations. I do not think it would be fruitful to pursue this matter this afternoon. We have a long list of speakers. I think I have made the point on the constituency boundaries, and that is one of principle, which I think is more than can be said for the matters raised by the noble Lord in his last few interventions.
My Lords, I am aware that in a wide-ranging speech of this sort I have been able to give only a brief summary of the Government's policy on the matters which concern the Home Office, and I have confined myself to those. But what I have tried to do for the noble Lords who take such a close interest in Home Office matters—and there are a good number of them in the Chamber at the moment—is to give an indication of the approach and the principles that my right honourable friend intends to follow. In supporting him in the approach which he will take, I shall always keep in mind the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said:
"…the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are going."
4.5 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I know that all of your Lordships will wish to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on his promotion to office. I think it has been a cause of widespread regret in the past that, owing to his demanding job, we have not had as much of his presence in your Lordships' House as we might have desired, and we are now delighted that his job brings him here. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him in matters specifically to do with the Home Office. The points that one can
300
raise in a debate on the gracious Speech in your Lordships' House are of course limited, and I have picked for mention from these Benches two subjects, those of broadcasting and education: broadcasting because it seems to me that, in spite of the vague commitment to commercial broadcasting that there is at the moment, there are still quite a number of options open to the Government; and education because, unfortunately, it has been the subject of a piece of that "instant legislation" which the Leader of the Conservative Party has so rightly condemned.
In dealing first with broadcasting, I think we must be extremely grateful that Mr. Chataway has been given responsibility for this matter, rather than one of the wilder men who appeared to be speaking for the Conservative Party before the Election. There are three arguments in favour of local commercial broadcasting stations, so far as I have been able to discover, two of which are alt least respectable. The third one, which is not respectable, is that it will provide an opportunity for a large number of people to make a lot of money. There is nothing wrong with money-making as such. Speakers from the Conservative Benches often talk as if members of the Parties on this side of the House disapprove of money-making in principle. But money-making in itself is worth while only as an adjunct to something else which is really worth while. It is not in itself a reason for doing something.
I admit that it would be unduly suspicious, and even wrong, to suggest that this might be a reason for this legislation, were it not for the history of the introduction of independent television—one of the most shameless lobbies for private profit over public standards to have been seen in this country. The late Lord Samuel, then the Leader of the Liberal Peers, said in the debate on the Second Reading of the Television Bill in 1954 that if we once established independent television we would go on and would have commercial radio. That was denied at the time, but we now see that it has happened.
The first respectable reason for producing commercial local television is that it provides competition and, therefore,

301
people will compete in excellence. I very much doubt it, my Lords. Anyone who has experienced local broadcasting in the United States of America will know that, on the whole, it produces nothing of the sort. It merely produces competition in the lowest common denominator. "Above all", a Canadian local radio manager is quoted as saying, "we aim to keep our listeners happy". But I believe, with the manager of Radio Leeds, that,
"The aim of a good local station is some times to make people unhappy—unhappy about poverty, distress, intolerance, indifference, injustice. But it may well prove bad for business if you are selling soap flakes".
My Lords, the second respectable reason for local commercial radio is that it provides for local radio money which would otherwise come out of the public purse. But the money comes from the public anyway, and whether it comes in the form of a higher licence for television or keeping on with the wireless licence, or whether it comes from greater efficiency in collecting licence fees or from higher prices on goods due to higher advertising rates, seems fairly irrelevant. Advertising produces no real wealth, and I hope that no one is under the illusion that it does. In his book, Twenty-one Popular Economic Fallacies, Dr. Mishan says—and I quote:
"I doubt whether advertising men still continue to claim that by promoting the sales of a product the economies of large-scale production are realised and passed on to the public. Economists, at any rate, take up the reverse position."
I would urge the Government to look at the possibility of adopting better ways of collecting the existing television licences and of retaining the wireless licence fees so that there is money available for these media. Although this matter has been looked at several times, it appears to me that the whole question of collecting the fees which are not now collected has not been tackled as strongly as it should be. May I give an example? Recently, in a speech, the Director-General of the B.C.C. quoted McKinsey's as recommending that the Post Office should be made to collect licence fees for car radios. Evasions were running at that time at 60 per cent. The B.B.C. turned this recommendation down on political grounds, saying, "Suppose the result is a joint A.A.-R.A.C. campaign to cut car radio fees—a good "sticker" slogan,
302
incidentally—and the resulting screams about yet more persecution of motorists results in total abolition of the fees." My Lords, how much can you misjudge what is politically possible or not? The motoring organisations have for some time been mounting a campaign about road taxes. It has had absolutely no effect so far. It may have a minor effect; there may be a gesture from the present Government to reduce taxes on motoring for a bit: but I am prepared to wager that it will not be for long. And, compared with that, the obvious rightness of saying that where there is a licence fee its collection should be enforced, and of seeing that it is enforced in every particular case, is one which no one in his right mind could possibly object to.
On the other side, against these so-called respectable arguments for commercial broadcasting, the arguments seem to me to be overwhelming. The first argument must be from experience. We have in the B.B.C. a public broadcasting system which is the envy of the world, and no commercial broadcasting system can begin to compare with it in the quality it produces. It is a great pity not to use this tremendous resource. The B.B.C. has already produced some extremely interesting and good results in local broadcasting. Secondly, the pressure of all commercial broadcasting must be to get the maximum number of listeners, and that is not the correct aim of local broadcasting. Maximum coverage of "Pop" music, for instance, is best done on one or at the most two national programmes, and there is no great advantage in duplicating this in local radio station after local radio station. The great help that local broadcasting can give to localities is to examine the subjects of the locality, and the subjects of minorities in that locality, in depth; and to tackle controversial issues which are only local and which cannot be dealt with at national level.
But I sometimes think that the most important argument against local commercial radio is the one to which least attention is paid, and that is the æsthetic one. It is certainly the great argument against independent television. We have now all come to take it for granted that in certain television programmes the play or the programme will be interrupted for what are humorously termed

303
"natural breaks" for advertisements to be screened. It is a great pity that we have come to take this for granted. We appear to pay a great deal of lip service now to something called "quality of life". I should have thought that one of the best signs of an interest in the quality of life would be that we should not put up with things like that. If the traditional visitor from Mars had any aesthetic sense at all, he would be astonished to see the way in which independent television is conducted; and I have no hesitation in saying that I think that this business of advertisements is a minor but none the less a definite barbarism.
Next, there is the objection of the Pilkington Committee that it would be impossible for a public corporation to exercise positive responsibility for the contents and character of a large number of local commercial broadcasting services. There is also the objection that either the service would attract advertising away from the newspapers, thus weakening the local Press very badly, or that it would be shared by the local newspapers, who would have a say in running the station. That would create a dangerous monopoly of communication unguaranteed by the traditions and special position of the B.B.C., which prevent their monopoly from being a bad thing. Here, my Lords, I should like to call attention to the speech of the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack during the Second Reading of the Television Bill, in Volume 188 of Hansard at column 394, when he said:
"In place of a great public service, it is erecting the statue of the tycoon all over the land. It is creating a chain of local monopolies. You do not break a monopoly by erecting a chain of local monopolies."
If I may do so with great respect, my Lords, I would direct the attention of your Lordships to the whole of the excellent speech of the noble and learned Lord on that occasion.
To sum up, the Pilkington Committee stated that the overwhelming mass of disinterested opinion as it expressed itself in memoranda submitted to them was against the provision of a service of local sound broadcasting financed from advertising revenue, and they went on to recommend that that service should be run by
304
the B.B.C. and financed out of licence fees. I see no reason to think that time has in any way changed the factors which went to cause them to reach that decision. I think there is still time for this proposal to be implemented in such a way that the worst dangers are avoided. It is certain, for instance, that the body which collects money and sells time should be very different from the one which produces the programmes. I think much tougher rules should be applied to television than apply now as to when advertising is allowed to appear. I do not want to give the impression that in any way I think that what is suggested would be an adequate substitute for a properly run B.B.C. local broadcasting system, but I think that there is still room for the Government to think again about a number of details.
I want very briefly—very briefly because there has already been a great deal of public discussion on this matter—to turn to the subject of education, where we on these Benches very definitely oppose the withdrawal of the circular by the Minister of Education. At first sight it may seem odd to hear Liberals saying that the powers to organise education should not be passed on to local authorities, because we are in favour of devolution of power; but there are two reasons for thinking that in this particular case it is a very reactionary course to take. The first is that freedom from selection at 11-plus borders on being a human right. It affects the whole quality of education which a child will have during the whole of his time at school. It puts him into the category of "winners" or "losers" at an early age, when, with the best selection processes in the world, you cannot be sure that you are not making a large number of mistakes. On educational grounds alone it is quite clear that selective education is a mistake, and I am arguing this purely on educational and not on social grounds.
We believe that human rights should be the province of the most authoritative body that can be found. To leave human rights in the hands of a province has been fatal in Ulster. They should not really even be left in the hands of a national Government, as we saw with the Kenyan Asians Bill. They should be a matter for a supra-national body, but until we have

305
that I think it is right that central Government should take as much control as possible over human rights. Secondly, it is quite clear that local authorities are not as a whole acting in accordance with the wishes of those who are most concerned in the matter. The National Union of Teachers is strongly in favour of comprehensive education. The National Association of Schoolmasters is also in favour and so is the National Union of Students. So, also, according to a survey which I commissioned from National Opinion Poll, are parents in every single region in the country. Even when broken down into political Parties, only 1 per cent. more of Conservative parents are in favour of separate schools than are in favour of comprehensive schools.
It may be argued that local government electors can throw out their local government if they take unpopular decisions on school. But this is to ignore the realities. If local education authorities were chosen and elected entirely for educational purposes it would be valid and I should be much happier at leaving the decision in their hands. But the local education authorities are chosen by local authorities, and the local authorities are chosen by the electors on whether or not they like Mr. Heath or Mr. Wilson far more than on any single issue of policy, however important.
We believe that this is a very sad step on the part of the Conservative Party. It goes further than we should have expected from a Party which had the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, as its Education Minister, and further than one would expect from a Party with some of the Junior Education Ministers that they now have. I think it is a case where a plea for reconsideration should be backed up not just by an appeal to reason or an appeal to justice (because we know that Governments do not always listen to either of these), but also by an appeal to the interests of the Conservative Party: for in my judgment the actions that they are taking are electoral vote losers. Election losers, as well as being unreasonable and wrong.
The more I look at the people who have been promoted to office, both in this House and in another place, the more I am attracted, as I am sure are most of your Lordships, to the personalities
306
involved. They seem to be delightfully unrepresentative of the Conservative Party as a whole. But the more I look at some of their policies, and these two in particular, the more I fear that we are going to see a sacrifice of social benefits, of the quality of life, of equality, of educational excellence on the altar of some very ancient and tired sacred cows.
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot pursue the important theme which the noble Lord who has just sat down handled so ably, although I am in sympathy with much of what he said. I hope that in my short contribution to the debate I shall be excused by the noble and learned Lord who winds up the debate and by your Lordships if I do not stay to the end, as the Bishops' Bench have a longstanding historical engagement with the Lord Mayor of London to-night. I hope also that I shall not seem to forget, if I return to the subject of Northern Ireland, the very wise measured words which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, used when he dealt with this subject. I am sure your Lordships will accept that it is right that from this Bench we should express our own deep concern for the viotims of violence and for those who seek to pave the way towards a more stable and more peaceful situation. This morning, in the last session of the closing 50 years of the Church Assembly, a particular word went out through the Archbishop of Canterbury to Christians in Northern Ireland in support of their work for tolerance and reconciliation.
I think it might also be right for me to say something from these Benches because the issues are so often represented as being religious issues. When disturbances occur they an; all too readily described as clashes between Catholics and Protestants, as if this summed up the main difference between the two sides. This is very perplexing in this country: it seems very out of date, and there will be a tendency to cry, "A plague upon both their houses!" Even more perplexing, as I know from experience, is it to Christian opinion in Europe which has so often looked to these islands as being in the van of religious toleration—a situation to which some of those countries are

307
only now beginning to aspire. They find it difficult to understand what seems to be a recrudescence of religious intolerance or strife. I noted that the Prime Minister speaking in another place on Tuesday in answer to a Question on Northern Ireland, made particular reference to what are called "religious divisions".
I think that some short sober assessment of this problem is required. It would be idle to pretend that there are not religious issues involved in this, for Ireland is a very religious island, more religious than the island in which we live. The results of a recent survey—not an ordinary opinion poll—carried out by the Independent Television Authority have just been published. The survey asked about the state of religion in Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and England, on the other. The results showed, in one sense to the favour of the former, that a question as to whether the people interviewed desired to maintain or to be a Christian country (I think that this was one of the questions) obtained a 95 per cent. answer in Northern Ireland and not quite such a large majority in this country.
Another question relating to religious practice or belief again showed a far more favourable response there than here. It is difficult for us in recognition of the religious nature of the island, not to see how religion and politics can be so inextricably bound up together. It is true that some attitudes seem more reminiscent of the 16th century and 17th century than of the 20th. If we like to remember history with our heads, the fact is that many people there feel it in their bones. It is undeniable that there are genuine religious sentiments at work. There are attitudes about personal freedom of judgment, about the Bible, about the Church, which go deep and which, if they ever seem on any issue to be threatened, are bound to inflame the situation and impart a kind of religious fervour to it.
Nevertheless, I believe that it is equally undeniable that the root causes of the difficulties lie not in Church relations or religious relationships but in community relationships. Despite these religious labels that are thrust about, these things are bound up more with political hopes and fears about the future of Northern Ireland, and are in some way
308
coloured by the direction, whether to the East or to the South, to which any individual looks. Still more it would be right to say that when there do arise, or seem to arise, instances of discrimination, whether in electoral matters, housing or employment, or if there are pressures of economic circumstance or fear of unemployment, it is the religious suspicions that seem to well up from the past and inflame the situation which arises from other causes.
The real causes, my Lords, remain obstinately social and political and economic. Unless adequate help can be found, it is not going to be easy to make much progress towards peace. I welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, about the increased aid promised in economic matters in Northern Ireland. All I want, therefore, is to plead that we try to dissociate (I do not say that we ourselves have it, but at least to dissociate in this country) religious labels from what are essentially political factions. Otherwise we shall be doing a great disservice to those who are trying to work for peace. We shall seriously handicap the Churches in Northern Ireland in their very real task of reconciliation.
With the background against which they live, it is quite clear that the main work will have to be done from inside Northern Ireland; and the main contribution from outside, apart from the thankless and magnificent services which the British Army is rendering in minimising bloodshed and disorder, will be to recognise and encourage those people and elements within Northern Ireland that are really seeking justice and trying to create the kind of atmosphere in which tension can be reduced and in which people can begin to talk to one another. The main Churches there—Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, the Church of Ireland—have quite definitely and clearly aligned themselves with the causes of reform and reconciliation. There are instances in recent years, clear instances, through statements made by religious leaders, and through their own personal and in some cases very courageous actions, of their having consistently proved themselves by throwing their weight into this effort. Of course the bulk of their own sincere adherents would be behind them, and we have

309
glorious instances of individual Christians standing out and trying to protest against violence.
I think we might add that since the Vatican Council there has been a marked growing together of the leadership of the Churches which is enabling them to work together, in a way that was not possible before, in the process of removing injustices and making for a united as well as an independent Northern Ireland. It is not an easy task for them, even though there are other bodies at work who are their allies. They need all the encouragement they can get from outside, and I think that one of the ways to assist would be to stop bandying about misleading religious titles.
As to what we, the Churches in this country, can do, clearly it is important that no divisions in Northern Ireland, whether religious, political or otherwise, should find any reflection over here. It certainly can be said that none of the religious tensions that may be found there is nowadays reflected in any sense in this country, or would be encouraged in this country. We have great contacts, constant contacts, through Church leaders and otherwise, through the British Council of Churches, to which the Irish Council of Churches is linked and incorporated, which are seeking to support them in the efforts they are making to help with this responsible search for peace. In our turn, I think that we, as Churches, would ask that political or social differences in Northern Ireland should find no reflection over here; but that the present Government here, like their predecessors, should pursue their policy of firmness and moderation in a way that can be seen to claim the support of the whole of Parliament.
4.34 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on his appointment to the Home Office and also on his speech this afternoon. I think that perhaps it was, marred a little by his over-kindly references to myself. It is rather strange that one should be thanked for doing what comes naturally. The noble Lord was, apparently, finding difficulty in speaking from the Government Dispatch Box. I never found any difficulty of that kind; my difficulties started when
310
I did not have the chance to speak from that place.
My Lords, during this debate we have heard a great deal about the legacy which the Labour Government left to the Conservatives. Of course the comments were very selective and greatly coloured by imagination. I want to mention one department in which there is no room for controversy, because it is beyond dispute that this Government have inherited the largest, strongest, best organised and most efficient police force that we have ever had. The number of men now serving far exceeds even the paper establishment of the previous Conservative Administration; and the number of supporting civilian auxiliaries has almost doubled. It is indeed a formidable force, and I hope that we shall have an assurance that it will at least be maintained and that endeavours will be made to increase it still further, because it is achieving a success which is very much masked by the fact that everyone always insists on judging its success by the detection rate.
There is an enormous increase in the number of criminals who are being brought to book. The numbers in prison tell the story. Two years ago the total was down to 31,000. At the middle of last month, the number in our prisons, borstals and detention centres was 39,627, an enormous increase in two years. With the prison population exploding at this rate, there is little doubt that the figure will be 50,000 before the end of this year. That is a number with which the prisons and the Prison Service cannot possibly cope. We have often been told that the certainty of detection is the best deterrent against crime. That sounds sensible enough to be true. If a man knew that he was going to be caught, one would think he would not commit a crime. But it is not working out in that way, and I would put this question to the Government. How do they propose to deal with the large and increasing number of men which the courts are sending to prison? Even with the 40,000 we have in prison now the problem is acute, because all the additional men are being crowded into our local prisons, the prisons in our large towns.
Let me quote a few examples. Armley Gaol, Leeds, the oldest and grimmest prison of them all, has accommodation

311
for 540 men. Last month it was bursting at the seams with 1,186 men—646 too many—and all of them had to be pushed two and three in cells the size of which was regarded in early Victorian times as barely sufficient for one man. Winson Green, Birmingham, has room for 506 men. Last month it had 1,066. Liverpool has 1,752 men crammed into cells intended to accommodate 1,050. Manchester has 1,362 men to put into cells for 756. Even a little local prison like Winchester, which was built for 330, has 622 men. My Lords, this means that as these additional numbers come in they are battened down and added to. I do not know whether any of us can conceive of what it means to be, say, at 4 o'clock on a hot Sunday afternoon, one of three men in a stuffy little box, when the door is clanged to and you know that you are stuck there until 7 o'clock the next morning.
Tensions must arise. Whatever we are doing, we are certainly not teaching them the road to a better life. We are failing completely in what has been the purpose of prison for Governments since Gladstone's time. And it has an effect on the staffs, too—on everybody. When we reflect that workshops, baths, lavatory services, sewers and everything else have been built for smaller numbers—in other words, for half the number of men the prisons have now—we can readily understand why I declare that living conditions in our local prisons are a national scandal and disgrace. I am not suggesting that this applies to all prisons. Thank God, it does not. So far the training prisons are being kept to the numbers for which they were planned. I hope we shall have an assurance that this endeavour will continue, because if we permit the same conditions to arise through all our prisons, the effect will be an unmitigated disaster. Everything the prisons are trying to do and everything that is done in prisons now will be brought to an end.
The obvious answer is: build more prisons. The Labour Government produced a White Paper, People in Prison, which speaks of a new small prison being opened at Longmarten next year and expresses the hope that six new C-class prisons, to hold between 4,000 and 5,000 men, will be started in the next five years.
312
It costs £5,000 to provide a bed for a prisoner these days. So prisons for over 5,000 at £5,000 a bed means £25 million. This, as I say, is planned and indeed to some extent these prisons have already started. I hope that the plan will go on. But this is not nearly enough. We cannot build ourselves out of this trouble, because the economic situation and public opinion will not stand it. We should need to spend £100 million very quickly, and who is going to agree that £100 million should be spent in a short space of time in that way, when those millions are so badly needed for other very pressing things? It may be that people would agree, but I doubt it. Nevertheless, I hope that the plan which has already been made and is proceeding will be adhered to and that the rolling programme of building which has been introduced will go on.
I suggest that there is another way to deal, at least partly, with the problem and that is to consider the possibility of reducing the flow into prison by making available to the courts some form of non-custodial sentence for certain offences. What I have in mind is that short-sentence prisoners, who are usually detained in local prisons—and, of course, it is the local prisons which are overcrowded now and it is these prisons which will immediately benefit—should be required to serve a sentence of service to the community rather than waste their time in prison. I know that a proposal of this kind is absolute anathema to all those who insist on adhering to the ritual of arrest, conviction and imprisonment, but it really is worth looking at. I know that the previous Home Secretary mentioned this point in Committee and my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and other noble Lords will have some proposals to put forward in due course. It is necessary that this problem should not be looked at from the ruthless attitude that somebody must be made to suffer, especially when under present conditions he will suffer so much extra, so much that is uncovenanted for, so much that the courts do not impose on him. Unless we try something of this kind, I think that the continuance of the present situation could wreck the prison service. Under this suggestion the offender would be seen to be doing useful work and paying his debt to society, and, Heaven

313
knows! there is a great number of these people who have never done any useful work in their lives.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, spoke t he other day about the blight areas and the enormous amount of work that has to be done, and he almost said, but not in these words, that we cannot do it. I am not criticising him, but he indicated that there is so much more to be done than we can do. Well this is one way in which useful work could be done, work in which the people concerned might eventually take some pride. Heaven knows! a man cannot take pride in doing six months in an overcrowded prison. I hope that we shall be given an indication whether the Home Secretary will consider this suggestion and also whether Mr. Maudling has yet had time to consider the report of the Working Party on the drunk offender. Parliament has already decided that prison is not the place for drunks, but although we decided that some three years ago, we still have over 1,000 drunks inside. That is not an enormous number out of 40,000 persons in prison, but if the number were 1,000 less it would be a help, and the Home Secretary has power under the 1967 Act to abolish imprisonment for drunks as soon as he is satisfied that other adequate facilities exist for dealing with them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is to reply, will tell us whether that time has now arrived.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that it is the position of Northern Ireland that is urgent and important, and I agree that it is, but I also hold the view that the less we say about it here the better. Nevertheless, in view of the previous speeches I have made I should not like one or two observations to go unrecorded. First, I would warmly welcome the statement by Mr. Maudling that he fully supports all the actions that the Stormont Government are taking in Northern Ireland in regard to social and other matters. Once the legislation is complete—and I think it is almost complete—and is being implemented, then I think that, with the disarming of the police force and the disbanding of the B Specials, any real grievance arising from discrimination will vanish. That does not mean that complaints will vanish, but troubles will end.
314
The extraordinary thing is that a year ago we thought: "Marvellous! We shall get these things through, and everything will be all right". It almost makes me feel that it is a grievance to have a grievance. Nevertheless, there is one thing on which I feel the Home Secretary should take action, and that is with regard to these parades. The right reverend Prelate has referred to them as religious observances. I have only seen them on television, but I have seen them several times. I see these ridiculous little men, with their sashes and with absurd bowler hats jammed down on to shiny foreheads, capering about the streets. It seems to me that we must forget religion. It is absolutely pagan. I think that the surviving and continuing demand for these parades to be held, when we well know that they are certain to lead: to bloodshed, is merely insistence on the continuation of a pagan rite.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I made no reference to demonstrations, and still less did I link them with religion. I am sorry if I led the noble Lord to say what he has, but I certainly would not wish that to go out.
LORD STONHAM: I apologise to the right reverend Prelate; I must have misheard something that he said. But I was not, I think, criticising him. I have been there and seen these people; I know them and have a high regard for them. I do not think it is possible to get agreement about the parades. The only thing to be done is to ban them. I believe that the British Forces are quite capable of dealing with any unofficial action that might be taken. For people to be permitted to go on with these parades, with the idea of celebrating some religious or even some civil victory, in the belief that it does good, is to me quite abominable, and I hope that, even at this late hour, action will be taken so that we do not have another blood bath.
4.53 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the gracious Speech is, I believe, by fairly common consent, certainly in our newspapers, a workmanlike appraisal of policies for what is needed at home and abroad. I should like to say, first of all, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble

315
Lord, Lord Stonham, whose speech I think has moved us all, even if some of us may not agree with every word of it. My noble friend Lord Windlesham, whose appointment I warmly welcome, as I am sure do all noble Lords, has already paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I remember when we were last on this side of the House how the noble Lord and I used to follow one another in the debates on the Hospital Service and other subjects; and I recall, too, the great courtesy that I and my colleagues had from him when he was at the Home Office in regard to such matters as home safety, on which we had a common feeling. I am sure that the whole House will pay tribute to the noble Lord's courage, because we know that he has had several spells of illness, brought on largely by the extreme conscientiousness that he has shown in office and on the Back Benches, and pay tribute, too, for the unfailing courtesy which everybody received from him. We hope that he will now maintain good health.
I want to say a few words on Northern Ireland. I have been to Northern Ireland only once, and that on holiday; and if things quieten down I hope to go there again next month in a similar capacity. But I have many personal friends in Northern Ireland and in Southern Ireland, both Catholics and Protestants. I think that those who have been to this tragically troubled spot will know even from a a first visit, what delightful people they are, and that the vast majority of them, to whatever order they belong, desire to live their normal, peaceful lives. I think that anything we can do to promote this will receive common support.
So far as demonstrations in general are concerned, I think that most of us in our teenages felt like demonstrating against somebody or something in authority. I know that I did. I think that showing initiative, showing that one has a view and a principle, is a good thing. But to this I would add two riders. The first is that one should know what one is demonstrating about. I suspect that some of the more violent demonstrations that we have seen have come about in an atmosphere in which not all who have taken part knew what they were demonstrating about or what they were demonstrating for. The second
316
rider is that they should realise that there are always two sides to every coin, and that their fathers, and their fathers before them, probably had similar views and demonstrated, or wished to demonstrate, in a similar way. The only difference to-day is that the modern media of communications spotlights demonstrations, thus giving them publicity of which at times they are not worthy.
I want to devote the rest of my speech to a subject in which I have always had a very real interest; namely, the Health Service and the social services. There is one measure in the gracious Speech that I think should be greatly welcomed, and that is the awarding of pensions to those over 80. These people, now in the twilight of their lives, have given many years of devoted service to their country and to their families, and they have not perhaps enjoyed all the modern benefits, whether they are benefits of communication or material benefits, of their younger counterparts. It may be said that in some ways they have had other benefits. This is not a time to argue the pros and cons of that. These people, who may be relatively small in number, deserve this reward, if one likes to put it that way, although I think it is a right which should be given to them.
So far as the Health Service is concerned, there has been nothing specific in the gracious Speech on this matter. It would probably be something of a problem to include it. I hope my noble friend will bear in mind some of the observations which are made on the subject, and I apologise for not having given him notice of one or two things which I should like to raise. I turn particularly to mental health, because there is a real need for modernisation of many of our mental hospitals. Here we come up against the old, old problem which all politicians face: the problem of how to get the money out of the Treasury. We have read in recent months of some of the incidents in hospitals such as Flax Bourton and the Ely Hospital at Cardiff. We have heard of incidents which have been viewed out of all proportion because those views do not take into consideration the devoted work put in by the staffs of these hospitals. This point has been mentioned in your Lordships' House and in another place on a number of occasions, but it cannot be mentioned too

317
frequently. Those who, like myself, occupy a humble position as a member of a hospital committee at a mental hospital for subnormals realise the problem here.
At this stage I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, for the very good work which she did as Minister of State at the Home Office. The noble Baroness devoted a great deal of time to health matters and won respect from all sides in what she did. There is a real need in the Health Service for something to be done on the occupational therapy side. One hospital with which I am particularly associated, St. Ebba's Hospital at Epsom, have a fine occupational therapy unit. Many of the patients who are able to work are given work to do which means that they are kept occupied. In these days we are making tremendous strides in the Health Service in improving the minds of those who are mentally sick, if not actually curing them. The more they can be used in employment of this kind, the more beneficial it is for them. Enormous strides have been made in even the most severely sub-normal cases in helping them to live—obviously, not normal lives, but much happier lives than they would have lived fifty years ago.
Finally, may I say one word about hospitals in general. I was fortunate to be a guest recently at a dinner given by the King's College Fund for Hospital Management, where one meets the nurses, sisters, matrons and hospital secretaries, the people who really do the work in making this great Health Service of ours tick over, and those who face the every day and every hour problems. When talking to them I said, "I am a layman here, what is the problem?" It was an over-simplified question, but I asked them what the problem was. One of the sisters replied that really it was a problem of public relations. She said that we hear far too much of what happens if a nurse is disciplined on a ward, or if a patient is given a slap across the face. We do not hear of what happens on a Sunday if there is a major accident, or at night if a student nurse and a charge nurse are trying to control a ward of 50 sub-normal patients, some of whom may have epilepsy.
These are not exaggerations; these things happen. Those who administer
318
to these people go unsung, and many of them would not thank us if it were otherwise. When we consider the Health Service, I hope that: the new Administration are going to tackle some of these problems, particularly in the field of mental health. It is a sobering thought that at some time in their life one in every nine people in this country needs some kind of treatment for nervous illness. It is in this context that we must look at this question of the social services, which are surely the background to our whole existence.
5.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has spoken in a most interesting way on mental health, and I would have gladly followed him on that subject, or spoken about the disabled (a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, will hold our attention a little later), or tried to deal with some of the topics to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will address himself in a few moments. And may I say in regard to the noble Lord, I hope without impertinence, that nobody more justly earned such a high position in this House by good work in this House than the noble Lord himself?
I will confine myself to one topic, as one should if possible on these occasions, and that is Northern Ireland. That gives me a chance of paying tribute, for all sorts of reasons, to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I am sure that his father, who was such a dear friend of so many of us in this House, would have been proud if he had been here to-day. That is, so to speak, a more or less impossible hypothesis; but he is with us in spirit. That gives me the opportunity of saying how pleased we were to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in such fine form. The noble Lord frightened me a little, in view of my topic, by saying that the less one said about Northern Ireland in this House the better. He did not follow his own rule very strictly; he proceeded to lay down the law very effectively, and therefore I feel exonerated in pursuing that line.
I was in Dublin on Tuesday, on business, and at Stormont and in the Falls Road area of Belfast yesterday. Today I am going to try as hard as possible

319
to look beyond the immediate present and see what kind of future one can envisage if one is reasonably optimistic. I was very pleased to learn that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Maudling was to be Home Secretary, with, of course, special responsibility for Northern Ireland: he combines an acute brain with a stable and friendly disposition. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it was good to read his statement on his return from Northern Ireland, that the policy of the previous Government would be continued. At any rate, that is how I understood the statement to read.
That bipartisan policy, initiated and carried through by the previous Government, owes not a little to the unselfish and often eloquent support of the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. May I take this opportunity, for many personal reasons as well as public ones, to say how delighted I am to see the noble and learned Lord back with us again? Last time he lingered, if I remember rightly, for a mere matter of eight years. I hope that this time he will stop longer before seeking higher office elsewhere. I hope that he will stay for eighteen years, and though I may not be here then, I am sure that he will be ready to be drafted when the time comes.
I hope that not only to-day but on many subsequent occasions Her Majesty's present Ministers will make it plain that the British Election has not retarded this movement to bring about, for the first time in Northern Ireland, "fair play for all." But I must say clearly—because it would be affectation, indeed cowardly, to say otherwise—that no one who visits Northern Ireland, however briefly, to-day can fail to be aware of a general impression that the change in the Government at Westminster has indeed brought about in relation to Northern Ireland an important change of atmosphere. Some welcome the change. Some, among whom I would be numbered, do not. But at any rate there is no doubt in most people's minds that there has been a change. A junior Minister at Stormont, Captain Brooks, who very courteously received me at short notice on behalf of
320
the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, made no secret of his relief that a Labour Government had disappeared. I recall his words. I remember the gist of his words; I do not say I took them down verbatim, but I do not think I can be wrong about his meaning. "Ulster people don't like being ordered about," he told me. "We were being made to look like puppets "—those words I do remember—"by the Westminster Government." I remember these words, too: "We were being discredited with our own people." He assured me that, in his opinion, it would be much easier than it was before to carry through the reform programme, just because the Government of Mr. Chichester-Clark would have more credibility among their own people. I looked sceptical, but he looked happy.
This happy mood was not, of course, reflected or shared by the leaders of the Catholic community in the Falls Road area. They were bitterly resentful, to put it mildly, at the way the area search had been conducted over the weekend. I do not know what Members of this House would have thought if they had visited some of the ransacked houses—and, in the great majority of cases, of course, no arms were found. I suppose that some would have thought it inevitable that this kind of thing should occur in war-like conditions: some would have felt ashamed, and some would perhaps have felt both things. I am saying no more now, because 200 or so complaints are being investigated by the Army. And to anyone taking the most casual look, the need for an investigation was painfully obvious.
I called on one of the senior officers, not in fact General Freeland—I met him the last time I was there. This officer was a man of evident humanity and a wide knowledge of Irish history. Indeed, he had read a book on Irish history by my son and one which is concerned somewhat with Irish history by my wife. He showed no evidence, though it may have been a fact, of having read a book that I wrote about the Irish Treaty of 1921. At any rate, he was well versed in the literature of the subject.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? His son's book was very largely based on the diaries of an ancestor of mine.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I only hope that they were acknowledged.
LORD SHACKLETON: They were.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: They were. Oh well, that was quite excellent. I gather that one of the General's own ancestors had met a rather unhappy end at that period—but perhaps I had better not pursue that aspect of it now.
Let me say this clearly and seriously, my Lords. The impartiality of an officer like this—and I am sure the same would be completely true of all his colleagues—as between the two main communities was manifest to all. But he was of course only too well aware that, after the events of last weekend, the impartiality of the British authorities, in the widest sense, is being vehemently called in question by all sorts of reputable people on the Catholic side who are close to the scene. There seems a general impression, not confined to Catholics (and I was not told this by the officer who was kind enough to see me), that new and tougher orders were issued following Mr. Maudling's visit. The troops have put up, ever since they have beer there, with so much with such good temper and such fortitude that these new developments are rather tragic.
Members of this House may not be aware, for example, that 2,000 Catholic families were evicted from their homes last August—that was before the troops went in. But even recently, in the last two months, something like 200 Catholic families have been evicted by the pressure of the other community. And yet, in spite of that, until a week or so ago the British Army was popular in the Catholic community. I am afraid that that is not so at the present moment. I hope that it will become true again.
Bearing in mind that atmosphere, we must ask ourselves what is likely in practice to be the impact of these extraordinary parades—these barbaric rituals.
LORD STONHAM: Pagan.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: These pagan rituals, as they were so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I agree with him that even at this late hour it would be highly desirable that they should be banned. It may be too much to expect to happen, but I must back up my noble friend Lord Stonham
322
in his call for the banning of these parades.
But whether the parades are banned or not, I beg the noble and learned Lord—whose knowledge of Ireland is certainly not questioned by me, and whose concern for all the people in chat part of the world is recognised by everyone—and through him his colleagues, to see whether they can do anything, even before the parades, during the parades—even after the parades—to remove this impression that Government policy has changed and has now come down in favour of the dominant majority. I am not saying that people suppose that the Government here are giving tough orders. The impression is that they have said to the Stormont Government that it is now up to them to see how they handle these matters. And, of course, as we have seen, in the case of the parades it is public knowledge that the Government here were anxious that the parades should be stopped. It would appear, though it is not quite so obvious, that the Stormont Government would like to see them stopped, but the Orange Order have refused to call them off.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if my noble friend would allow me to intervene, I would say that the dichotomy which exists in the minds of the Stormont Government was thoroughly illustrated when the Prime Minister, Major Chichester-Clark, said on the radio that he hoped something would happen so that the parades would be cancelled but that if the parades were held he would march.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have a great respect for the part Mr. Chichester-Clark is trying to play. I can only feel very sorry for him that he was forced into that very unhappy utterance. But, as I say, these parades are not going forward with the good will, so we understand, of the British Government. They are not going forward, we gather, with the good will of the Stormont Government: they are going forward because the Orange Order are the masters in Northern Ireland at the present time. And I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will make sure that that situation does not persist very much longer.
Now for the future. It could be so full of promise; it could be precisely the opposite. We can lock on these last two

323
years in Northern Ireland, for all the turmoil and tragedy, as a period of greater possibilities than any in the history of the Province. We have seen all Parties in this country, and we have seen the present Government of Stormont, commit themselves to the principle of equal rights for all according to British standards, which we in this country take for granted and have for ages taken for granted, but which has never hitherto been followed in Northern Ireland. We have seen all Parties commit themselves to the principle that the lamentable discriminations against the minority must be ended and that Catholics must no longer be treated as they have been treated during the last fifty years, as second-class citizens. We associate these developments with one name more than any other, the name of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, who has already brought new lustre to this House. He stood where it was an honour to stand, and he went down with the ship. His name will always be held in honour in Irish and, I should imagine in English history.
We must realise, my Lords, that we are seeing the death throes of a society based on an anachronistic ascendancy—an ascendancy in this case not of one small caste—and I know something about that, having been brought up in one small caste in Southern Ireland; we are seeing the end of an ascendancy based on the supremacy of one community over another; and we are seeing, I hope and believe, the birth throes of a modern democratic society in Northern Ireland. I am afraid we must face the fact that psychological birth pains are inevitable, and we must strain ourselves to find all the understanding and sympathy we can for those who are suffering from them. I do not doubt that if Major Chichester-Clark and his colleagues survive they will carry out the promised reforms in the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill. I believe them to be men of their word, and they will do everything in their power to carry out those reforms in that spirit. But it is a race against time. Clearly, the reforms cannot be carried out overnight. One cannot in a few hours revolutionise the whole housing arrangements, for example, of a country: but I wish they could be pressed ahead further and faster.
324
However, this afternoon I wish to concentrate on a different issue. In Northern Ireland we have two communities: one dominating and governing, the other governed and therefore dominated. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham—and here I do not exactly disagree with him but my emphasis may be slightly different—implied that when the reforms were carried through there would be no genuine grievances left, at any rate on the part of one community against another. But, of course, even when the reforms are carried through we shall still have these two communities, assisted now towards understanding by whatever the law can do, and yet still one governing and one governed. There will still be the dominant majority expecting what they call loyalty from the governed, and they will be genuinely indignant if they do not receive that loyalty.
There will never be peace or moral health or, for that matter, economic prosperity in Ulster until we get rid of this ghastly business of two communities, one ruling the other. Of course, the difference in religion will remain, but religion in the true sense is not the real issue here, as the right reverend Prelate explained to us so convincingly this afternoon. As to the religious leaders of Northern Ireland, they made their position clear recently in a notable statement. The relationships between the religious leaders in Northern Ireland, and indeed of the ordinary clergy, were never so close as at the present time, and I am glad that the right reverend Prelate confirms my opinion.
May I add here, because I want to say it somewhere, that perhaps the most effective non-sectarian force in Northern Ireland, working extraordinarily well for peace, is the trade union movement. If we are looking for encouragement—and in these difficult times we are entitled to find optimistic signs as well as gloomy ones—when there was some move to expel the Catholics from the shipyards the other day, the fact that the trade unionists stepped in at once is most encouraging.
My conviction is that the Catholic minority will never feel themselves a true part of Northern Ireland and will never make their proper contribution until they are given some share, or prospect of a share, in power; that is,

325
in the Government. In other words, I see in a Coalition, no doubt under Major Chichester-Clark (whom I imagine all of us in this House respect), with the minority adequately represented, the one chance of achieving a united community, if not to-day then tomorrow or the next day.
The idea of a Coalition was first put forward last summer by the Northern Ireland Labour Party, and I supported it myself in a letter to The Times. In spite of much polarisation since, in spite of many very sad happenings in recent times, I am sure—and your Lordships may say what you like but I record my conviction here and now—that if the minority were offered an opportunity of serving in a Coalition Government they would make a worthy response. If they were allowed for the first tune the chance of participating in the government of the country, I feel sure that they would throw their whole weight into making a success of Northern Ireland. My views and their views on the unity of Ireland are known; that would not be an issue in the future.
What of the Protestant majority? Last summer I asked a highly civilised member of the Stormont Government, who, I should imagine, is particularly well known to, and liked by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, whether he did not agree that a Coalition was the only reasonable answer. "Of course it is the reasonable answer", he replied, "but you don't seem to realiss—this is Northern Ireland!" At that time it seemed that an official Unionist majority was a fact of Nature, and it is asking a lot to expect a dominant Party in monolithic strength to pull itself apart in order to form a Coalition unless; it is forced to by absolute necessity.
The position is quite different to-day. Mr. Paisley, about whom I will say very little because I can think of no charitable word to say and one should not indulge in uncharitable words—well, perhaps I could think of a charitable word: I think obviously he has a rather keen, though possibly distorted sense of humour. And that may not altogether be a charitable remark. At any rate, Mr. Paisley abolished a Unionist majority of many thousands in his constituency. I gather from the radio that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, considers that if there were an
326
Election to-morrow, few reasonable Members of the present Chichester-Clark Government would be returned.
Whatever the precise course taken by events, it does not seem likely that the enlightened Unionists under Major Chichester-Clark are in fact going to be able to govern Northern Ireland for very much longer on their own. If they are to survive they will require the support of many moderate Catholics and others who are now opposed to them, including of course members of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, which cuts across the religious line. Therefore I am convinced that a Government of the Liberal centre is the only hope of saving all that is best in Unionism—and I do not deny that there is much that is good in Unionism—and of winning a genuine Catholic allegiance for a Province for which there could still be a great future, but which to-day is drawing ever closer to the precipice.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I have learned a great deal from the speech of my noble friend Lord Longford. Unlike some of my noble friends, I would dearly love to fight the General Election over again in this speech, but I shall ration myself almost entirely to the subject of education. But first a few words of tribute to the movers of the humble Address. I really must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. He could have made his speech from this side of the House, from these Benches: and who am I to complain about that? The noble Lord's performance was a kind of political striptease, until the last paragraph, when the noble Lord gathered up his Conservative clothes and put them on again.
I do not have to agree with a speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, in order to enjoy it, and I am very sorry that she is not here at the moment. I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that her speeches are not in the least like those of her husband. I say this because for many years I was married to a prominent and articulate politician, and I often longed to disagree with him, just to prove that I had a separate identity. I admire the noble Baroness's achievement in this respect. Before I start on education, I

327
hope it is not inappropriate for me, as a humble Back-Bencher, to congratulate personally the noble Earl the Leader of the House on his appointment and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his.
Government spokesmen have adorned this debate with a series of catchphrases left over from the Conservative Party Manifesto—phrases like "creating a new climate", "creating a new framework of incentive", "creating a new style of government", "releasing the energy and spirit of enterprise", "down with bureaucracy and public expenditure!"—all very brave words, but no substitute for a policy. The first action of the Secretary of State for Education was to produce a circular without a policy. I think the Government must be more than a little surprised by the hostile reception given to the right honourable lady the Secretary of State, Mrs. Thatcher.
I noted that when touching on Conservative hopes for improving industrial relations the noble Earl the Leader of the House promised the fullest possible discussion and consultation. The Secretary of State for Education, however, could not wait to issue her Circular 10/70, and she did so without any consultation whatever with the National Union of Teachers. Can one be surprised at the reaction of the National Union of Teachers and the General Secretary, when he spoke out and said:
"Her action is contrary to the whole spirit in which English education has been administered for a very long time."
Perhaps this is what the Conservatives mean by a new style of government, but is this the kind of action and policy which is going to release the energy and spirit of enterprise of the 300,000 members of the National Union of Teachers? These teachers belong to the whole spectrum of political opinion, the three political Parties in this country. They carried a motion deploring the Secretary of State's withdrawal of the Labour Government's Circular 10/65, which asked local authorities to submit plans—only to submit plans—for the reorganisation of their secondary education on comprehensive lines. And three-quarters of them had already submitted plans.
328
My Lords, the Secretary of State, by her precipitous action, has alienated the men and women who must carry out any reorganisation she has in mind. Open letters to her kept appearing in the Press from specialists in education, some very rudely suggesting that the Secretary of State should go away and learn something about education, educate herself and her Party. Meanwhile, the teachers maintain that they will do everything in their power to press for the retention and implementation of comprehensive schemes. I myself listened to Mrs. Thatcher speaking in the Commons yesterday. She was unrepentant, and I could only conclude from her words that the Conservative Government are not going to have a national education service and are not going to be responsible for the shape of secondary education in the coming years.
The Labour Government Circular 10/65 has put in motion a process of change from a selective to a non-selective system of secondary education, and, as I have said, three-quarters of local authorities have already submitted plans. Circular 10/70 takes us right back to the nineteenth century. It indeed creates a new climate, a climate of uncertainty, than which nothing is worse for education, where the resources are never quite enough, or even adequate, and where change is inevitably slow and evolutionary—evolutionary not revolutionary. Mrs. Thatcher's document is replete with what I call "double think" and "double speak". It says that the Government's aim is to ensure that all pupils shall have full opportunities for secondary education, but the following qualification (and I quote), "suitable for their needs and abilities", gives the game away, and ensures that such opportunities shall not be for all our children.
Authorities are now to be freer to mess around with the comprehensive plans for education, and of course one knows that local authorities change their political colour every few years. How can the country have a continuing progressive educational policy without a guiding hand from the Central Government? At present we do not know whether new grammar schools are going to be built, new direct grant schools, or new secondary modern schools. The green light has been given by the Secretary of State

329
for the building programme. Their plans can now be changed or modified and we shall have the mixture as before. Anything goes, in spite of the fact that support for comprehensive education has been growing over the years, regardless of the fortunes of the Labour Party.
The comprehensive system is, I believe, the only way to work towards grammar school education for all, because it means longer education for more and more of our children. I believe that messing around with comprehensive education now would have a lasting and damaging effect on our secondary education. Of course, all parents want the best type of grammar school education for their children, and when they are asked the question they say, "Yes, of course we would like them to go to a grammar school." But they do not know the choice, that there is only one child in four who can get a place in a grammar school, and an even smaller proportion who could ever get into a direct grant school.
Mrs. Thatcher also made great play about flexibility in education. So under the flag of freedom for local authorities she tells them in her circular that they will now be freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their areas. It is no longer to be the teachers and educational experts, people like David Donnison, Tyrrell Burgess, Michael Armstrong, who really know something about the wise use of scarce resources: it is to be the local education authorities—three-quarters of whom have submitted plans. These authorities can now modify, change or, presumably, throw out the plans already submitted.
To-day, most people are agreed that comprehensives cannot flourish or coexist with grammar and direct-grant schools. A non-selective system cannot co-exist with a selective system. The élitist attitude on education is inimical to more and longer education for more of our children. And I do not believe that "more" means "worse". That is a Conservative cliché, and it is absolutely untrue. Even when changing from a selective to a non-selective type of education there are difficulties and problems, and we need time and experience to get over them. The only way remaining to get better and more education is through the comprehensive system.
330
Any framework for good industrial relations can be based only on a comprehensive system of education. When we look round at the industrial unrest in this country, surely it must occur to noble Lords that perhaps some of it is due to a fear by workers that they may not be getting their fair share of all the benefits from this wonderful technological and scientific age. If they are not going to share in the opportunities from education which is their due, and the gap between the educated and the uneducated becomes wider, we shall have more and more industrial unrest.
Before I sit down I must refer to one other speech, that of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He made a deeply thoughtful and most valuable speech. Of course, the noble Viscount follows perhaps the best Minister for the Arts that we could have had in a generation, Miss Jennie Lee. Everyone in the Arts owes her a debt of gratitude, and she has been particularly admirable because she has sought little personal publicity for herself. I wholeheartedly agree with the aim of the noble Viscount to involve more and more people in the Arts. In fact, the Arts—literature, painting, design—should be woven into every aspect of our lives: in education, in business, in engineering, in working conditions. It was this philosophy for the promotion of the Arts in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that I so admired. It was this complete lack of a philosophy in education in Circular 10/70, and in the thinking of the Secretary of State, that is reflected in the education policies of the Conservative Government.
5.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, may I begin by thanking most warmly the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his most kind reference to me. I appreciate it very much, coming from him who is so highly respected in this House and who has had such a long record of wonderful service to the social services. Secondly, may I pay a tribute to my predecessor, Lady Serota. It occurred to me to have described her as a "round peg in a round hole" or as a "square peg in a square hole", but I thought that neither of the adjectives "round" or "square" could in any

331
way be applicable to her. May I just say that we all, in every part of the House, very much respected the work she did as a Minister.
My Lords, I am hoping to devote most of my remarks to the social services and the subject of education, but may I say a few words in general terms in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said about pollution? I would congratulate him and wish him well as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea. I think they are lucky to have him as their new Chairman, succeeding my noble friend the Leader of the House and, before him, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I would say, first of all, that we fully accept the importance of this subject. In the gracious Speech there appears the statement:
"My Ministers will intensify the drive to remedy past damage to the environment."
As the noble Lord said, there was a Minister, Mr. Crosland, in overall charge in the last Government. This is no longer so, and executive Departments will continue to exercise their own executive functions in regard to these problems under the direction of their separate Ministers. But the noble Lord may have noticed a reply given by the Prime Minister in another place on July 7, which I quote:
"Normal arrangements have been made to ensure the necessary inter-Departmental coordination both on regional matters and on pollution pending the review of Ministerial responsibilities in this field."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 7/7/70: col. 490.]
I am afraid that is the only answer I can give: that this whole field is being reviewed.
The noble Lord also mentioned the scientific and administrative staff who had been brought together to advise Mr. Crosland. They have always been technically on the complement of the Cabinet Office, and they are now working within the Cabinet Office pending the outcome of this review. The noble Lord mentioned one or two more detailed matters which were in the late Government's White Paper. Some of these are routine, some require political decisions, and some depend on the assembly of further information. I can only say that this review and this collec-
332
tion of information is going ahead and these matters will be brought up for decision by the appropriate Ministers as soon as the necessary information is available.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that full and helpful answer. This means, then, that the Statements of Intent in the White Paper of the former Government are not carried over, and that everything that White Paper said the Government would do must be decided again, whether or not it has been done. In other words, the White Paper does not bind the present Government; it is pushed to one side, and the present Government will be making their own mind up afresh.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as I understand it, yes, the decisions are all being reviewed.
My noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, in her charming and effective speech seconding the humble Address in reply to the gracious Speech, referred to the absence from it of any mention of the future administration of the National Health Service. I should not like it to be thought that its future is not very much in our minds. In our Manifesto we have said that we will improve the administration of the Health Service so that its three main branches—hospitals, general practitioner and local health services—are better co-ordinated. As my noble friend pointed out, this will mean better value for money and better care for the patient. With these aims in view we are looking at the proposals for changes in England, Scotland and Wales that were made by the late Administration, and we are also considering the many comments that we have had on those proposals from all those who have been consulted.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Cottesloe that I was sorry not to be here yesterday afternoon when he made a well-informed and interesting speech on this subject. However, I should like to assure him that everything he said will be most carefully considered. May I say the same, equally, to my noble friend Lord Auckland who spoke this afternoon? I agreed with practically all he said, especially on the subject of the mentally handicapped, and I would echo the tribute he paid to the staff of our hospitals for the mentally handicapped.

333
Administrative changes in the National Health Service are obviously closely related to local government reform. On this the gracious Speech promised that proposals would be worked out. We shall consider the two matters side by side and, as in the local government field so in the Health Service side, there will be full consultation with all those concerned before final decisions are reached. This is an important and complicated matter, and I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to say more at this early stage, but I should like to assure those who work in the Health Service that we are very conscious of the fact that it is highly undesirable to prolong unduly the present uncertainly about its future administration.
I am quite sure that no study of the structure and organisation of the Health and Welfare Services can be in any way complete without an accompanying exploration of the present and potential role of voluntary organisations in both hospital and community services. One thing at least is clear: far from being squeezed out of the picture by any structural reorganisation of the statutory services, voluntary help in its many traditional and pioneering forms must be encouraged not merely to continue but considerably to expand. I know that in these times of change many voluntary organisations are themselves very conscious of the need to think out afresh their purpose and function if they are to become a still stronger force in the provision of this country's social services. We shall be looking for all possible ways to help and encourage them in this crucial development.
I should like to touch on two particular matters concerning the National Health Service; first, the pay of doctors and dentists. We were faced on assuming office with the unhappy dispute with the medical and dental professions. I do not need to go into the details now, since happily the central point of the dispute has been resolved as a result of a meeting which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services held with the representatives of the two professions on June 26. The professions have now resumed the signing of medical certificates and co-operation in the administration of the National Health Service. The Government, for their part,
334
have withdrawn the previous Government's reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes of certain of the recommendations made in the Kindersley Review Body's Twelfth Report and have agreed to arrange, after further discussion, for an impartial Review Body to be set up which will not be subordinate to any other body. Their recommendations would not be rejected or modified unless there were obviously compelling reasons for doing so. The way is now open, therefore, for discussions with the professions about pay, and my right honourable friend is meeting their representatives
to-morrow. In the circumstances, your Lordships will not, therefore, expect me to say anything further about this subject.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the nurses. My right honourable friend and I are aware that there are problems in the field of nursing that require attention, and I should say particularly that we welcome the fact that the last Government set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Asa Briggs to review the role of the nurse and the midwife in the hospital and the community, and the education and training required for that role. We shall look to this Committee for realistic advice on the problems of training and manpower in the nursing profession.
On the social security side, your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend tine Secretary of State for Social Services has presented a Bill in another place, the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Bill. The Bill comes up for Second Reading in another place to-morrow, and no doubt will reach your Lordships' House before very long. I would thank my noble friend Lord Auckland for his welcome to this Bill.
I should like to say that the speed with which we have been able to produce it owes much to the fact, which I am happy to acknowledge, that two of its major provisions, for younger widows and for an attendance allowance, are the result of work done by the previous Administration. Bin the main aim of the Bill is to put right a hardship which has endured too long: it is to provide some retirement pension for people who had no opportunity of insurance before the present National Insurance scheme

335
took effect on July 5, 1948, and who, being over pensionable age at that date, were outside the scope of the current provisions. This means that it applies to men over the age of 87 and women over the age of 82. The basic weekly rate will be £3, and £4 17s. for married couples. It is hoped to pay these pensions from the beginning of November, when increases in supplementary benefit are to be made. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the sooner the better in the case of these old people, and that is the reason why we are bringing this Bill forward with great urgency. This Bill represents the implementation of three specific pledges in the social security field in our Election Manifesto and gives, as we promised to give, priority to those most in need, and special help to special groups.
On the more general aspects of National Insurance, we pledged ourselves in our Election Manifesto to ensure that everyone should have the opportunity of earning a pension related to their earnings. Our philosophy in undertaking this task is completely different from that of the previous Government. We do not believe in concentrating everything into a single, massive State scheme such as the National Superannuation Bill which died with the Election. Our approach is to encourage people to provide for their old age through expanded and improved occupational schemes. The main role of the State, as we see it, should be to provide a firm base on which people can build through occupational schemes.
There is general agreement, I believe, in the definition of the main problems which face us: the growing number of pensioners and other beneficiaries in the years to come, and the impracticability of raising the necessary money on a system of flat-rate contributions. We do not believe, however, in the Socialist solution of establishing a juggernaut of a State scheme, with its damaging effects on the future growth of occupational schemes and the crushing burden it would lay on future generations of contributors. The details of our new structure are still to be worked out, and I cannot elaborate on it to-day. However, I can assure your Lordships that the work is being pushed ahead and that we shall publish the results as soon as possible.
336
May I now come to the questions on education? Your Lordships will know that it is the Government's intention to transfer responsibility for primary and secondary education in Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure your Lordships will welcome this step in devolution to the Principality. The Welsh Office was established first of all under a Conservative Government. It has shown itself fully capable of accepting greater and greater responsibilities, and I am sure that the transfer of responsibility for primary and secondary education will be welcomed on all sides. Wales has a particularly proud educational record. In fact, without Welsh teachers the English educational system would be in very great difficulty. I am sure it is right that Wales should now assume, for the first time, responsibility for educating its own sons and daughters in primary and secondary schools.
Most of the educational arguments in recent years, and certainly this afternoon, have been concentrated on secondary schools and higher education—and so have most of the resources. Too often, both in debate and in the choice of priorities, the primary schools have been neglected. We want to change this. As we said in our Manifesto:
"Within the education budget itself, we shall shift the emphasis in favour of primary schools—the foundation on which all later education and training are built."
My Lords, these are not empty words. History records how much Conservative Governments have already done for primary schools since the war. My noble friend Lord Eccles, who was Minister of Education when the drive to reorganise all-age schools was launched—with all that that meant for the younger children—played a large part in the introduction of the three-year training course for teachers, which was of particular benefit to the primary schools. It was one of his successors, Sir Edward Boyle—no longer my right honourable friend, and not yet my noble friend—who set up the Plowden Committee on Primary Education. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is now determined to act on that Report, for which Lady Plowden and her colleagues were responsible all too many years ago.
In saying this, I do not belittle what the Labour Government achieved. We

337
are in sight of the abolition of classes of over 40 in primary schools, and a start has been made on the replacement of the worst of the old buildings. But much remains to be done. Last Autumn the late Government asked all local authorities for a list of schools built before 1903 for which there is a continuing need and which should be replaced. The Department of Education has just completed an analysis of the returns. There are well over 3,000 primary schools in this category, with three-quarters of a million children in them—one in seven of all our primary schoolchildren. The cost of replacing them would be some £200 million, or about twice what we are spending on new secondary school buildings for the raising of the school leaving age. This is a measure of the task that faces us.
We shall start with the places of greatest need—the Victorian slum schools in the down-town areas of our large cities and industrial towns. Here, where poverty, poor housing and cultural deprivation stalk hand in hand, we want to see children given at school the opportunities and conditions which they lack at home. I have no doubt that the experts are right in saying that the first few years that a child spends at school can largely determine his future. We want to make it a better future.
Now, my Lords, may I come to secondary education, a subject on which I am sure we could argue for hours, as we have done in the past? In particular, it is a subject on which I am sure I could argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. If I may, I should like to say to her that I thought that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State fully justified herself in her speech yesterday in the House of Commons. The noble Baroness made great play of the fact that there had been no consultation, but I am sure my right honourable friend would agree that though there is a purpose in consultation before new policies are introduced, the withdrawal of a circular is hardly a subject on which there is very much point in consultation, especially when you have just had a mandate in an Election to that action.
The noble Baroness also spoke of all the members of the National Union of Teachers being critical of my right honourable
338
friend. Perhaps she has not had the opportunity of reading a letter in to-day's Guardian, where at least one teachers' association of the National Union of Teachers writes in a contrary sense. She might also be prepared to read—if she was not in the House yesterday—some of the very wise words spoken by her noble friend Lord Chorley. The noble Lord (I do not think he is here to-day) could not have put better what I think we would wish to put as an argument for the possibility of the co-existence of comprehensive schools—many of which were introduced by Conservative local councils—and the best of our grammar schools. The noble Baroness will find two columns of his speech yesterday extremely interesting.
Circular 10/65 has been withdrawn because we wish local education authorities to be free to plan the shape of secondary education in their own areas. We firmly believe that the delicate balance that existed under the 1944 Act between the powers of central and local government was right. We believe that there is positive advantage in diversity of provision and variety of pattern, and we certainly do not intend to press for change where existing local arrangements are working well and command general support.
The Opposition's ill-starred Education Bill, which after two attempts never emerged from its Committee stage in another place, was typically rigid and doctrinaire. It was a blueprint for neighbourhood schools—good schools in good areas, bad schools in bad areas—and one result of its loss will be that the Inner London Education Authority will be able to continue with its policy of "banding", which is at least a commendable attempt to achieve comprehensive schools of truly mixed ability. I found it extraordinary to hear the spokesman of the Liberal Party advocating this sort of rigid doctrine, and I only hope—and I hope I may say so with a certain amount of confidence, speaking from previous experience—that not all his colleagues agree with his extreme views.
The withdrawal of this circular does not mean turning back the clock. Local education authorities with approved plans of secondary reorganisation—and they are the majority—may proceed to operate them unchanged if they wish.

339
The Secretary of State will examine on their educational merits both new plans and modifications of existing ones, and she has already approved a fully comprehensive plan for Leeds. The new circular urges authorities to take stock of their position, to proceed with reorganisation plans where it is clear that they meet local needs and also make educational and economic sense, but not to rush into change for its own sake or to satisfy a rigid uniformity.
We are proud of our good schools under whatever title they may go, and we shall not allow them to be destroyed in the name of comprehensive reorganisation until we are convinced that such reorganisation in the particular local circumstances makes good educational sense and is economically practicable.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will make his position quite clear. Is he quite happy to continue indefinitely 11-plus procedures for quite a large section of the country?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is something that is always hurled at us. Eleven-plus procedures are always hurled at us, meaning an 11-plus exam. But there are all sorts of different ways of selection which would have continued in any case under the previous Government. As the Secretary of State in the previous Administration said, money was not available suddenly to turn the whole system into a comprehensive system. Therefore he was going to have to continue with some form of selection in the country as a whole. All we are saying is that we wish to leave it to those local authorities and those local areas where the buildings are suitable, where they have the money, where everything is ripe and ready for this type of reorganisation. But we shall not force it on other areas where it is quite unnecessary.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I further ask the noble Lord whether that means areas such as Inner London, for example? Would the Secretary of State look favourably on proposals to merge grammar schools with other kinds of secondary schools, if that suited local circumstances?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, every case will obviously be taken on its merits.
May I mention the Education (Handicapped Children) Bill, which is included in the programme for this legislative Session and which provides for the transfer to local education authorities of responsibility for the education of severely mentally handicapped children? The Bill is down for Second Reading in another place tomorrow, and will be coming quite soon to your Lordships' House. I am sure that those of your Lordships who took part in debating the corresponding Bill on the last occasion will find its terms familiar, except for the exclusion of certain extraneous matters with which we disagreed.
In conclusion, these are early days to announce firm details of our policies for the social services, but at least we shall be guided by two general principles: first, the concentration of our limited financial resources on those in greatest need; and, secondly, the organic development of our present system, retaining what experience has proved to be good and making changes only where we are convinced that they are for the better.
"Growth",
wrote Cardinal Newman,
"is the only evidence of life"—
and growth, my Lords, is a natural process that we intend to foster.
6.11 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, how nice it is to be free again to say what one thinks, instead of having some carefully prepared script from which one cannot depart! I suppose I have been fortunate in being a member of a profession in which you never have an employer and you never have a senior partner; and, so long as you win the cases, the solicitors do not mind what you say out of court. I will not pretend that I had not felt somewhat irksome the restraints which naturally fall on a Minister. However, now again I am free; and the first thing I would say, at the first opportunity I have had of saying it, is how grateful I am to noble Lords in all parts of the House for their great courtesy and kindness to me during the whole of the period of nearly six years that I occupied the Woolsack. I had not been a politician before; I had been a Member of your

341
Lordships' House for only a few months: and the courtesy and consideration which I received from the whole House made my task ever so much lighter, and I am deeply grateful for it. May I acknowledge, too, my indebtedness to the Clerk of the Parliaments and his colleagues at the Table, without whose unfailing assistance I should, I am sure, have made many more errors than I did. They are, of course, always of the greatest assistance to all those who hold the Office of Lord Chancellor.
May I now respectfully congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on his appointment? As I think he knows, I always hoped that, if our Government were going to be succeeded by a Conservative Government, the choice would fall on him. I have long admired his great gifts of intellect and integrity, and I am sure he will indeed prove a worthy successor to his great father. I do not know that I could properly wish him long life in the position, but I do wish him every success, which I am sure he will achieve.
My Lords, I am of course very glad to see from the gracious Speech that it is the Government's intention to implement the Report of the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions, and I am quite sure that that is right. As your Lordships know, it has been warmly welcomed in all parts of both Houses, by the judges, by the Bar Council, by the Law Society and, I think, by the general public. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us, when he comes to reply, that he anticipates that the Bill will be ready for introduction when we return after our vacation. It has nothing whatever to do with Party politics, and I can see no reason why it should be in any respect contentious.
The only comment which I would venture to make about it is to remind him of the importance which the Royal Commission attached to uniformity of treatment. I say that because, as we all know, the worst court in the country, from the point of view of delay, is the Central Criminal Court, the conditions at which the Royal Commission described as "intolerable". They come, in part, from a diversity of authority, the Lord Chancellor being responsible for providing the Judges, in effect; the City of
342
London for providing the courts; the Greater London Council for providing the staff. It is a delicate subject, I suppose, the relationship between the Conservative Party and its funds and the City of London, but I venture to express the hope that, notwithstanding many ancient customs of the City, uniformity will be observed and that under the Bill they will not be treated quite differently from any other local authority.
Then, if I may venture to say a word on a subject which is not mentioned in the gracious Speech, as the noble and learned Lord may know it has always seemed to me foolish to go on passing Acts of Parliament which give poor people rights which they cannot afford to enforce or defend. There is nothing wrong with our legal aid scheme except that it is the only social service—for it is a social service—whose basic figures have not been uprated for some six or seven years. In the life of the last Parliament I laid Orders which would have rectified that position, and if we had had an October Election they would no doubt have been law by now. I express the hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us that he proposes to take a similar course. I had also laid an Order, which was subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure, which would have done the same for our inadequate legal advice system. Still, such as it was, that Order, too, would have uprated the basic figures there to what they were six or seven years ago.
I had furthermore announced on behalf of the Government that, if returned to power, they proposed to introduce legislation for a much better form of legal advice service. No one who knows anything about this subject does not agree how very inadequate our existing provisions for legal advice are. We have had the criticisms and suggestions of the Association of Conservative Lawyers, in their publication called Rough Justice; we have had those of the Society of Labour Lawyers, in their publication called Justice for All; and we have had the views of the Law Society. The Advisory Committee on Legal Aid and Advice, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is the distinguished chairman, has recommended, after considering all these, what is known in the

343
trade as "the £25 scheme". It is that which the previous Government had said they would, if returned, promote by means of a Bill, and I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be able to tell us that his Government will do the same.
Of course, nobody would suppose that a new Government could have any Bills ready to start with, particularly, perhaps, if they did not expect to be elected, and nobody will blame the Government for not having Bills ready. But if a Minister has a Bill ready, then, in relation to his colleagues, it gives him a great and obvious advantage—and the noble and learned Lord has such a Bill. As he knows, our law on animals is partly obsolete, partly archaic and partly incomprehensible, and its many deficiencies were pointed out years ago by a committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, was the chairman. Nothing then was done, but, as your Lordships will remember, in the last Session we passed through all its stages, with very few Amendments, a Bill restating the law on animals. However, it did not make sufficient progress in the other place to arrive on the Statute Book before the Dissolution of Parliament. Therefore I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us that he will introduce this Bill next week, because, come October, his advantage over his colleagues will have disappeared. It is only fair that I should say that, because if he does not do it next week I shall be very strongly tempted to do it the week after.
May I finally mention two or three other matters? I venture to do so because I found that these are things which a Lord Chancellor cannot really do unless he starts on them very soon in his period of office. The first thing is this. Everybody who thinks about it agrees that what we ought to do in regard to the transfer of land is to have compulsory registration; for the simple reason that, obviously, if every time land changes hands new solicitors have to go back over abstracts of title for many years and delivering requisitions, and so on, this must cost more and take a longer time than if the title was once registered at the Land Registry. Registration would considerably cheapen and simplify
344
all subsequent transfers. What then is holding up the extension to the whole country of our system of land registration? The answer is that you must have at least a three-year programme, and Governments are not very good at agreeing to anything which looks ahead for more than about a year.
We found from experience that a purpose-built Land Registry is much more economical than trying to put a Land Registry into the ordinary sort of office block. But by the time you allow for the compulsory purchase order and the building, you must have about three years. Then, secondly, you must have up-to-date Ordnance Survey maps, and naturally that Department want to know for which counties you next want the new survey maps.
Thirdly, there is another problem—this is not at all a matter of Party politics: all Governments are equally stupid about this. It is the question of civil servants. Of course, if you decide that some Government activity is unnecessary—it may be the Land Commission: if you are of that opinion, then you save money by not employing those civil servants any more. But every Government find it very popular to say either, "We are not going to increase the number of civil servants" or, "We shall reduce the number of civil servants." This is really idiotic, and it is about time the public understood just how idiotic it is. Because, except in the case to which I have referred, it is a nonsense. If civil servants (and the same thing applies to local government servants) are fully stretched in providing some service to the public—for example, motor car taxation documents have to be got out—then, if the population increases and if the civil servants are already fully stretched either there must be more civil servants or the service must decrease. If there are more motor car owners, there must either be more clerks to issue the licences or the owners of new cars will have to keep them in their garages for a month or more after sending in their cheques and application forms because there are not enough additional civil servants to cope with the additional work.
This argument leads to the height of absurdity in the case of the Land Registry, because these are civil servants who not only cost no money at all but

345
in fact make money for the Government. Of course, if you have additional compulsory registrations then you must have more civil servants. But every Lord Chancellor is bound to be most careful to err on the side of caution in fixing the fees which the Land Registry charge. The Lord Chancellor's account with the Treasury in relation to the Land Registry is now in credit to the extent of £4 million—all, to some extent, over-charges in land registration fees. Here are civil servants who not only do not cost the country any money but, as I say, actually make money for the country. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Shackleton, when in charge of the Civil Service Department, did his best for me. He would say, "I have been able to get you another 40 persons for this financial year, but I am afraid I cannot tell you anything about any further period." This is useless. You must have a three-year plan. Not only are the buildings to be provided, but staff have to be engaged and trained, and the required maps have to be obtained.
The next thing which I think cannot be done unless it is tackled early in the life of the Lord Chancellor is the view which I had tentatively formed when I took office, and that was that the Parliamentary's draftsmen ought to come under the Lord Chancellor. He is the natural person to protect them and to help them. I did secure three of them for work exclusively with the Law Commission. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who now occupies the Woolsack will be able to tell us his plans for the future with the Law Commission, because he has this advantage over me: that he inherits a Law Commission in full spate, whereas I had to create it and they themselves had to start from scratch. I am sure that to have a proportion of Parliamentary draftsmen with the Law Commission is really vital. To have a Committee which considers the matter and makes its Report and only then to have somebody consider how to turn this into a Bill is one thing. To have draftsmen working with the Committee is another. It is a habit of the draftsman, and one to which they are trained, to say, "Yes, but what is to happen if …?" This is something which nobody has ever thought about at all, and I am
346
sure it is of the utmost value to have them working together.
Parliamentary draftsmen as a whole are in very short supply. I cannot think of any large business the whole of whose affairs would periodically come to a halt for the lack of half-a-dozen specialists. It has for some time been the position of the Government to be held up from time to time, unable to get Bills drafted, because of the shortage of Parliamentary draftsmen. This is because nobody is responsible for them who will take a real interest in this subject. It was, and I believe technically still is, the responsibility of the First Lord of the Treasury—that is to say, the: Prime Minister; but obviously he has more important things to do than to find Parliamentary draftsmen. The Minister responsible for the Civil Service has a great deal to do. The Lord Chancellor would take a permanent: interest in them. It is not until you say to two civil servants: "Now, go away; and if you ever expect to be promoted, don't come back until you have found a reasonable number of first-class recruits for Parliamentary draftsmen" that we shall ever get them. It is useless to go on thinking that you can get men who have been in practice at the Bar for from five to ten years: they are earning too much. You must go to the universities: you must take the sort of recruiting steps with first-year law students in the universities that the Inland Revenue are now energetically taking for Inland Revenue staff.
It may be that you will have to go further. I think that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will find that nearly all our problems are mirrored in our old Dominions. Having been to a Commonwealth law conference in Australia, and having last year, at Easter, spent a week with the New Zealand Law Society and in September a week with the Canadian Bar Association, I found that all our problems are the same: the way in which criminal legal aid led to everybody fighting cases where there would have been pleas; what to do about the very long fraud cases; the shortage of shorthand writers and the shortage of Parliamentary draftsmen. I have admiration for the very energetic young Federal Minister of Justice in Canada. He has just introduced a Bill to constitute a Law Commission. The

347
Provinces, of control, have had several before. He has now got two or three universities to agree to include in their law schools a course for Parliamentary draftsmen. That is going to be his answer to the problem. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to think about that.
Finally, my Lords, another subject which, if it is tackled at all, should be tackled early (and it is one to which there was no reference either in the Conservative Party Manifesto or in the gracious Speech) is one that interests all Members of this House: the reform of your Lordships' House. After all, we did a great deal of work in this field. I did not expect, when I found myself chairman of the All-Party Conference, that we should get agreement. It seemed to me unlikely. But as I have always found does tend to happen when you put a number of Englishmen of different views round a table, they tend to agree rather than to disagree. And I see no harm in compromise; on the contrary, it seems to me that any reform of this House would be so much better done by agreement rather than after violent controversy.
I should like to pay my tribute to the great amount of work which was done by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; Mr. Maudling; Mr. Macleod; the noble Lord, Lord Byers; Mr. Jeremy Thorpe; the noble Earl, Lord Longford; the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton; Mr. Peart; Mr. Crossman; Mr. Jenkins and, subsequently, Mr. Callaghan. At the end of it all, as your Lordships know, we came out with a unanimous Report which was accepted by a substantial majority in this House, and the resulting Bill was passed by a substantial majority on Second Reading. Then, owing to quite a handful of filibusters on both Back Benches, we got into difficulties.
Well my Lords, we are entitled, are we not, being interested in the subject, to ask what plans the Governmenit have. Do they propose to proceed with this agreed piece of reform? Or, if not, do they propose to leave it to some more hostile kind of reform at a later date? I shall quite understand if on some of these matters the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that he has not had time to consider these matters with his
348
colleagues. But I am sure we shall all be most interested if, to the extent that he can, he will tell us what the Government's plans are in this field. May I again wish him great success in the important task to which he has set his hand.
6.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know how many of your Lordships, either in this House or outside of it, have bad dreams; but perhaps the worst dream I have ever had is that it should fall to my lot to speak immediately after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on the occasion of his "maiden speech" from the Dispatch Box, and immediately before the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill. From one who, anyhow, is feeling slightly constricted on the new Liberal Benches, this is asking a lot; and I hope that your Lordships will, therefore, treat this as a maiden speech to the extent that I had not expected to be in this position.
If I am allowed to, and if it is not impertinent, I should like to say that there is nowhere I would rather see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—except on the Woolsack—than at the Dispatch Box; and if I may add to that, there is nowhere that I would rather see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—except at the Dispatch Box—than on the Woolsack. I speak with some feeling, because from these Benches I get a very good view of Chancellors. I am very interested in what I might call the Tory manipulation of the wig, and I shall have an almost unique opportunity of hearing on the same day the uncensored remarks of two Lord Chancellors, from the asides of one on the Woolsack and from listening to the other who has told us his views without restriction.
I will now get away from personalities and come to the gracious Speech, on which I have very little to say. I do not know how many of your Lordships arrive at this House by Underground, but those who do may have seen—I do not know whether it is still there to-day—a very large and legible notice in red letters which has been saying for some time "Convenience closed for Reconstruction." I have been wondering whether that is going to be altered at an appropriate date to an equally visible, but blue, notice saying, "Reconstruction

349
closed for Convenience." I rather gather from the announced date of the Recess that that may be so; and I would hasten to say that, if so, I believe it will be welcomed in this House because I think that the spate of legislation we have had, exhilarating as it was, would be better possibly for a little digestion while the new Government find—I will not say their feet or their seat—perhaps adapt themselves to their geographical position.
My Lords, from my position on the Liberal Benches it is very difficult to say anything without appearing to be rather patronising, and I think the only thing is to be frankly didactic and give one's personal views without very much hoping that they will not necessarily be held to represent Party views. I want to touch only on three topics, none of which will take more than a few minutes to talk about. The first—and I had better say that I welcome this very heartily indeed—is the sentence in the Queen's Speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare referred:
"Legislation will be brought forward to provide pensions for persons now over 80 "—
and the other attendant things.
That sentence particularly interests me, because on the first occasion when I had the courage, after a maiden speech, to address your Lordships at all, it was to ask a question on that point. I cannot pretend that it made a great impact on the House for various reasons, not the least being that it was about 9.30 in the evening after a debate on the Burmah Oil war damage claim, after which everyone was naturally exhausted and the only people present in the Chamber were Members on the Opposite Front Bench. They treated my question with great courtesy, but made it quite clear that nothing could be done for these people for, I think, three reasons. One was that it would be impracticable because of expense. Another was that a new form of social legislation was in process, and would appear, which would make it unnecessary. I may say that this was in the early days, or the "hundred days", of Labour rule. The third reason was that the subject would receive full discussion in another place the next day. That particular prophecy was falsified rather quickly, because it did not receive discussion the next day. There was a Bill introduced by a Private Member
350
which never got on, because the debate on the previous day went on too long to permit it coming on. I should like to say that I am very glad indeed that legislation is being produced now, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that if it is not hastened it will be too late.
The second matter which I want to say only one thing about—and here, if I may, I will take a leaf out of Lord Gardiner's book by mentioning something which is not in the Queen's Speech—is the working of the Abortion Act. I am not going to make a speech, but I should like to suggest to noble Lords opposite—who are, as I think we all are, impartial on this matter—that the time has come to have an impartial inquiry, or at least a debate in your Lordships' House, and to discuss how the Act is working.
I would not suggest that on my own account or on behalf of any Party in this House: but there is very much a feeling among people who know about this that the Act is not working satisfactorily: and that some of the prophecies of the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack, during the all-night sitting when the Bill was introduced, have apparently been all too well fulfilled. He said that he was afraid—he is not a timid man—that it might result in a racket, and a great many people believe that it has. If I may, I will confine myself to reading an extract from the British Medical Journal of May 30 this year, giving the findings of an inquiry into the first year's working of the Act conducted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Almost the concluding sentence reads:
"The time has come for the legislators to decide whether they and the community they represent really want abortion on demand. If they do not, this should be made clear so that the medical profession can continue to judge cases dispassionately on medical grounds. If they and the public do want abortion on demand they should say so, modify the Act accordingly, and make provisions for its application which do not involve coercion of unwilling gynaecologists or make for encroachment on the beds and other facilities of hospital gynaecological departments to the detriment of the care of women with genuine gynaecological disorders. In this context it should be pointed out that to make abortion on demand legal will not make it equitable."
I read that only to show that this is not only my own view. I believe that it is

351
a serious and urgent issue, and unless something is done the position will deteriorate.
That brings me to the last point which I feel I ought to mention. I will be brief, first because we have been warned that to mention Northern Ireland at all will make more difficulties for the authorities, and secondly because my noble friend Lord Longford (I think I can call him that, as we now sit on the same side of the House) has said a great many things which I wanted said, and with which I agree. He has put the entire case from the Catholic point of view. I should like only to add two things to his argument. We are not yet in a position to be happy about Ulster. I am sure that nobody would think we were.
The first is on the interpretation of words. Some of your Lordships may have seen an interesting programme on television when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the late Minister of Defence, Mr. Denis Healey, the noble Earl, Lord Longford and Mr. Muggeridge were arguing about the general question of whether really serious moral issues were discussed at Elections or even in Parliament. Mr. Healey, whom I have always admired, perhaps more highly than some of his more publicised colleagues, made what I thought was an interesting Freudian slip when he began one sentence with the words, "There has never been a time when there has been a more genual—I mean, genuine—interest in moral affairs." The word "genual" was new to me and I thought it had arisen from Mr. Healey's sub-conscious. It sounded to me a word that should be required briefing for all politicians. I forget which poet said that
"Religion is of the heart, not of the knee."
I can think of no better word than "genual" to describe the kind of religion that is of the knee, not of the heart. I looked up "genual" in a dictionary and found that this is exactly what it means: "of or pertaining to the knee".
What I think many people are worried about, and what we all agree we want to know in Northern Ireland, is whether Unionist protestations of anti-Paisleyism, of fair treatment for all, of non-discrimination, are genuine or whether they are genual. Mr. Paisley, of course, does not believe in genuflections of any sort, but
352
there are a number of his colleagues who are suspected, perhaps wrongly, of going some way with him, who do make genuflections in this direction. I believe that this country, which is now fully responsible for what happens in Northern Ireland, should be very careful to distinguish between what is genual and what is genuine in this connection, particularly in regard to the search for arms, where it must be seen that justice is being done.
The words "law and order" are sneered at by many people, I think unfairly. I think it is true that law and order are not always the same things, but it is true that we need both, that we cannot get both without justice and that justice must be seen to be done. If time were not short I would give an example from the experience of the Liberal Party in its heyday of how, by wishful thinking, they allowed a large consignment of arms to get into Northern Ireland before the 1914 War with the whole of the British Navy at their back. That was not in any way from dereliction of duty. It was a brilliant and cleverly mounted operation which succeeded, but the impression in Ireland then was that the British Government were prejudiced. That is the impression now, according to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I hope and I believe this impression to be entirely untrue; but I think that every step should be taken to prove that. My Lords, I have spoken too long, and I apologise for doing so.
6.47 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the most welcome speech I have heard this afternoon has come from my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, when he stood at the Dispatch Box, which I thought he treated as a confessional, and said, "At last I am free. Now I can say what I like and have not to be tied to the script". I welcome that, because in the past he and I discussed matters which I have very much at heart and I came to the conclusion that he fully approved of the script. I hope that what I say now will fall on ears which are more open than they were allowed to be when my noble and learned friend sat on the Woolsack.
In this debate one is expected to relate one's remarks to the content of the gracious Speech, and I wish to relate

353
what I am going to say to the fact that the Government have said that they are going to continue to take an interest in the economic position of widows. I express the hope that this means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a very important person in another place, who holds the purse strings, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have great sympathy with the needs of the women of this country. The difficulties of many widows derive from the fact that, on becoming widows, they have no nest-eggs of their own. They have to depend on whatever money their husbands have given them and they are denied even the financial benefits which insurance confers on all other workers.
I am very pleased that the great expert on this matter on the other side of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whose complete grasp of the details of the financing of insurance I have always admired, is present. Both of us, at different times, have been Ministers of National Insurance. I am hoping that, with the noble Lord's prompting, we shall see in the next Insurance Act that married women will be treated as other workers and insured against the hazards of life. Very often her particular hazard is marriage and divorce. May I repeat what I have said so often: that the married woman is the only uninsured worker in the country. And how she works!—she cooks, she washes, she cleans, she nurses. Yet she has no legal right to a share of the family income.
I was fortunate enough to pilot through the Married Women's Properly Act of 1964, which enables a wife to keep half the savings from the housekeeping allowance. But this all depends on whether the husband is sufficiently generous to permit any saving. As many women are ignorant of the amount their husbands earn and certainly ignorant when he is given any increase of wages, we must not overlook the possibility that she has great difficulty in making any worthwhile saving. And if a divorce comes there are no savings of which she can claim her share. Indeed, to-day marriage offers no real security even to the most virtuous wife. If she is deserted, she can stay in the matrimonial home in certain circumstances, but she has no legal right to a share in the ownership, although, as I have said, she has made an important
354
contribution over the years in helping the husband to acquire it: for the wife spends her youth and middle age in rearing the children and tending the home, and this frees the husband for his economic activities. I have quoted from Sir Jocelyn Simon, the President of the Probate and Divorce Court, before, and he summed up the position so well when he said:
"The cock can feather his nest precisely because he is not required to spend most of his time sitting on it."
In January, 1971, a further great injustice will be perpetrated by the Divorce Act, which will enable a wife innocent of any matrimonial offence to be divorced against her will. Her financial position may be far worse than that of the widow. Therefore I say to the Government that if they feel it is so important to attend to the position of the widow, they should consider the position of the wife who next January is going to be divorced against her will. She can be far worse off than the widow, for the widow's pension may be claimed by the second wife whose services to the family may bear no comparison to the years which the innocent wife, divorced against her will—I must emphasise that—has contributed.
I have said before on many occasions that this Divorce Act is putting the cart before the horse. It should have been preceded by a Matrimonial Property Act, which at least would secure to the wife a joint share of the matrimonial home and savings which she has already provided through her services. In support of what I am claiming, I would ask your Lordships when you get home or go into the Library to read the law report on page 8 of The Times to-day, which I think proves my point conclusively. It proves that there is a considerable uncertainty in legal circles, if we are to judge from this report, regarding the possession of a matrimonial home. It is the report of a recent appeal to the House of Lords in the case of Gissing v. Gissing, in which a former husband won his appeal from a decision that his former wife was entitled on the break-up of their marriage to share equally in the matrimonial home. I feel quite convinced that when noble Lords read that case they will recognise that there is good reason for amending the matrimonial property law. This case,

355
which went to the court of first instance, then to the Court of Appeal and has now been to your Lordships' House, must have cost the country an immense sum of money; and having regard to the suffering of the participants, it seems to me that the Lord Chancellor should now reconsider the whole position and introduce a matrimonial property law, which law is long overdue.
The most serious step in life for any individual is marriage. The greatest hazard is to marry a man or woman who turns out to be unreliable in the fullest sense. As long as women continue to be the only sex capable of bearing children, they must be gravely handicapped if they are married to inadequate husbands on whom they are financially dependent. Throughout the centuries this position seems to have been accepted, and the law, on the whole, has been blind to the suffering of these women, for little has been done to relieve their plight. I think it was Voltaire who said:
"Prejudice is the reasoning of fools."
It is surprising how many otherwise intelligent lawyers have allowed this form of reasoning to dictate their actions.
I feel that the Lord Chancellor (I have told him that I would say this; he will read it no doubt to-morrow, but I hope that he may hear of it before he winds up the debate to-night—not that I expect him to make any commitment then) has an opportunity to win a victory for humanity. I would ask him to address himself to those grave omissions in our law which bear hardly on women. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce voted against divorce by consent and against divorce of the innocent wife by compulsion. On the Third Reading of the Divorce Bill in another place less than one-quarter of the Members took part in the Division, including those voting for and against the measure. This cannot be regarded as representing the will of the people of Britain, and much less the will of the inarticulate women and children who may be the victims of this Act in January, 1971.
I should like to remind your Lordships what the Law Commission said about this. The Law Commission recognised the injustice of failing to protect the first wife, for they said, in the field of choice:
356
"Until the rules relating to family property and financial relief are reformed in a way that will protect the wife against additional hardship resulting from divorce it may be necessary to go even further by providing an additional safeguard whereby a divorce cannot be forced on the wife if it is impossible for the husband to make provision which protects her from disproportionate hardship."
I should welcome the opportunity of introducing a Matrimonial Property Bill, with the blessing of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should like him to consider whether he would suspend the operation of the Divorce Act pending the passage of such a Bill. I have discussed this matter with various eminent authorities, and I am told there must be precedents for taking this step.
Finally, I want to say simply that there are some in our new society who regard marriage as an out-moded institution, and they welcome the Divorce Act as a means of hastening its end. Well, the time may come when there is no biological urge to have young and to establish a nest, and when the herd instinct, evoking a desire for companionship, even into old age, no longer exists. But, my Lords, that time has not arrived yet. I believe that the super ego of men and women continues to attach great importance to a relationship which is the mark of a high standard of civilisation, based as it is on tolerance, unselfishness and a sense of responsibility.
7.0 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are two matters that I want to mention, one of which arises out of the gracious Speech. I want to draw attention first to the Government's policy on prisons. I am told that the prison population at the present time is somewhere in the region of 40,000 persons, something like four times the number it was in 1939. I believe I am right in saying that this is increasing by about 1,000 per month. I wonder whether the Government have any policy for the future with regard to dealing with overcrowding in our prisons. As many of your Lordships will know, it is not uncommon to find two or three prisoners in one cell, and I believe it is not uncommon now for some prisons to have to use corridors in which to accommodate prisoners. I feel that in a progressive and enlightened community it is desirable that we should do

357
something to rehabilitate people who have been in prison; that we should not just leave them there to serve out their sentences and then come out without receiving all the benefits that a progressive society could give them. I should like to know from the Government—and I do not expect a reply tonight, but in the near future—what the policy is, and whether the Home Office has any long-term plan for dealing with overcrowding and, if so, what it is.
Some six or seven years ago, I think I am right in saying, the Ministry of Public Building and Works set up a penal establishment group. This group was working within the framework of the Research and Development Department. I should like to ask the Government whether the penal establishment group is still functioning, whether it has issued a report, and whether that report deals with any long-term needs so far as prisons are concerned.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is not here, because I should like to ask him whether the Government will consider setting up a special committee to deal with certain people, who are now in prison, to be treated within the community. I have in mind the experiment going on in California at the moment, where they have substantially increased the probation service. That has resulted in treating a small number of people who normally would go to prison by placing them under the supervision of one probation officer who can carry out long-term and deep-seated treatment.
When one bears in mind that it costs something like £1½ million to build a prison, it should not be difficult to create a career-structured service which would appeal to many people in the community. The Probation Service could be increased, and not only could they return to the community people who had been cured of certain tendencies to behave in an antisocial fashion, but they could, in the long run, serve the community by saving it a tremendous sum of money. The experiment in California has been highly successful, and I should like to ask the Government whether they would let me know at some convenient time whether there is a long-term policy with regard to prisons. Also, I should like to know whether there is a policy with regard to
358
treating within the community certain people now committed to prison without sending them to prison, and whether they would consider setting up a committee to inquire into the possibility of introducing into this country the Californian system which has worked so well.
The second matter 10 which I wish to refer—and I want to do this briefly because it has been covered quite adequately by certain of my noble friends—is the matter of education. The only reason why I raise this point is that, like so many of my noble friends on this side of the House, I feel strongly about the action of the Minister of Education and Science in withdrawing Circular 10/65. I want to express my disappointment, because I believe she has acted—and I want to say this as kindly as I can—with indecent haste in the matter. I had hoped that she would have taken the advice of her Leader, the Prime Minister, who seems to be against "instant government" and in favour of a careful analysis of every situation, and that she would have considered more carefully the situation and the repercussions before withdrawing the circular.
I find it very difficult to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when he seeks to excuse the Minister saying, "Well, we had a mandate to do that". I question whether the Party opposite had a mandate to do that. I know that it was in their Election Manifesto; I thought that the Party of the noble Lords opposite were elected because they were a little more successful (in this they are past masters) in misrepresenting the economic situation. I do not think that they were returned on this matter of maintaining grammar schools. The subject of comprehensive schools is, as noble Lords on the other side will know, one on which we feel very strongly. I feel that in this particular matter the Minister of Education and Science has tended to show a measure of arrogance, bigotry and intolerance.
Since 1965 comprehensive schools have increased in this country from somewhere in the region of 260 to about 1,200. A good many Tory-controlled county councils will not change their plans, because many of them have seen the value of comprehensive schools. It is a disaster to try to perpetuate or restore selection at 11-plus. One has to have

359
some kind of selection; but selection at 11-plus, by examination, is not, I think, the answer.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Nobody is intending to reintroduce selection at 11-plus by examination. There are various other methods where there has to be selection. If the noble Lord cares to look, for example, at the Bournemouth area, where children are put into different schools, he will see that in all schools they are taught up to G.C.E. level, and there are admirable arrangements for transfer from one school to another.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, but there are at the present moment a variety of ways of selection. There is no doubt about it: a good many Tory-controlled education authorities are wedded to this idea of examinations. The point I want to make, particularly on behalf of those of us who have worked among young people, is that often it is the highly sensitive child who fails the 11-plus examination, not because he or she has not the ability to pass, but simply by virtue of the fact that there is something in their make-up that makes such children resistant, and examination, as such, frightens them.
If we look at the comprehensive scheme at the present moment, we see that it has thrown up a large number of young people who have failed the 11-plus but who from the comprehensive school have succeeded not only in getting to university but in getting degrees, many of them First Class Honours. I am disappointed that one of the first things that should happen is for this circular to be withdrawn, because I feel that it is a retrograde step. I wish that the Minister of Education and Science had thought a little more about it and had really consulted (and I know the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has dealt with this matter of consultation) the people who are working within our educational system, and who know, by experience, what is and what is not desirable. I want to express my disappointment that she did not do so.
7.10 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has
360
completed his speech—he did not make a great peroration. May I congratulate him on his speech. This is the first speech I am making in the new House. May I congratulate the Conservatives on winning the Election—and three cheers for the losing side!Also (it is very nice to be able to say something nice about somebody behind his back), may I congratulate the former Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and thank him for his kindness, his courtesy and his helpfulness as Leader.
I have not been in to a great deal of this debate for the same reason that I gave up bridge: I am not very keen on post-mortems, and there have been a great many post-mortems. I should like to say what I believe to be the truth about the Election. Nobody seems to have got to the point. I was in the Isle of Man during the Election and, as a Cross-Bencher, I took an easy view of it. I heard what my bank manager had to say. I knew he studied the Gallup Polls and he did not think—which of course a bank manager should not do. I thought that 75 per cent. of people in the world to-day are under the age of 25 and the only people to listen to are the young people.
We happen to have in the Isle of Man some of the nicest young people in the world. They are there to support the T.T. race. They have their own bikes, which are all polished up, and their own girl friends, who are all polished up. After all, it is the most dangerous race in the world. They save up their money for their bikes and to holiday there, and they speak direct. So I asked them questions. At first they were a bit doubtful and said, "Well, Ted's got nobody to pour out for him when he goes home"—that was the first remark I heard. When Mr. Enoch Powell made his last speech they all said the same thing: "The Tories are going in with a big majority". So I rang up my bookmaker and backed them, at 10 to 1".
I should like to make a speech, which I hope will be very short, about the gracious Speech. One question is, what have the Conservatives left to conserve? I came to think that the greatest thing they can conserve is our freedom, because that must be conserved. Our freedom is in some ways a bit shaky, I am afraid. I was thinking what a good speech the noble Lord. Lord Citrine, made about

361
the unions. I thought it was an excellent speech. It was very fair and it was excellent. I noticed what he said about the men who strike. There seem to be some disturbing elements in this country who cause these unofficial strikes, which do not seem quite fair to our people. I would be the first to say that everybody in this country may be what they like. If a man is a Communist, let him be a Communist; if he is a Trotskyism let him be a Trotskyist; if he is an Anarchist, let him be one. But for goodness sake! let him say what he is. That is the point. This is where freedom is weak. It is the disguised Communist, the disguised Trotskyist, the disguised Anarchist whom I have in mind. They should declare exactly what they are; it is misleading if they do not.
I cannot help having a great deal of sympathy with some people during unofficial strikes. People are caught in hot weather on the aerodromes. For myself, I could not care less—at 70, if you have not done all the things you ought to do in your life, it is too late to start. But I have seen people sitting at aerodromes, waiting. It is so pathetic. They have spent their money; they have all their things together; they have their children all tidied up, and they sit waiting for an aeroplane that will never go. They have shut up their house, they have got somebody to look after the cat, and there they are. The children are getting fidgety; they are crying and in a miserable state. And all this because of an unofficial strike, which may or may not be the work of these Communists.
Late in the season we get the factory contingent over in the Isle of Man. I know what they say. They say the Communists are starting these strikes. But I do not want to label anybody particularly. However, in one of the worst strikes we have had for a long time, the seamen's strike, which damaged the sailor as badly as it damaged the country, I heard that Mr. Wilson, our last Prime Minister, said in the other place that it was caused by Communists. I do not want to rub the point in, but I do know that in this country we had the finest secret service in the world, and it was run by Russians.
One thinks about these things and one wonders whether something should not
362
be done about them. The only thing I can think of is that people should declare what they are. It is the normal thing. If they do not declare; what they are they should be fined. It is the same as taking out a dog licence, or any other ordinary sort of action. If one does not declare that one is a Communist or an Anarchist, when in any responsible position, one should be fined; and the fines should go up. I take it that this must come to these almost secret societies, which have terrific power. They can put a man out of work. In these private courts the secret ballot must come, and with the secret ballot a man should have to declare whether he is a Communist. After all, the number of people in this country who want us to be a satellite of Russia is very few—not many. People should know whom they are voting for and they should vote secretly. But that is for the future.
Our debate to-day covers education. I think many teachers would agree with me in saying that if a man has political views which are peculiar he should announce them before he starts teaching. Students should know. Heavens!I have enough bias; nobody minds bias; but one wants to know what a person's bias is before one listens to him. The same rule should therefore; apply to teachers. Strangely enough, I was talking this morning in my club to a very eminent teacher. He has been a top teacher all his life. I said to him what I have just said to your Lordships, thinking he would say, "No", but he replied, "I think all intelligent teachers would probably agree with you."
I was brought up at a time when people believed in Kipling. I did not know that all education came from Kipling and English history was all made from Kipling, and therefore I have never got English history right. If I were a teacher lecturing in a school I would immediately declare before I started, "I am a Cross-Bencher and a Royalist!" I would say, "If you find me biased in any way, you know what I am." When it got to Charles I, I would say he was a wonderful King because he had no Parliament for ten years and the country boomed in its way; and when I put my black tie on and talked about Cromwell I would of course say that he did away

363
with freedom by appointing himself dictator, and it was all wrong. When it came to the present day, I would do what I in fact did on the first day of the Test Match—I would wear my M.C.C. tie with a black band round it, and I would not say anything. Your Lordships will understand what I mean.
My Lords, I have spoken too long but I have said what I wanted to say. I was tempted to say quite a lot about Northern Ireland, but I will not. I will merely say that both fingers are crossed for this week-end. I should like to say something about a Member of "the shed down the passage"; but I will not—I do not want to be impolite to any honourable gentleman in that House. But I should like to give Mr. Paisley a text that he might use. I would give him this text for his next speech:
"The Lord thy God is a jealous God."
7.19 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, your Lordships are always, I know, charmed and refreshed by a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Strange. I am aware that what I am going to offer this evening may come as a rather mixed bag, and possibly prove rather indigestible. First of all, I want to make one or two comments on social questions, and then move on to possible ways and means of paying for social measures, picking out part of industry in particular. Perhaps your Lordships would expect me to start where I left off before the General Election. We were discussing the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, which has since proved most welcome, but, nevertheless, is recognised as being incomplete. If it had not been for the Election I think that we, with your Lordships' help, would have put a good deal more into that Bill.
On this subject I was pleased to see in the gracious Speech the mention of the constant attendance allowance, which I believe is to be £4 a week, for the very seriously disabled. What I should like to know from my noble friend Lord Aberdare, whose appointment I greatly welcome, is whether the Government are going to do more in this field; because I remember that his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, rather took the previous Government to task for not introducing
364
as a Government Bill a measure on the lines of Alfred Morris's Bill. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, intends, but if there is no such intention I foresee that I and some others may well want to pursue this theme after the Summer Recess, and it may be that a Private Member's Bill is the best vehicle.
All sorts of problems remain to be solved, and during the last few weeks I have been looking into questions of training and employment, which would not come into the last Bill—such things as holiday homes, for example; and to-day I have had a meeting with Members of the other place on the question of vehicles for the disabled, a matter on which we touched on previously. When one realises the immense problems facing many of the seriously disabled people, the comparatively minor grievances of the more vocal sections of the community rather pale into insignificance, and I implore the Government to get their priorities right.
Also on the question of social policies I want to say a word or two about Commonwealth immigration. I come from the Midlands and I see a good deal of this. I do not want in any way to add fuel to any flames, but I was interested the other day to see that Arthur Ashe, the coloured American tennis player who was playing at Wimbledon last week, holds the view that Mr. Enoch Powell has in fact made people think. Perhaps it may be left at that for the moment, but there is no doubt—and I think your Lordships will all agree—that this whole question, if it is not a current problem is at any rate a great potential problem. We have only to look at the examples of the United States of America and South Africa to realise that. I know that we are reputed to be a nation of shopkeepers, but I think that possibly we are also a nation of ostriches. Anyone who has lived through the 1930s or, as I have recently done, has read Sir Winston Churchill's book, The Gathering Storm, must conclude that. We do not always face a problem, until it blows up in our faces, and I would support both the Conservative and Labour Parties on the policies of control of future immigrants.
I was also pleased to see in the gracious Speech the importance attached to the question of full employment, because I believe that full employment and a thriving economy are the main keys to

365
racial harmony. I can remember well in 1959 how the immigrants were positively encouraged to come here; and I can speak for the help they have given the country, in the hospitals and on the railways, and so on. If we could get back to that sort of situation, we should have less concern over race relations. I also believe that the youth services, certainly the Scouts and Guides with whom I am concerned, could be used extensively to help in this way. While on this subject I should like to ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Education and Science, whose appointment again I greatly welcome, what the Government have in mind as regards the Fairbairn-Milson Report. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, introduced a full debate in this House three or four months ago on that subject, and although the Report was pulled about a good deal by your Lordships it was at any rate a document to follow. Before it is thrown out of the window I should like to know what is liable to replace it.
I also want to say a word or two about a passion or obsession—call it what you will—of mine, and that is cricket, which in the last few months has been forced reluctantly into the political arena. I must declare a lifelong interest in this sport, and although at the moment my activities are confined to a fiendish delight in umpiring, and giving doubtful decisions on l.b.w. and catches at the wicket, I still follow it closely. I do not want to dwell on the unhappy story of the recent cancelled South African tour, but I do want to correct any impression that may be around that cricket is in any way a racialist pastime. In my view, it is a great mixer in our own society and has already done more for race relations than any board, demonstration or politician.
Unfortunately, due to the cancellation of the South African team's tour cricket is at the moment in the doldrums. I, perhaps alone among your Lordships, have attended the Saturdays of the two Test Matches played against the Rest of the World, and although everybody is certainly making the best of it there is a lack of competition and "needle"; and the grounds have been well under half-full, instead of overflowing. And I could not help thinking it a little odd that although six South Africans were on the
366
field there was not a murmur of disapproval. One of the happiest features was to see a West Indian from the crowd rush out to congratulate Eddie Barlow the South African opening batsman, on completing his century last Saturday. I only hope that the Government realise what a wonderful medium cricket is, or could be, and that they will greatly improve their liaison with the M.C.C. I hope that one day we shall be able to witness matches between the West Indies and South Africa in multi-racial teams.
I am fully aware that lack of resources often prevents things being done in the social services, so I would agree with the sentiment in the gracious Speech that:
"Rising production and a steadily growing national income must provide the resources for improving the social services and the environment in which we live."
To this end I welcome the proposed move (I do not know whether it is to be by Act of Parliament or by code of practice, or what) towards the, improvement of industrial relations. I hope that the results of this policy will begin to show before we get too far with our Common Market negotiations, because I still have the impression that we are going on our hands and knees in an attempt to get in, whereas if we were really in a strong position Europe would be clamouring to get us. I think it is this factor' that makes people think that something "fishy" is happening.
As one who has advocated various forms of social expenditure I ought to take a look at ways and means of finding the necessary funds. Obviously, I cannot at this moment attempt a complete review of British industry, but I want to take a quick look at our largest and most fundamental industry, namely agriculture, which at present has a current output of £2,100 million per annum. I understand that there will be a debate on this subject in the autumn, and my remarks this evening will be restricted. Agriculture is soon to be involved in two sets of crucial discussions. At home there is the question, in the words of the gracious Speech, of
"encouraging agricultural expansion by changes in the present system of financial support",
which means gradually changing over to import levies in place of the current

367
deficiency payments. In Europe the complex agricultural issue is bound to give headaches to our Common Market negotiators, and I rather sympathise with them.
On the first point, that of Government policy, nicely though it fits into the pattern of Common Market negotiations, it is not dependent on successful entry. It seems to me that to achieve the expansion that we all want for a prosperous agriculture, without hopelessly burdening the Exchequer with more and more deficiency payments, we are bound to go over to a system where the producers will increasingly earn more of their returns from the market; and this, I think, will mean higher food prices but lower taxes. Our aim must surely be to try to reduce taxation by the same amount, and in the right place, as the price of food increases, so that we do not get an overall rise in the cost of living. I only hope that this is not too much to hope for.
A rise in the prices received by the farmers for their products is overdue. In the ten years between 1958 and 1967, prices received by the farmer rose by only 3 per cent., while prices for all manufactured goods rose by 20 per cent. and the index of prices paid by consumers by 29 per cent. This my Lords, is the root of all the present trouble, frustration and discontent in the farming industry. What is wanted is a viable, thriving, expanding industry (and those who, as I did, visited the Royal Agricultural Show this week must feel that farmers and their suppliers lack no initiative and enterprise)—an industry based on 1970 prices. I feel that such an industry, released from the present straitjacket of the present system, and freed from the stigma attached to the word "subsidy", would make a greater contribution to our economy and social services and would help considerably to reduce our cost of entry into the Common Market, if our application is pursued.
7.34 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am very tempted indeed to follow the speech to which we have just listened and which has in the most succinct way dealt with some of the most urgent issues now before us. I hope the noble Lord will
368
forgive me if I do not do that; it is only because I feel so deeply about the subject about which I wish to speak. Let me just make one comment upon that speech. Like the noble Lord, I am a cricket lover. I do not fulfil his function of umpiring matches. I am afraid the only thing I do to-day is to watch cricket on television—and television at least has this advantage to those who are cricket lovers; it enables us to watch the technique of the game almost as closely as the noble Lord can do as umpire. I want only to say to him that, while we differ about our approach, I take his view that cricket may make a great contribution towards inter-racialism. It is most extraordinary the way in which in our own county teams it is those who have come from Commonwealth countries, who are non-white, who are now proving among our greatest cricketers, and with the noble Lord I hope, because sport and athletics are now my escapism, that cricket will make a great contribution towards racial co-operation in the world.
The debate on the Address is generally an occasion when on the two sides or the three sides of the House we debate political principles and political policies. Reflecting that controversy, I will confess that when the Dissolution was announced I looked forward to this debate so as to be able to express feelings which I have about poverty in this country and in the world, about Northern Ireland, about South Africa and about Southern Rhodesia. I had hoped to be on the other side of the House, but I think probably if I had been there I might have expressed some criticism of the Government. With some doubt, and with some realisation that this will be disappointing to some of my friends, I have decided to-night not to enter into the ordinary controversy about principles and policies.
I have been a Back-Bencher in one House or the other ever since the year 1929, and in that experience I have found that there are rare occasions when on some immediate issue one may make a contribution which will change events. I am hoping, on the subject about which I am going to speak to-night, that the considerations which I put forward will have some effect in changing administration. I propose to approach the subject, of which I have given the Minister

369
notice, of the large number of people who are British citizens and who hold British passports but who are not now allowed access to this country. They are mostly Asians living in East Africa—but this is not now only a problem of those in East Africa or of this country. It has become a problem of the Commonwealth, and indeed, though largely unobserved here, it is now becoming an international issue. In raising this issue, I am not speaking in a partisan way. I know that in what I am saying I shall have the support of Members of all three Parties in the House and of Members of the Cross-Benches as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his opening speech, made reference to this subject in connection with immigration. I want to emphasise that this particular issue is not fundamentally one of immigration at all. It is an issue of the values which we hold as associated with British citizenship. It is an issue of the honour of our country in fulfilling assurances which we have given to people when they have become British citizens, and of their rights in that respect.
I am encouraged by two facts. The first is this, and I want to acknowledge it freely. As the noble Lord opposite knows, I have been in contact with the Home Office since he has had responsibility there and I have been encouraged by the response. Secondly, I am encouraged by the fact that Mr. Maudling, the Home Secretary, has said that the Government are giving serious consideration to the whole matter. I am also encouraged by the fact that a Conservative Government was in office when the assurance was given to the Asians in East Africa that they would have the rights of British citizenship.
Noble Lords will remember the debate which I initiated in 1968, when I moved the rejection of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of that year. What impressed me in that debate was the attitude of Conservative Members in this House who were then holding office in the Colonial Administration which gave those assurances to the Asians in East Africa. Among them was the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who had been the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who raised the issue of the obligations of this country to those concerned because of the assurances which were given. The noble and learned
370
Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, from the Front Opposition Bench indicated in that debate his uneasiness as to what would happen if these British citizens came to this country, were refused entry to this country, went back to Uganda and Kenya and were refused entry there. The noble and learned Viscount was very far-sighted when he raised that matter, because that is exactly the problem which has arisen.
It was a quite astonishing experience that on the Motion which I moved for the rejection of that Bill, among those who voted against the measure were the noble Lord, Lord Boyd of Merton, with whom, as Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, so often I came into conflict in another place. But I think he voted for the rejection of that Bill because he was Colonial Secretary at the time that these assurances were given and he felt, as a matter of national honour, that he should vote in that way. Because of my knowledge that there is this deep sense not only in my own Party but in all Parties, and among those who are high in influence in the Conservative Party, I am hoping that there may be a reconsideration of this problem to-day.
When we turn to the issue itself, I think first we must recognise that if there are Asians in East Africa we encouraged them to go there. We encouraged them to build the railway from Mombasa to Kampala, right across Kenya into Uganda. They remained, and they became traders or businessmen. Then, when independence came to Kenya and Uganda, they had two choices. I was at the independence ceremonies both of Kenya and of Uganda. I was there with Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who is now Prime Minister of India. Jawaharlal Nehru, who was then Prime Minister, urged the Indians in these territories to become citizens of the territories; and with Mrs. Gandhi in Nairobi, and afterwards in Uganda, I strongly urged Asians to take that course. But they were uneasy. There was an African sentiment against Asians. The Asians had become the traders that I have described; the African population was envious of them. Because of their uncertainty, when they had the choice either to become citizens of Kenya or Uganda or British citizens, a large number of them decided to become British citizens. The assurance was then given to them by Conservative Ministers that they would have

371
the rights of British citizenship. Therefore, upon the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government a great responsibility rests.
I pass to the present position. Because they are not citizens of Kenya or of Uganda or, in a smaller way, of Tanzania, they are not allowed to work, they are not allowed to obtain a livelihood. I deplore that fact. But in regard to employment, to-day most Governments adopt that principle. We here cannot condemn it in Kenya and Uganda, because we have adopted that same principle ourselves over immigration control. The Asians are not allowed to work in those territories because they are British citizens; yet, as British citizens, we do not admit them to this country. Because of their engagement in trade, most of them have lived on a comparatively high standard, but it is now 17 months since they were denied the opportunity to work or to gain a livelihood and their position has deteriorated. In a debate in this House on May 13 I gave the result of a very detailed analysis which was made by Mrs. Mary Dines, the secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Commonwealth Immigrants. As a result of her visit she was able to show that there were 562 families in Uganda either in immediate distress, or distress which would appear before the end of the year. That figure of 562 has now become a figure of 782 families as a result of further information, and the High Commission in Uganda say that the actual figure will be three times as many as Mrs. Dines was able to investigate. These people, unemployed because they are British citizens, are in increasingly deep distress; the charitable funds for their help are becoming exhausted. I recognise that in Kenya the position is easier because, on the whole, the standard of life among Asians there was higher than in Uganda.
What are the opportunities that we offer to these British citizens? My Lords, 1,500 of them may come to this country on work vouchers (not all those 1,500 vouchers have actually been granted), but there is a delay sometimes of months, sometimes amounting to a year. They are refused work in their own territories because they are British citizens, and refused permission to come to this country
372
even though they are British citizens. I have instances of 17 months where, having made their application to come to this country, that application has not yet been fulfilled. In those circumstances, in desperation, many of them attempt to come here.
I am interested in a breakdown of those who attempt to come to this country. Broadly speaking, there are two categories. One category is that of young men who, because they are unmarried, have no hope of obtaining vouchers. They are unwilling to live on destitute relatives. The second category is of married men whose families are here. Their families are allowed to come and are not excluded, but not they. They are not allowed to join them.
I want to refer to one minority, and that is ex-Servicemen. I think this House knows that I have never been a Serviceman, but I am the first to recognise that a nation which asks men to sacrifice limb and life has a particular responsibility towards them. In 1966 the exemption was withdrawn which would have given ex-Servicemen priority in coming to this country—it was an exemption which referred to those who had completed five years' service. I want to acknowledge that the High Commissions in Kenya and Uganda, despite the fact that that exemption has been withdrawn, are still taking it into consideration in the case of ex-Servicemen. But in fact the number of ex-Servicemen in East Africa who have done five years' service is small. Unlike India, there was no large British force there, but many have served in Burma, in the Italian campaign, marginally not reaching the five years' limit.
I give two examples, and I am prepared to send the details to the Minister. The initials of the first I give are P.S., who enlisted as a volunteer. He was four years and 237 days in the Army, and was invalided out. He served in the Italian campaign, in Ethiopia and Somaliland, received the 1939/45 Star, the Africa Star and the War Medal. He is a British citizen, and he is not allowed to come to this country. The second case, initials K.S.J., joined the Army in May, 1941, and was discharged in February, 1945. That is, he served for three years and nine months. He was three years in Burma and has the Burma Star. On

373
discharge he was immediately employed in the civilian personnel attached to the Army. He is a British citizen; he is not allowed to come to this country.
I turn to what has happened to these people. They arrive here and some are imprisoned, some are detained; others are sent back either to the European country from which they have last come or to Uganda and Kenya. Uganda and Kenya refuse to accept them. They are sent back here and turned away a second time. They are shuttlecocked for weeks all over the world. I have knowledge of a case where one of them landed in Sydney in Australia, others in Mauritius, others in South Africa, others in the Congo, others in Burundi, others in Rwanda, and others in Egypt. Most of them find themselves in European countries. Yugoslavia had over 100; Austria 38; Belgium 34; Denmark 28; France 9; West Germany 5; and Spain 5. It is because of this that I am saying that this issue is now becoming international.
I hope he Minister will ask his Department to show him some of the newspapers which are being published in these countries. There are front page pieces headed "British citizens refused entry into Britain." There are pictures of them and stories of them. In Yugoslavia they sat down in front of the British Consulate and caused a sensation. The Minister will know, if he asks for this information, that in European country after European country Great Britain is falling in reputation because of its treatment of our own British citizens. When we returned people to Yugoslavia and Denmark, they were generous in permitting them to stay there for three months.
I am trying to be quite objective and fair, so I want to add this. I want to acknowledge the improvement which has taken place in the last two or three weeks. It took place immediately after the Election, though I am not suggesting that it was a result of the Election; I think the change was probably planned beforehand. But immediately after the Election 150 of those who were in British prisons and British detention centres were released. I am glad indeed to acknowledge, in the presence of the Minister, the help which the Home Office has given
374
while he has been responsible there, the fact that it has been possible immediately to get in touch with him, and the release in the last week of many from Pentonville and Winchester prisons. It is because of this change, because of what Mr. Maudling, the Home Secretary, has said, and because of what the noble Lord himself has said, that I am hopeful that the contribution which I am trying to make may have some effect on the situation.
I want to conclude, as I always fry to conclude in this House, by constructive proposals. My first proposal is that in immigration control priority should be given to British citizens and to those who hold a British passport, which in the name of Her Majesty pledges that all protection will be given to them. At the moment, as I have said, the number from East Africa is limited to 1,500, but there are 8,500 Commonwealth vouchers available each year and, as the noble Lord said to-day, only 4,000 of those are taken up. So I ask him to see that the balance be made up from British citizens who have been treated in the way I have described.
Secondly, the Government have announced that immigrants will be limited to those who have obtained work in this country which cannot be filled by local residents. I therefore propose that machinery should be set up to coordinate the qualifications of these British citizens for jobs which are vacant in this country. By far the best arrangement which has been made during this period of difficulty about Commonwealth immigrants has been that between the Barbados Government and the London Transport Board—an arrangement by which, before they leave Barbados, their qualifications are considered and they arc trained under British conditions. They then come here and do the splendid job on our London Underground which so many of us appreciate. I suggest that in the case of those British citizens, the High Commission Offices in Kenya and Uganda—and, less so, in Tanzania—should be asked to record the abilities of those who apply for exit permits, and that an agency should be set up under the auspices of the Home Office which can arrange for them to obtain jobs which will come within the terms of the new policy of the Government.

375
My third proposal is that the High Commission staffs in Kenya and Uganda should be increased to deal with this problem. It really is unacceptable that there should be the long delays, sometimes of a year, for people in this desperate position. If we have any humanity, then let us at least seek to lessen their discomfort. My fourth proposal is that priority should be given to British citizens who are destitute, and that in considering their application to come here the period which has elapsed since they were refused permission to work should be taken into account. Fifthly, I want to suggest that the High Commissions should be permitted to give grants in aid, perhaps by way of loans, to those who are not allowed to earn a living because they are British citizens. My sixth proposal is that those loans should be extended to those who are prepared to go to India; my seventh proposal, as I indicated earlier, is that special attention should be given to the needs of ex-Servicemen.
I close with two more fundamental proposals. My first is that the Home Office should now send representatives to Kenya and Uganda to investigate the situation and to report. I choose my words carefully, so I say that in one of those High Commissions things are not quite so satisfactory as we should desire. I suggest that the Home Office should send to both Kenya and Uganda capable officers who can investigate the position, prove or disprove what I have been saying this evening, and report to the Home Office, so that when the Home Secretary makes his decision he may have the facts before him.
Lastly, and most important, I would say this. If we are to settle this problem there must be a conference between representatives of Britain, representatives of the East African countries—Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania—and representatives of India and Pakistan. I speak with some knowledge when I say that I think that both India and the East African countries would welcome a conference to bring about a settlement of this issue. India is proving conciliatory and is prepared to accept British Asians from East Africa if, finally, we will accept responsibility for the passports which they hold. This problem is not insoluble. I hope
376
there is a mood in the Government now to look at it in a new way. I am encouraged both by the speech of the Home Secretary and by the speech which the noble Lord has made here to-day. I beg the Government to give their attention to this very important issue.
8.11 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Brockway beyond saying this: that no one can doubt his deep commitment to the subject which he pursues with zeal and tenacity. I noted very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said on the subject of education, and it is because I share with a number of noble Lords a deep and long interest in the subject of education that I dare at this hour of the evening to rise to put views which I think ought to be put in this debate and which I feel have not up to the moment perhaps been expressed. If they have, then I hope your Lordships will excuse me and put it down to my enthusiasm for the subject.
We have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on the subject of education on a great many occasions. We know his tremendous interest: and I have been pleased to observe that he has been present throughout the debate on every occasion, I think, when the subject of education has been mentioned. May I say, first of all, that I was extremely interested in what he had to say on the subject of primary education. I hope the Government will be as successful as they indicate they intend to be in this particular field. Certainly I shall watch very closely to see whether they fulfil their promise. But may I say this: that if the Government do fulfil their promise in this field of primary education we are all going to be astonished at the success that the children will show as they move on, and I doubt very much whether we shall find that we have a secondary school system suited to their needs unless we make haste in providing a comprehensive secondary system.
I would also say at the outset that I welcome very much the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, with its forthright condemnation of Circular 10/ 70. I have been involved in the service of education as a layman for a great many years now, and certainly since 1965

377
I have spent a very great deal of time with my local education authority, the Surrey County Council, as a member of its South Eastern Divisional Executive Committee, trying to draw up a scheme of secondary reorganisation in line with Circular 10/65. Perhaps we ought to remind ourselves exactly what it was that Circular 10/65 sought to achieve. First, it sought to end selection, and at least we have been so successful in persuading people that selection at the age of 11 ought to be abolished that the Party opposite now accept the fact that it ought to be ended. They no longer, officially at any rate, rise to defend it. They have recognised that it is faulty, and that it is something which ought to be rejected.
Secondly, Circular 10/65 called for the eleminiation of separatism in secondary education—and how right it was that this should be called for!For does not the very existence of these two types of secondary school introduce a divisive influence when we ought to be aiming at persuading young people that they are members of one community?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord when he is in full flow, but perhaps I may say that it is all very fine to talk like this, but it does not happen. In Aberdare they have been longing for a very long time to have comprehensive education, but there is not the money to do it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it does not happen: but it is happening. It is no use saying that it does not. I live in Surrey, where in point of fact only something like 15 per cent, of the child population are selected for admission to grammar schools. If anybody supposes that this is not a divisive influence, then I think he does not begin to understand what it is all about So long as we have grammar schools, parents will be inclined to think that there are two types of school, one first-class and the other second best. And may I add this? To talk of grammar schools co-existing with comprehensive schools in the same areas is a contradiction in terms, and educationally does not make sense.
LORD ABERDARE: It happens.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It does not happen. It is not a bit of use saying
378
that it happens merely because a school is called a comprehensive school. Unless the school is catering for the full ability range, unless it is catering for the complete social range, it is not truly a comprehensive school. Certainly it is not a comprehensive school if a certain type of child is selected for a separatist type of education. It is no use anybody kidding himself, or trying to kid the people generally, that a comprehensive system and a grammar system can co-exist. I should have thought that sufficient statistics were already available to persuade the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, even in her present brief stay at the Department, that this is so.
My Lords, what was the third thing that Circular 10/65 called for? It called upon local education authorities to plan a comprehensive secondary system. It recognised that there would be many local difficulties, in Aberdare or anywhere else; it did not close its eyes to the fact that it would take time; it did not close its eyes to the fact that these difficulties would have to be taken into account; and it urged consultation with teachers and consultation with parents. The important thing, in my view, that Circular 10/65 gave to education was a sense of direction; and it gave education a well-based sense of purpose—something that was very much called for. By 1967 it was clear that a small number of local authorities were going to be very non-co-operative. It was equally clear that they were going to be non-co-operative more on political grounds than on educational grounds.
May I say that in 1968—in the debate on the gracious Speech—and in 1969 I urged the importance of legislation. In 1969, I welcomed the promise of legislation. It seemed to me that unless you set targets you will not achieve nationwide educational progress. We have never implemented an Act of Parliament within the period of twelve months or two years; we have set targets and have been working forward steadily towards their achievement. It was hoped that we could, by persuasion, avoid legislation, that as a result of Circular 10/65 we could continue to work in the way we had been working, progressively moving forward. I must say that when I read the words in the gracious Speech on the subject of education, and more particularly when

379
I read the words of Circular 10/70. I remembered a saying that will be familiar to everybody in this House:
"Fine words butter no parsnips."
My Lords, all the fine words in the gracious Speech and all the fine words, all the gloss, put on by members from the opposite Party, in so far as the withdrawal of Circular 10/65 and the introduction of Circular 10/70 are concerned, cannot disguise the fact that Circular 10/70 represents a pandering to the more reactionary local education authorities in this country—the very authorities that need to be influenced, need to be cajoled, to make progress.
We are told that they are to have greater freedom. Freedom to do what? To be more reactionary than their neighbours? I live in an area where we have some very reactionary education authorities. I am this evening very conscious of the fact that they will take every possible advantage they can of this new circular, this new indication of policy, from the Department of Education and Science. I am much more concerned with the kind of freedom that we make available to children than that to local education authorities; the freedom to enjoy full and continuing educational opportunities. I believe it to be wrong that children should be penalised by the facts of geography; that because father happens to work and to live in a given area, they are denied opportunities—
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is exactly what the Party of noble Lords opposite are trying to do. In the last Education Bill they were trying to bring in provisions whereby everybody would be so "comprehensivised" that it would mean neighbourhood schools.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord made that point. It is something that I am coming to. Again I think it indicates that they have not thought out where they are going.
Let me say this on the question of neighbourhood schools—I intended to touch on the subject, because it has been raised in this debate. We have a large number of neighbourhood schools at present—they are called secondary modern schools—and I have not heard
380
one word of criticism from the Party opposite so far as they are concerned I suggest that if you want to get rid of neighbourhood schools you should recognise that the maintenance of small secondary modern schools is not the way to do it. In point of fact, if you can combine the schools of an area in a large unit, you can do a very great deal to avoid the weaknesses of the neighbourhood school. You can, by defining catchment areas, largely overcome many of these problems. Even where you cannot deal with it by defining catchment areas you can tackle it from the angle of recognising the handicap of home environment and giving extra and more favourable pupil-teacher ratios than in other areas. I see no problem that cannot be tackled successfully, given the will.
But if there is a determination to maintain a divisive system by those who believe in an élitist system, then these are not the people who are going to take the service of education forward and give the children of this country the kind of education and opportunity that they ought to have. That is the difficulty, it seems to me, with Circular 10/70: that it provides a bitter dish to be swallowed by the children who are going to be subject to the so-called freedom of the most reactionary elements in the administration of education. I hope very much that not only will the Government appreciate that they are acting in defiance of what supporters of the Labour movement think and of what people who support the Liberal Party say in this matter, but that they will recognise—it is true that not many days have passed; but it is already time that they recognised it—that many of their own supporters are gravely dissatisfied with the existing system.
My Lords, I have referred to the fact that I have been involved in discussions for the last five years. Since 1968 I have, as chairman of a divisional development committee, been involved in discussions in one small section of a division. We have had no fewer than 60 meetings and consultations with parents, with staff, with Governments. The overwhelming majority of parents want to go comprehensive. We have one small single-sex grammar school. The authority would have liked to merge it with another

381
secondary bilateral school not too far away. We were making progress. Tomorrow, when I go to the education committee of my county council there will be a tremendous clamour to put the clock back.
We were making progress. My county had made a declaration of intent—a most peculiar thing, a very vague thing. There was really no time limit within it for the achievement of reorganisation of secondary education within the county. All that we were committed to was to start going comprehensive in two areas in 1971—and this is six years after the publication of Circular 10/65!But gradually the county has been persuaded that it should go comprehensive. Slowly, steadily, ploddingly, we have been making progress. Circular 10/70 has encouraged all the reactionaries to shout at the top of their voices. I have referred to this small area within the division. We have a situation where a minority of parents, whose children attend the grammar school which is to be merged with a bilateral secondary school that offers regular opportunities in terms of equipment, are clamouring that the proposals that have been discussed at very great length—60 meetings in something like two years—should be put back, and I think that this is what has to be accepted. But the present Secretary of State for Education and Science has indeed injured the services of education. She has landed a blow that does not in any way help the children, particularly the children who are most in need; and I sincerely hope that there will be some further thought before more damage is done.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I cannot accept that that is so. I think he is a little extremist in his view.
LORD STRABOLGI: Not at all.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, has he read what was said yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend? Because there is no intention of going to any extremes, as he has put it. He obviously has some very long and pertinent experience of some particular area, which has been interesting, but over the country as a whole I do not agree with him at all.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I say that on one occasion, I well
382
recall, when I had the temerity to get up to put a point to the noble Lord, he told me that I had had my chance. I have no objection at all that he should interrupt me—none whatsoever. May I say this: I do not think that the Secretary of State for Education and Science understands what she has done and what is in danger of happening. It is not what she intends; it is the advantage that will be taken of the opportunity that has been extended.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I also add—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No !
BARONESS GAITS KELL: My Lords, I am sorry.
8.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I propose to make a few remarks about Northern Ireland—and after that last exchange I have the illusion of being in that country. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will not think that I am making a merely conventional disclaimer in saying that I will not follow him: because in fact I earn my living in education, and higher education particularly, and I was very interested in everything he said. I look forward on future occasions to doing some battle with him.
I want to make a few short remarks on a lighter topic than the North—commercial radio. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on the second day of the debate, asked the Government, and asked us all, rhetorically, what proposal could be more frivolous at the moment than the idea of commercial radio. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has given us his attitude about it. I imagine that it will be on a later occasion that we shall discuss commercial radio in detail. However, for the moment all I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—I hope he will read this—is that my experience of commercial radio in America is that it is not all that bad.
In Boston, where I lived and worked for some time, there were seven radio stations, all competing vigorously with each other, and not simply purveying "pop" music (which personally I happen to like, but that is neither here nor there) all the time. There was an extremely

383
interesting and democratic programme, which I think was called "Contact", in which ordinary people living in the area and involved in local issues would ring in to discuss the programme and exchange views with each other. That programme was so popular that the advertising rates on it were extremely high.
Universities in the area had their own radio station at certain hours of the day, and would put out classical music, discussions, talks on current affairs, programmes on the arts and so forth. I simply do not believe that commercial radio in this country is necessarily going to doom us to a sort of pan-"pop" culture in the Provinces indefinitely. As for the obviously difficult and worrying argument about local newspapers, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may have seen in the New Statesman of two weeks ago a letter pointing out that it seemed to the writer that all the local papers, as well as the national dailies in this country, were arch-Tories. Perhaps he might take comfort from the thought that local radio services would promote a less biased political angle.
My Lords, turning to the sadder topic of Northern Ireland, I do not want at this late hour to give my views. A rather autumnal air has come over the Chamber, relieved only—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord gets on to Northern Ireland, I wonder whether he, or anybody on the Government Front Bench, can give us any hope that if commercial local radio is developed in this country, the universities of Exeter, Leeds and Liverpool—to say nothing of the others—will be allowed to have their programmes on it, as is the case in the United States?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, obviously that is not a question that can be addressed to me, I share the noble Lord's hope—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Why only Leeds?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, while we are, in a way, on the subject of electronics, perhaps we might request that an extra microphone be put near the noble and learned Lord who sits
384
on the Woolsack so that we may all hear his asides, which are most fascinating and enjoyable.
My Lords, on two occasions in the past I have made a short speech about Northern Ireland. I am not going to read you my set speech giving my views on that subject; I am going to try to stick to a few possible proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, talked about (it was a good phrase) "reconciliation of conflicting interests". I want to add a footnote to it and talk about, "reconciliation of conflicting feelings", because it seems to me that before we can work out any programme of reform, before anything can be done in Northern Ireland, the tension must be got out of the atmosphere. It is no good someone coming up with an elaborate, or a simple, or even a brilliant, scheme at the moment, because the situation is simply too tense.
There was a time when to have an Ombudsman was thought to be the panacea for any form of local difficulty or ill. I am fairly suspicious of Ombudsmen, but I think that a few of them might possibly work in Northern Ireland; not, perhaps, because they could at the moment set any inhibitory action going, but because they would be a good target for legitimate grousing. Obviously, they would have to be non-sectarian or, rather, they might have to reflect some of the religious and political differences in that country. But I would ask the Government to consider whether a committee of four people might not be in charge of the Province for setting up Ombudsmen there, so that people in a state of extreme social tension could come and discuss their ills.
A great deal of these ills seem to me to be not entirely political, or even ethnic or religious, but cultural. We refer politely to Northern Ireland as a "Province" and one of the sadnesses of any country which is cut off from the political main stream of its geographical locale, and of the Island generally, is that it becomes provincial. I was brought up in Ulster, though on the wrong side—in Donegal. Derry was my local town though I should probably, in this Chamber, refer to it as Londonderry; and there is no doubt that a terrible provincial pall of unemployment and despair, and lack of interest, hung over it when I was a teenager. That

385
is some time ago, and though we all rightly deplore what has happened there recently, I cannot help feeling that if I were a young man in Londonderry now, I would enjoy it, in some curious way more than I did when I was 15—but that is a dangerous situation to be in.
I, of course, cannot share in the delight (and I am sure that your Lordships are with me) in the Orange Order as I have seen it operating in Londonderry. I will not speak of it outside that city because I have no experience of it there. I think that if I suggested to your Lordships that I myself wanted to start an anti-Wilber-force society which once a year would go into Brixton, or Wolverhampton, and wave banners and point out the excellencies of the slave trade, you would think me not only mad but bad as well. But this seems to me to be not all that distant from the gloating atmosphere of what is a rather extraordinary, and rather disturbing, cultural event which celebrates a victory which took place many years before over your immediately approximate neighbours.
I was interested in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester said in his speech. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Moyne and I who had a conversation here some time ago, I think it was in December of 1968, in which we were bandying the idea that the region of Holy City, the See City, of Armagh, might be taken out of Ireland, rather in the manner of an embassy or of the United Nations, and become a forum for a sort of pan-Irish debate which would edge Ireland towards a type of federalism. Whatever we think of Miss Devlin—and I think my own admiration for her is shared, to judge by a speech some time ago, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—she has an essentially non-sectarian mind. She has given a choice to that country very clearly that the solution of Ireland's ills, in her view, lies in a Pan-Irish Socialism. Not being a Socialist, I would not go along with that, but I do believe in a type of federalism. I would not accept—I insist on this point only—that those of us who have federalist leanings are anti-Border or anti the Protestant majority in the North.
I welcome the noble Lord's speech and his mention of the £75 million of aid. In my part of the country, in the Republic
386
of Ireland, politics are extremely obscure and it has taken me a certain number of years to master them. All I will tell your Lordships is that were I to stand for Parliament, holding the Tory views I hold, in my own County of Kildare I would have to stand as a Labour candidate. So I delight in congratulating the Government and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary particularly, in their extremely tactful handling of Dr. Hillery, who obviously annoyed and upset the Government, but they have shown a remarkably quick understanding of the complexities and difficulties of the present moderate and admirable régime in Dublin. It is nice to be able to end in congratulations.
May I add a penultimate note of warning? I know the difficulties of Ulster, but I know some of the Republicans and the attitude towards them. I would say that the Northern Ireland problem is going to be a lot more expensive than in my view the Government at present appear to realise—though perhaps they do realise this. I urge them, in making their Northern policy, to educate all of us, and the electorate particularly, to take them and Ireland itself into their confidence, to say what they are trying to do, how much it is going to cost and at what sort of speed they think they can manage to carry out their responsibilities—in short, to make the atmosphere less tense by making us realise that the essential needs of all the people in Ireland are what is really at issue in that country.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him (because I entirely agree with him about the anti-Wilberforce League) whether in his opinion it would make it more offensive—I think he would be less likely to join t, as I would—if in addition to the anti- Wilberforce banners, we had a waving of Union Jacks and portraits of the Queen?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point.
8.44 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton promised early in this debate a determined Opposition, such as has not been encountered before in your Lordships' House. That is a pleasure which I have to deny myself to-night, for I intend to follow the

387
previous speaker. I think that Northern Ireland is one subject on which we must at this juncture endeavour to be nonpartisan.
It is my duty as a journalist to go to Belfast from time to time and endeavour to interpret the situation. I am dependent on the advice of a number of wise men engaged in politics and upon my fellow journalists who are resident in Northern Ireland or who make regular extended visits there. May I say in passing that they have a most dangerous and disagreeable assignment. They would not like, I think, to be regarded as heroes. Reporters, and especially photographers, are in a calling which has its risks and they regard the reporting of riots as a duty not only to their newspaper but also to the general public. Perhaps it would not be out of place to put on record our recognition of the important role they are playing in providing the public with objective accounts of what is going on in Northern Ireland, accounts gathered in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Indeed, I know of a number of journalists who have received personal threats and intimidations, but they have gone on with the job. I can say this because it is not part of my job to cover the riots, only to look at the politics behind them. The only danger I have encountered in Northern Ireland has been its hospitality, which is as prodigal as that of the South. I should like to add that I am not trying to speak as an expert, which I am not, but with the humility of a fallible reporter.
I was in Belfast during the two days of the Home Secretary's visit, and I think that we should all appreciate how difficult his job was and remains and will remain. What were the immediate causes of the latest tragic riots? Why did the passions boil up again? These were the questions to which I sought answers. And I was told that one important cause was the General Election, the Westminster Election, with all the opportunities it gave of expressing traditionally vehement views. The results had their effect, too. They left no doubt in anybody's mind that many Protestants have moved towards extremism and are bitterly critical of the moderate Unionist Government at Stormont.
388
Inevitably the question was asked whether the Stormont Government, under the pressure of the extremists, including the extremists among its own supporters, would dare to complete its reforms and actually implement them. For example, would it really go ahead and achieve the local government reforms, without which the "one man, one vote" principle would be something of a mockery? Would a Conservative Government at Westminster be as insistent on reform as a Labour Government had been? Would the new Home Secretary be as determined as his predecessor had been?
Then Miss Devlin lost her application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. It was too easy then for simple and suspicious Catholics to believe that she had been prevented from going further because an English court would have let her off. Miss Devlin was arrested, whether wisely or unwisely I should not like to say, before she could carry out her intention of making a farewell speech to her friends in Bogside. Perhaps the authorities reasoned that after Miss Devlin made her speech, however philosophically resigned she might have been, and then gone off to prison, the people of Bogside would not have gone quietly to their homes that night but might have made some kind of disturbance.
It was in the atmosphere of Miss Devlin's arrest that the tragic riots of June 26 and 27 occurred. Five people were killed and of the 196 injured, 64 of them had gunshot wounds. Afterwards, on the eve of Mr. Maudling's visit, there was criticism of the role of the Army and of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Although the Army had threatened to shoot gunmen, it had, out of prudence and humanity I suspect, not carried out its threat. The R.U.C., now a civilian force, had a lesser role than it usually played. Was there not, people were asking, a dangerous gap between an Army hesitant to use its power and a police force which for excellent reasons had been deprived of some of its traditional arms and functions? My Lords, I am reporting the criticism, not endorsing it. But I imagine that the Home Secretary was presented with exactly these views during his visit. An hour or two after he left Belfast, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland told the Stormont Parliament that the Army would fire at

389
gunmen, and that new orders had been issued to subordinate commanders. The noble Ear, Lord Longford, asked whether there had been a change of policy. I suspect that there was not a change of policy, but that there was a practice change in the implementation of the policy.
My noble friend also drew attention to the damage done to people's homes; and, of course, an inquiry is going on into that. But what happened at that week-end? I should like to call attention to the words of the Belfast Telegraph, a newspaper which throughout these troubles has played a remarkably fair and constructive part. It said:
"A joint Army-police squad made a successful arms raid on a house in Balkan Street. Residents objected and within ten minutes enough buses and vehicles had been commandeered to seal off a wide area. The guns were out, End then the grenades. The Army had no alternative but to move swiftly and decisively. The soldiers had a specific job to do, to make a quick and thorough search for arms. They had not the time to go through the normal formalities, and after being shot at for hours on the streets, they had probably no inclination."
The new Home Secretary has wisely said in Northern Ireland, and also here, that the first necessity is to support the Northern Ireland Government in their programme of reform. He attaches the highest possible importance not only to the programme, but also to the continuing authority of the Stormont Government to carry it through. And, most important, he has accepted fully the development progamme. The desperate needs of this community, I am glad to say, will not be subject to the ideology of Selsdon. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has repeated Similar statements in this House to-day; and it will be necessary, I am sure, for the Home Secretary to go on saying these things time after time, as well as to continue to emphasise that the British Government will not allow the rule of the gun to triumph.
For the moment, however, there is this lull, and everybody is awaiting with dread the Orange processions on July 13. I am naturally sympathetic to the suggestion made by my noble friend, that they should be banned. But, of course, it is not a simple case. The first problem is that the ban might be defied, and in that event the task of the Army and the police might be even greater than if the processions
390
took place. Which is the less dangerous course is perhaps a judgment that can be made only by the Security Committee in Northern Ireland. The other danger of a ban is that it would undermine the authority of the Northern Ireland Government, which it is so essential to maintain, liven some of its moderate followers would in their present mood regard it as an act of appeasement to the Republicans.
I think it would be wrong to give up hope that the worst can yet be avoided in Northern Ireland. But what more can be done than is now being done? I put this question to a number of people, and they found it difficult to answer. But one or two of them did suggest that reasonable middle opinion could yet find more effective ways of expressing itself. There exist, I was told, businessmen and professional men, Catholic and Protestant, of strong personality, who are uncommitted to the political movements. The problem is to recruit them, and to give them a public task to do in which they could set an example to the communities.
One of the problems of Northern Ireland is that the charisma is on the side of the extremists. And one of the dangers of the current situation is that moderation appears to be a losing force. Moderate Protestants have seen no reward, in terms of communal peace, for the reforms they have set in train: the Catholics seem to them to be unchanged. The Catholics themselves feel no sense of gratitude, since they have yet to feel the effects of the reforms; and they also believe that these reforms were forced on an unregenerate Unionist Government by the British Government. And, of course, the riots reinforce extremist attitudes on both sides
I met people who said that the silent majority who want peace and a fair settlement is ebbing away. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, shares this view. He said in a broadcast a few days ago:
"Only a silent minority exists in most areas of Northern Ireland."
My Lords, whether it is a majority or a minority, it must be rallied. I share the hopes that some day, as my noble friend has suggested, there will be a

391
Coalition Government in Northern Ireland—though I must say that I am less optimistic than he is. I think that sometimes he is the victim of his own virtues, and imagines that the good will he brings into politics is a common phenomenon. It is not; and certainly it is not in Northern Ireland at this moment. If anybody wants proof of that, let him read the Hansard of the Stormont Parliament in the marathon debate they had just before their Adjournment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords perhaps I might interrupt the noble Lord. He described me, really, as a man of excessive good will, and therefore of slight fatuity. May I put to him that he has yet to unfold his own solution? I hope that before closing his remarks he will give us some idea. I have put forward one suggestion, but he has not yet put forward any.
LORD ARDWICK: I am wholly in sympathy with the suggestion that the noble Earl has made. I just doubt whether at this moment, or at any moment foreseeable in the near future, there is any possibility of such a Coalition existing. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, that the situation is so desperate that all the conditions for a civil war are there, and perhaps only the presence of the British Army, backed by a firm Government, can prevent it from breaking out.
8.58 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this third day of our debate on the Motion for an Address in reply to the Queen's Speech, so ably moved and seconded by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, has ranged very widely indeed over the whole field of home and social affairs. Before turning at this late hour to some of the issues raised in the gracious Speech, and referring also to some of the notable omissions, I should like first to offer my personal congratulations to both Ministers who have spoken in this debate to-day, and also to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, who will be speaking shortly.
Although I naturally deplore the events that led to their appointment, I certainly know something of the heavy responsibilities
392
that they will now carry for services which affect the wellbeing of every citizen, and particularly some of the most vulnerable groups in our society. It is not for me to comment on the comfort of the Woolsack—my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is far more qualified than I am to do that—but I know from my own experience that neither the Home Office nor the Department of Health and Social Security are soft seats. Indeed, they are by their very nature, I suppose, crisis prone. But both are, to my mind, great Departments of State which, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, quite rightly pointed out at the outset of our debate, considerably affect the social climate of the country generally, and the administration of the social services in particular. I hope the whole House will join with me in deprecating the unfortunate allegations that were made in the Election campaign about the integrity of the Civil Service within the Departments. May I also take this opportunity of thanking those noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who made kind and over-generous remarks about the way I carried out my recent responsibilities in government in relation to the Health Service. It was a great privilege and an immense experience to be closely associated with the Service and to work with those who were devoted to promoting its development.
Perhaps it will set the minds of the House at rest if I say straightaway that I do not intend to speak about Northern Ireland this evening. So many noble Lords have made such informed, humane and compassionate speeches, and such notable speeches—particularly the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick—that I feel quite unable to add to what has already been said on this vital subject. Nor do I intend to add to the comments that have already been made about certain aspects of Home Office affairs, particularly in relation to the Police Service and our overcrowded prison system. I would rather try to confine myself to the aspects of the Queen's Speech which concerned general social policy and the development of our social services.
For me the gracious Speech was really remarkable for the paucity of the new

393
proposals that it put forward in this field. There was, admittedly, a general reference at the outset to the social services as a whole, but I am afraid, having read it carefully, I found that it took us very little further in our knowledge of the Government's firm intentions in this important field. I listened with great care yesterday to the most thoughtful and enjoyable speech from the Paymaster General, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who expressed some admirable sentiments on the generality of social policy, but we were not very much wiser when he finished on how the Government intended to achieve those objectives. With the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, however, I was delighted to hear his generous tributes to his distinguished predecessor and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the Chairman of the Arts Council, in which we all join. It is good to know that he intends to continue and extend the policies of the previous Administration. I am sure that his words yesterday will reassure all those who are concerned, both in the development of the Arts and in the enjoyment of the Arts, both professional and amateur.
Turning now to some of the specific proposals, I would point out that, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, reminded us, some are the continuation of measures already in existence, or already in the process of legislation in the last Parliament. I was very surprised indeed to find that the Government apparently do not intend to reintroduce the Misuse of Drugs Bill, which did not complete all its stages in the last Parliament. This is surely one of the most urgent problems affecting young people to-day, and may well prove to be the most crucial social problem in the 'seventies. The House will remember the excellent debate we had on this subject just over a year ago on the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, now the Leader of the House On that occasion there was, I believe, general agreement on the need to revise the existing laws on this subject, which have developed piecemeal and are not sufficiently flexible to meet the present situation and the constantly changing drug scene. Although we all know that control is only one part of the problem, it is, nevertheless, all noble Lords will agree, a very important part of the concerted medical and social measures we
394
need to undertake to prevent drug misuse and to treat and rehabilitate those who become dependent on addictive drugs. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be saying a word on this aspect of Government policy. I cannot believe that this was a real omission as it is a very much needed measure.
I would also warmly welcome the new Government's decision to continue the programme of assistance through the 75 per cent. grants to local authorities under the Local Government Grant Social Needs Bill. This has already been of considerable benefit in tackling the great problems in certain urban areas. It has provided much-needed day nurseries, nursery schools and play groups for the under fives in socially deprived areas, including—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has always taken a close interest in this subject—an extensive scheme of financial assistance for voluntary play groups and the appointment of play leaders.
I hope the assurance we have received through the gracious Speech about the continuation of these programmes also means that the Government intend to continue the community development projects that were associated with them. We need to learn much more about the ways and means of how to deal positively with the multiple problems that are experienced in areas of serious social need by promoting self-help projects, breaking down the isolation and deprivation, and by improving the enviroment and quality of life in them generally.
We have heard mention during the debate to-day of particular measures that the Government have already introduced relating to pensions for younger widows, the constant attendance allowance for the severely disabled, which we all welcome, and the intention to continue with the transfer of the education of mentally handicapped children from the Health to the Education Department. These Bills, we are glad to see, have already been presented, and again are an example of the continuation of existing policies which I referred to earlier. There is no need for me to comment further at this stage on these particular proposals, except to join with my noble friend Lord Shackle-ton in deprecating the fact that the Government have jettisoned the great earnings-related pensions scheme. We on

395
this side of the House regarded it as an essential reform in our existing social insurance provisions if we were to abolish poverty in old age. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has put forward his Party's proposals in this field, and I have no doubt we shall argue about this matter further when the appropriate time comes.
I do not intend to discuss in full and in detail the measures outlined in relation to education, except to endorse the views so forcefully and so admirably expressed by my noble friends Lady Gaitskell and Lord Garnsworthy on the perpetuation of selection in secondary education and the absence of national policy in this sphere. Several of those who have taken part in this debate have commented on the instant action—I would say the instant unfortunate action—which the Secretary of State for Education and Science has chosen to take in this matter. To my mind, the much-slated Circular 10/70 will have as much impact on the development in our primary schools in the future as it will in our secondary schools.
I have never quite understood why those who are prepared to continue selection at age 11, however carefully devised and applied, fail to see the effect that this has on the whole ethos of the primary school itself, and the extent to which it is bound to distort the curriculum. Much as I welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to improving primary education—which presumably means better buildings, smaller classes, more teachers and more modern equipment—I am still not quite clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said to-night whether this is to be achieved by new money or whether additional money is to be made available to local education authorities for this purpose. Or is it to come from secondary or higher education budgets; and, if so, from which?
May I now turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, reminded us had been remarked on at the very outset of our debate on the gracious Speech; namely, the most remarkable omission of all. I was very surprised indeed not to hear some few words about the Government's future policy in relation to the National Health Service, which is surely one of the greatest social services of all. I fully appreciate that the new Government
396
will take a little lime to consider the fundamental question of the future organisation and administration of the Service, alongside their policy for the reorganisation of local government, now that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government have been abandoned. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that they are giving this matter early attention. It is of extreme importance that staff should be not kept indefinitely in a state of anxiety.
In yesterday's debate the noble Lord. Lord Cottesloe, who made some very kind remarks about my work in the field of health—remarks which I value, although I am afraid that I differ from him on the way in which we should effect change in the Health Service—suggested to the House that all we need to do now is to develop better co-ordination between the three existing parts of the National Health Service. I thought that in the recent debate we had in this House on the second Green Paper presented by the previous Administration there was almost unanimous agreement on the need to integrate the present tripartite structure if we are to meet the health needs of all sections of the community more effectively. It is now, I believe, generally admitted on all sides that the 1946 Act reflected the then existing historical pattern of a three-part system, each with its own administrative structure and method of financing, each with its own separate source of finance; and that this fragmentation of responsibility militates against the modern concept of medical care as we know it to-day, centred on the family doctor working in the community with the community health team. I do not myself believe that closer co-ordination (which I believe was the word used earlier to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare) alone can now overcome these basic difficulties which have tended to separate family doctors from the hospital service and to burden our highly developed, highly specialised hospital services with responsibility for caring for those who could and should be cared for in the community.
My Lords, it is not my intention to-night to rehearse every detail of the argument for change, or to recapitulate the carefully thought out plans for a fully

397
integrated Health Service, outside a reformed local government structure but co-terminous with and closely linked to it through cross-membership in order to achieve greater local participation in the day-to-day running of the Service. One recognises and accepts the difficulties involved in major changes of this kind, and one is conscious of all the uncertainties which it could inevitably create in staff; but in the series of active consultations that was in full flood following the publication of the second Green Paper until they were halted during the General Election period, I believe we were making considerable progress in refining and in clarifying some of the areas of that second Green Paper; and I am confident that most of the fears expressed by the noble Lords in our earlier debates on this subject could have been effectively overcome I am glad that the Government are giving this matter their early attention, especially as the plans of the Labour Government were closely interlocked with the proposals in relation to the reorganisation of the personal social services, which was the subject of legislation before Parliament was prorogued. That process of change has already begun and it is surely of crucial importance to see that changes in the Health Service go side by side with it.
While the Government are thinking about their plans for the future of the Service, the country, and indeed the Service, itself, is surely entitled to know more about their immediate policies on urgent matters such as the hospital building programme, which was doubled by the last Administration; on the development of health centres, where there has been massive progress in the last six years. For example, do they intend to continue the rolling building programme so that the Service can rid itself of its Victorian inheritance? Do they intend to encourage local authorities by never refusing loan sanction for the building of health centres in which our doctors can work with the ancillary health and welfare staff who are needed as members of the team? We should also like to know whether the Conservative promise in their Election Manifesto to reduce public expenditure will not be at the expense of the Health Service.
There is one other aspect of the Health Service which I had hoped to hear mentioned
398
in the gracious Speech. It was an aspect that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, in his interesting speech, namely, the policy of the Government towards services for the mentally handicapped. All of us would agree that in the past these services have been deprived of their fair share of resources and have now fallen below what most of us would regard as acceptable in a society as highly developed as ours. During this last year we had started a process of bringing help to our understaffed and overcrowded long-stay hospitals and had also undertaken a fundamental re-examination both of existing institutions and of the need to develop new patterns of care for the future. Details were contained in a policy statement which was almost ready for publication. I believe this is not an issue which is going to divide us on political lines and I hope the new Government will go forward and will try to break down the public apathy in this field. This, surely, is where we can encourage the public through voluntary work and voluntary participation in our long-stay hospitals, to assist the staff with some of their problems. I believe my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State for Social Services did more than any other Minister to increase public concern in these services, and I hope this Government will feel able to give a similar lead in this matter.
The subject of doctors' pay has been so threshed around in this three-day debate, both here and in another place, that I was not inclined to mention it. I was glad to hear the statement from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the new Government had managed to find a face-saving formula. It is my belief that not all doctors are as self-seeking or indeed even as militant as their leaders sometimes try to make out. I deeply regret the fact that this important matter became the subject of political differences during the General Election campaign. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned developments needed in relation to our nursing services. I would remind him that nurses, too, are interested in their pay, and when the Government come to make this very difficult decision about the pay award in the light of the Kindersley recommendations I am sure that they will bear in mind that there are

399
other professions in the National Health Service—nurses, professions supplementary to medicine, ancillary staff of all kinds, and administrators as well as doctors—and they will have to find a balance in what we know to be a very difficult situation.
May I conclude by saying this. I am afraid that in spite of the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, towards the end of his speech to-day, that the Government have a clear and well thought out social policy, I myself find difficulty in seeing it. I have already indicated that most of the practical measures that are in the Queen's Speech are measures that were already in train before this Government took office. It is not enough simply to care, however great that concern may be. A coherent social policy needs a capacity to identify needs, to determine objectives, to allocate resources and to develop services to meet those needs. In our increasingly complex society such activities, to my mind, require very sophisticated tools of measurement, and no Government did more than the previous one to create the machinery and add to our knowledge in this field. We look forward to the results of the family expenditure survey and to the survey on handicapped people, the first of its kind ever undertaken. This Government, I am glad to say, will have a factual inheritance and a machinery for on-going assessment of need which I hope they will conserve and develop, in order that we can have well-based and well-founded social policies and social services in the future.
So far—and I appreciate that this is early days yet—the only doctrine that one has been able to discover in Conservative social policy, from all the words that have been spoken, is a series of differing interpretations on the theory of selectivity as opposed to our long-established policy of providing universal social services, with positive discrimination within them to assist those in greatest need. These are the policies which to my mind have always lain at the very heart of Socialist thinking.
Concluding, if I may, with an illustration from the Health Service, to me its cardinal feature, both to-day and ever since its inception, has been that the
400
patient can choose the doctor he wants rather than the one he can afford to pay for, and that generally at a moment of crisis and of great need; and, just as important, the doctor is completely free to decide what medical treatment is needed in the best interests of the patient on medical grounds alone.
Selectivity, I am afraid, carries overtones of deterrence. We on these Benches, I can assure noble Lords opposite, will wait and watch for the emergence of the new Government's policy on the health and social services. It has certainly not done so in the gracious Speech, and we will scrutinise carefully and, if necessary, vigorously oppose any proposal that abrogates or undermines the right of the individual citizen in regard to the medical care he needs, or any reduction in the social services which have been built up so slowly and so painfully throughout the years.
9.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I see that my name is next on the list, and the moment which I have been somewhat dreading for three days has ultimately arrived. I thought that I heard my noble friend Lord Eccles, in a speech which commended itself to many quarters in the House, describe his speech as almost a maiden. Well, when my surprise had subsided at hearing an old and valued colleague describe as a matter of degree something which I had always considered to be a question of principle, I asked myself how exactly my own contribution would 9tand, and I thought it depended upon the solution of a question of law which, happily, does not fall to the duty of a Lord Chancellor to decide: whether a maidenhood attaches to the Peerage or to the person. What I feel certain of, however, is that the degree of indulgence which is commonly attached to maidens is probably justly desired by myself. If I may cite the precedent of the prodigal son, having wasted his substance in a far country—at the end of the corridor—he ultimately returned to his father's house, and was welcomed with music and dancing. I would not ask your Lordships to go quite so far as that. I ask only for a reasonable measure of indulgence.
Clearly, I must begin by acknowledging with gratitude the kindly welcome

401
that I have so far received. I mention in particular (but only because they are still fresh in my mind) the generous words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, my immediate predecessor. Perhaps he will allow me to say that I do not know of any recent Lord Chancellor who has made a greater impact, or has a more wide or general respect among lawyers of every kind—and lawyers, of course, are of many kinds. I hope to take up the work of law reform at the moment at which he left it off, and I think he can rest assured that, so far as departmental duties which attach to me are concerned, I shall endeavour to carry on the tradition which has attached to this Office for many years—that of being, at any rate in some of its aspects, outside the range of Party political controversy.
The noble and learned Lord asked me a number of specific questions, some of which I may be able to answer. The Orders which he laid on May 28 have, technically, been withdrawn; but the policy is accepted, and the Orders will be re-laid in a slightly amended form, amended only for technical reasons and in order to save administrative expense and time. The erosion of the Legal Aid Scheme which they were designed to remedy will be remedied in broadly the same way.
I wish I could say exactly the same about the £25 scheme, but of course since that will cost £1½ million of public money it will have to take its place with the general review of public expenditure which is taking place. I think I can say, without either disloyalty to my colleagues or impertinence to the noble and learned Lord, that, of all the schemes which I have seen to fill an admitted need, it is the one which most attracts me personally.
The noble and learned Lord also asked me about Beeching. Yes: I think we shall have a Bill by October. Like the noble and learned Lord, I see no reason why we should not. No doubt I shall be proved wrong, but I shall do my best to prove myself right in the event. He then raised the more delicate topic of the Animals Bill. This is a very difficult subject, because all lawyers think one thing about animals (and I am, in my own funny way, a lawyer), but all farmers think the opposite; and the crux
402
of the Animals Bill is whether we can get it through the House of Commons in time. I do not think it will have much difficulty in this House, but at the moment I am in discussion with my colleagues, and I cannot take the matter further at the present time. May I say, in parenthesis, because it comes logically at this point, that the noble Baroness whose attractive speech we have just listened to with such admiration, asked me about the Misuse of Drugs Bill. I think she will see that it has been reintroduced into the House of Commons either to-day or yesterday, and although no doubt it will be amended in Committee, at any rate it is on its worthy way towards the Statute Book.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked a number of other interesting questions about land registration, Ordnance Survey maps and Parliamentary draftsmen, and I was extremely grateful to him, because I did not know about all this learning. However, he can rest assured that at any rate I am a solid supporter of land registration in all its forms. Indeed, I supported it in the best way possible: in the happy days when I was a landowner in Hailsham I registered all my titles, and I think that everybody should do the same. I shall endeavour to give this matter my full attention. What he said about Parliamentary draftsmen seemed to me to be absolutely admirable, but I do not really know what will come of it all. I may not be any more successful than apparently he was.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel that I have dealt with at any rate the majority of the questions he raised, and any others I shall certainly endeavour to deal with when my omission is pointed out to me. But leaving him aside, I fancy that as a result of three days debate I have enough material here for about 3½ hours of speaking, and therefore the problem in front of me is one of selection rather than of performance. What I have decided to do, I hope with the approval of the House, is that over the very large number of subjects which do not affect my own departmental responsibilities I shall try to see that the Departments concerned identify the questions which have been asked, and try to make them form the subject of letters to individual noble Lords who have raised the questions. I do not want

403
to pre-empt decisions which will be announced in another place by the Ministers concerned, nor do I want to preempt questions about which I have no personal detailed knowledge. But I shall try to do what I can to see that questions are answered in the best way possible. That leaves me with the gracious Speech itself and the Address.
I do not want to take up an enormous amount of your Lordships' time, and, quite obviously, if I dealt even with the controversial items, the economy, Northern Ireland, education, regional policy, and matters of this sort, I should take up too much of it. Therefore I want to go back, if I may, to some extent to fundamentals and to ask what we hope this Parliament will achieve and, perhaps more modestly, what part we in this House can hope to play in that achievement. My noble friend Lord O'Neill, in a speech of great weight when he opened the debate, began by saying that he hoped that this Parliament would be a turning point in our history. I venture to share that hope and I do so for a particular reason.
Noble Lords, particularly those members of the Party who happened to be unsuccessful in the recent Election, have greatly criticised the way in which the Election was fought and the issues which were then discussed. I can claim this, at least, as an advantage in reply to this debate: I think I am the only Peer in this House who actually fought the Election as a candidate, and won it by an increased majority. Each noble Lord who has embarked upon controversy has said that he did not want to fight the Election again, and has then proceeded to do so. I shall not wholly do so myself, but I should like to tell your Lordships exactly why I think it went the way it did, what I said at the time and what I shall try to do in this Parliament in support of what I said.
Why should this Parliament be a turning point? I read only this week in the French periodical, Paris Match, an appreciation of the situation of this country in the words of the well-known French commentator, Raymond Cartier. Although I did not go the whole way with what he was saying, I thought his diagnosis had something of value for all of us. He pointed out the dangers which
404
attached to a country which has walked the way of greatness and then suddenly finds the sources of its greatness taken away. He reminded us of Spain after the glories of the South American discoveries had withered. He reminded us of France after the defeat of Napoleon. He spoke of the disintegration morally of the Weimar Republic; and there were other historical analogies which he drew. He said that this is the situation in which Britain now finds herself, and I felt that that was true.
When I was a boy—and may I say in passing how much I was touched by the noble and learned Lord's reference to my father—this country depended for its immense prosperity and prestige upon a number of material factors which are now no longer with us and which will never come back again. There was the gold currency. My father went to his chambers in the morning not with a case full of paper in his pocket, but with a sovereign case full of gold. There was the industrial primacy. There was the two-Power Navy which rendered this country virtually invulnerable—a matter which we may be discussing on Tuesday. There was, of course, the Empire—a quarter of the earth's surface and a quarter of the world's population ruled directly from Whitehall. I do not think we should be ashamed of these things. On the contrary, without them we should not have defeated the Kaiser's Germany and we should not have defeated Hitler's Germany. Those were two benefits which at great cost and great sorrow to ourselves we gave to the world and which the world has never, I think, at this stage fully acknowledged. But those factors will never come back again. They have left us and we must look to something else.
Here we are in this country, more of us than there have ever been before, enjoying a standard of life—whatever we may say in the course of Party politics—which 99 human beings out of 100 who have ever lived on this planet would have given their eyes to share, and dependent as never before upon the goodwill of the world in peace and in war; dangerously concentrated in a few urban centres, perfect targets for modern military technology of which, unfortunately, the nuclear range is only one of the types of weapon available. And here we are

405
wishing not only to continue but to improve our material standard of life, in a world utterly different from that upon which our former prosperity was founded. Surely in this Parliament we must ask the question on what lines we propose to do so.
It may be that we are mistaken, those of us who form the majority Party in the House of Commons and perhaps in this House, but we have a prescription, and during this Parliament we want that prescription discussed—no more. We want it discussed: and I would venture to put that prescription on three propositions, If in fact we can no longer depend upon the quantity of our wealth, upon the size of our military power or upon mere numbers, where must we look? Surely it must be to quality—quality in the whole range of our activities; the pursuit of excellence. Does it include material things? Of course it does. It includes skill and draftsmanship; it includes management; it includes thrift; it includes industry, and it includes the solid, hard work that the great majority of us manage to attract to our serious endeavours. It also includes the immaterial things.
It includes the standards which we have built over the centuries; it includes representative government; it includes the English language, now the second language of half the world and the first language of many other nations; it includes the English law, the only system of jurisprudence, after the Roman, which has affected the history of mankind; and it includes our inventiveness. I was greatly heartened when, at the end of the article to which I have referred, the French commentator said these words—and I quote from memory, and in English:
"Britain is the most inventive country in the Western World, and if she does not develop, if she does not produce more, if her industry' is stagnant, it is only an internal weakness, it is only the weakness of her own will which keeps her back. She does not produce more because she does not choose to produce more."
My Lords, if that be true it is at once humiliating and encouraging: humiliating because we have only ourselves to blame, but encouraging because we can put it right, without a doubt and without a question. If we therefore put quality first in all our endeavours, that is the
406
first of the prescriptions to which I would attract your Lordships' attention.
The second prescription is something of a dilemma. We live in a democracy. We live in a democracy where, surely, the greatest number counts; where, surely, equality, not quality, is the order of the day—majority rule. How can we reconcile the demands and the ideals of democracy, to which we are all devoted, with the prescription of quality to which I have referred? Again, we want it discussed. But the answer I would venture to give to your Lordships is this: that we can do so by the protection of minorities; by freedom—freedom for individuals and freedom for minorities. We must free them from the trammels of the desire or the unconscious power of the great masses of organised human beings to obliterate individuality and freedom. Can we not manage, in this Parliament, to set cur course towards that?
Who are the minorities? Well, there is the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, certainly. There are, the immigrants, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, referred. But there are also other minorities. There are the skilled, there are the enterprising; there are the professional classes, some of whom find their lives being impossibly drab as the result of the pressure of events and the great powers in the modem State. Surely we are all members of minorities in one way or another; and if we espouse the cause of minorities, we are really espousing, each in his own case, his or her own cause.
The third thing I would say is this—again a question. If we are to encourage diversity in a society largely concerned with collectivist enterprises and philosophy, how can we manage at the same time to emphasise the unity of the nation? Because that, after all, was also mentioned, if not in the Gracious Speech at least in the recent utterances of the Prime Minister. The answer must surely be in law. In recent years "law" has sometimes become almost a dirty word, and "order" a still dirtier one. But surely freedom under the law is the protection of the rights of the minority in every case. If they cannot rely upon law they will be defeated by force. If they

407
cannot appeal to the courts, and to general rules promulgated in advance of some kind of durability and justice, they will ultimately be obliterated by violence or by arbitrary rule, each of which ultimately reaches the same thing.
That brings me, of course, to some of the more controversial matters in this debate, one of which is Northern Ireland—controversial because it is controversial, but not at this stage—and I hope it will remain not at any stage—controversial in the Party spirit; because I think that both Mr. Callaghan and I went to considerable trouble with our own Parties to avoid a partisan conflict in this field. I certainly felt, and I think that he also felt (although there was no connivance or collusion between us in this sense) that the very worst contribution we could make to our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland would be to reproduce the 1912 situation. There were some people who urged us to do so. There were some people who urged us to take steps which would have had the effect of doing so even if we had not so intended. But each in his own way sought to move the country behind two central principles of policy, without both of which we could not have succeeded.
The first was that we should recognise that we would stand by what was after all the Attlee declaration of 1949, that no change should be made in the Constitution of Northern Ireland without the consent of Northern Ireland. The second was that we would not tolerate second-class citizenship within the United Kingdom. Our problem now is to persuade both parties of the truth of both those principles. It is very easy for people to accept one and not the other. It is easy for people to think that one and not the other will be embodied in the policies of different Parties in this country with different traditions and different ways of expressing things.
I do not for a moment say that had I been in Mr. Callaghan's shoes in the last four years I would have played the hand in exactly the same way. This would have been asking too much. It would be asking too much from Mr. Callaghan that he should expect that my right honourable friend in the lower place would play the hand exactly as he played it. But what I feel certain of is that our objectives are
408
identical. It may be that it suited the ethos and the outlook, and perhaps the composition, of the Labour Party to appear as if they were pressing the Unionist Government. It certainly will suit us better if we can persuade people that we are really behind the Unionist Government in what the Unionist leaders, and the best of them, are really proposing to do. But the end is the same: to create a just society within the framework of the United Kingdom.
Recent events, obviously, call for very considerable moderation of language on my part. I shall try to show it. And may I say, in passing, what a privilege it was to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in his remarks on the subject? His father was a brother officer of mine in the Middle East during the war, and no one mourned his loss more than those who knew him. Now that I have heard his son I know what a valuable addition he is to your Lordships' counsels, expressing as he does an unusual Protestant point of view from a citizen of—I do not know whether he is both a citizen of the United Kingdom and of the Republic, or of which he is. But I listened with great pleasure to what he said.
I am not going to pursue the question of a Coalition; I do not think that we must play the Parliamentary game two or three hands in advance. The only thing I would say at the moment is that we have to support the Unionist Government in the reforms which they propose, and our troops in Northern Ireland in the difficult and unenviable task which they have had allotted to them. Last year they got into trouble with the Protestants; this year they may be in trouble with the Roman Catholics. I believe them to be the protectors of both, impartial towards both; and with one end only in view, which is to pursue the course of justice and order in this troubled society. I may perhaps be forgiven for a personal confession. Honoured as I am to occupy this ancient Office that I now do, I had harboured the hope at one time that it might have fallen to my lot to make a small contribution to the peace and happiness of the land of my fathers; but I can assure your Lordships that, as it has not fallen out that way, I shall do my best to help in any way which it is open to me to do.

409
My Lords, I turn to the more controversial subject, in a Party sense, the question of the economy. It has been much debated in your Lordships' House whether there is a crisis or whether there is no crisis; and that of course depends, as my old friend and opponent, Dr. Joad, would have said, on what you mean by crisis. Well, my Lords, I can only say this in the short remarks that I want to make at the close of your Lordships' debate.
What I found when I was addressing the electorate, some three weeks or a month ago, was that they were much impressed by the question which I used to ask them: Why did the former Prime Minister go to the country in June when he could have gone in October? Why did he drop 13 major Government Bills, some of which we have now heard (for instance, from the noble Baroness who has just addressed the House) were of great importance, like the Pensions Bill? Why, after six years of Labour Government, did he choose the height of the hay harvest, with 800,000 voters on holiday deprived of their votes—as a matter of fact by a vote in the other place of the Labour Party? Surely because he could not afford to wait; because he believed that in October the situation would not be so favourable. And why—if the situation is so rosy after six years of a Socialist paradise—should it not be so favourable in October? Surely because of the explosion of prices and the unrestrained rise in wages.
Surely we have—all of us, whatever our political convictions may be—to face one or two rather unpleasant facts about this country, and this I take (again from memory) from the article to which I referred earlier in my speech:
"From now onward and not counting Japan, the gross national product of Great Britain has been passed by Western Germany and France, and if things remain as they are, they will soon be passed by Italy. In 1960 Great Britain was the third economic Power in the world, after the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1980 she will be the seventh. If one considers production per head the balance sheet is even more dramatic. Britain comes fourteenth, a long way behind Sweden or Switzerland. One can foresee the moment when the British worker will produce three times less wealth than the Continental worker. For ten years now the rate of increase of the British economy has scarcely reached 2·5 per cent. against 5 per cent. of the Economic Community. Not
410
only is it not getting better. It is getting worse. From October, 1969, to March, 1970, the rate of growth has been 1 per cent. with still further reductions, in mining, metal-working and the car industry. The wage of the English worker has already fallen below that of the German worker and the French. It will soon fall below that of the Italian."
These are surely considerations which give us no grounds for complacency, and whether one chooses to talk in terms of crisis or of determined effort to make a new start in various directions, surely one must arrive at the same conclusion—that things cannot be allowed to go on as they are.
That brings me to the controversial subject of industrial relations. Here, although I listened With immense respect to the trade union contributions earlier in the debate, I would venture to make this reflection as a lawyer. The idea that trade union legislation is desired simply for the purpose of stopping unofficial strikes or of "clobbering" the unions or of pursuing some private vendetta is one which does not bear examination for a moment. At the beginning of the 19th century there were in British social life two classes of bodies, neither of which was admitted by the Common Law: there was the limited liability company and there was the trade union. The limited liability company was illegal because the Common Law did not permit a limited partnership. Everybody had to pay to the utmost farthing of his possessions if he indulged in trade for profit. The union was illegal because it was a conspiracy in the restraint of trade.
Owing to the particular political philosophy of the time, successive Parliaments smiled on the limited company and frowned on the trade union. The limited company was given a Companies Act, a corporate personality; it was registered, provided with a court and given a code of rules. Everybody knew where he stood. The duties of directors, shareholders, public, creditors, were all defined. It was not part of the criminal law, except in the unlikely event—although it sometimes happens—of the directors making away with the funds. It was part of the civil law, like the law of tort, the law of contract and the law of divorce. There was no question of penalties. It was a framework of rules in which companies could thrive—and they throve.

411
But the reverse happened in the case of the trade unions. I have studied every piece of trade union legislation since 1871 down to the rather shabby little Act of 1965, which reversed Rookes v. Barnard. Every one has this common characteristic: it provides little in the way of general guidance as to the rights of individuals, whether the public or the member or the union or its officers. There is no prescription as to the rules, no court and no code. Those Acts provide not for a rule of law, but for the law of the jungle. Anybody who knows the terms of the great textbook on trade unionism, written by a close relative of the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, will know that what I am saying is no more than truth. Each successive Act of Parliament consists of no more than an ad hoc reversal of a decision of the courts.
What we have set out in the field of trade union law is a set of proposals designed to remedy that; to make the law and Parliament smile on trade unions as it smiled on the limited company, which we believe will have the same results. It will not be part of the criminal code but part of the civil code. We do not believe that people will disobey its provisions. There is nothing in them which has not been tried elsewhere. They may not have been, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, said, universally successful, but they have been tried elsewhere, not merely, in the United States, but very largely in the Socialist paradise of Sweden, where the rate of strikes is about one-sixth or one-seventh of what it is now in this country. Why should we not have a go at introducing into the field of trade union law the kind of coherence that we have already introduced into company law?
Obviously, our proposals are on the table. They will be brought forward. They will, if we can persuade Parliament, be carried. But they are not put forward with the idea of steam-rollering them through without discussion with the parties concerned, or with Parliament. If Parliament is to make a new start, surely this is one of the matters that must be tackled. The last Government tried to tackle it. They would have tackled it had they not been overborne by the almost insensate conservatism (a word which I very much like) on the
412
part of the trade union group in the House of Commons. Why should we not try a new line of country, which at any rate, in my submission to the House, has an enormous chance of success?
There are two other matters about which I should like to say something. The first is regional policy, which has been the subject of debate, and the other is about educational policy. The great lesson to be learned from regional policy, which I thought was established by the speech of my noble friend Lord Sandford last night, is that you cannot run a regional policy of any worth against the background of a bad national economic policy. He established figures, completely uncontradicted, which showed the complete lack and loss of job availability, the steady rise of unemployment, despite the determined and no doubt sincere efforts of the Labour Government to provide jobs in the development areas.
When I went to the North-East in 1963, I went with a somewhat different philosophy. We both had the same objective, which was to make the North-East blossom anew. I was not suggesting, and never would suggest, that those in the Party opposed to my own are not inspired by objectives equally desirable as those which inspired me. But there were two things which I sought to achieve which I do not think they have sought to achieve. I concentrated my resources where I believed they would succeed, and I believed that the fertility and prosperity of the region would be better served by Government pursuing its age-long objectives of improving communications—ports, airports, railways and roads—and improving amenities, schools, and houses, than they would be by the straightforward provision of money for jobs. I think the statistics which have been developed prove that thesis to have been, broadly speaking, right.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred just now to the fact that the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, were uncontradicted. I should not want him to think that they are incapable of being interpreted in a more meaningful way. And, if I may say so with the deepest respect—we are fascinated by the noble and learned Lord's speech—he should

413
not think that some of his propositions will also go uncontradicted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall look with great interest and anticipation to the debates that we shall have on this and other subjects. But at the moment I am simply bringing my own remarks on the gracious Speech to their conclusion.
Before I sit down, I want to say a word or two about the subject of education. I really do think that some of the charges which have been made about education policy not only have been ill-founded but have also been based upon a misunderstanding of the difference between the Parties in this respect. I myself have never mounted a wholehearted campaign against purpose-designed comprehensive schools. On the other hand, I have contended, and shall continue to contend, that schools designed for a different purpose, sometimes separated by two, three, four or five miles from one another, cannot suddenly be brigaded together under the pretence that they are single schools. This is nonsense; it is educational nonsense, administrative nonsense, and it is done for sheer political dogma I do not pretend that I find the comprehensive system attractive. I personally think that the purpose-designed comprehensive school is much too large a unit to which to introduce a child of 11. That may be wrong, but it is a view which I do not believe to be either contemptible or reactionary.
If I had remained the Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1964—as I believe would have been the case had the Election of that year gone differently—I sincerely believe that this problem would no longer have been a real one. I had made up my mind that the first thing to do was to improve the primary system, which, incidentally, in its characteristics is comprehensive in the true sense of the word. I would have raised the age of transfer to 12 or 13, thus getting rid of the 11-plus in its entirety as the Plowden Committee recommended. Secondly I would have encouraged parents to state in terms, once the school-leaving age had been raised (which by that time had been promised for a year earlier than will now happen), whether they wanted their child to have a four-year or five-year course. It is no
414
good the noble Baronsss, Lady Gaitskell, whose speech I listened to with great attention and interest, saying that she wants grammar school education for all, when the great majority of people in this country are going to have a four-year course for some years to come: because a four-year course from the age of 12 is not grammar school education as I understand it. The first thing to do is to ascertain what the parents want.
I believe that if, instead of using words like "grammar school" or "secondary modern school", which carry emotional overtones, parents had been asked whether they wanted a four-year course or a five-year course, it would have been found that a great number of them would have sorted themselves out, without compulsion from a local authority or central Government. I am bound to say this, too: one of the defects of grammar school education has been not that it is grammar school education with a five-year course, but that it has catered for the first 20 or 30 per cent., rather than the first 40 per cent., of the community. If I had to ask myself whether a child in the band of ordinary ability had a better chance at a good purpose-designed secondary modern school, or comprehensive school compared with a grammar school, I think I would opt for one of the former, because it gives him a chance of the enormous educational advantages of social responsibility at the top of his school community at the time when he reaches a maturity capable of enjoying it. Under the other system he is inevitably dominated by the class of person who is a year older and probably more talented.
These are matters, surely, which local authorities can be trusted, to discuss—it is not self-evident that the needs of communities are identical; it is not self evident that hastily put together plans, based on a dogmatic assertion of the superiority of comprehensive education, are wise plans. All we have done is to withdraw the Circular. We have abandoned the policy of the preceding Government. We have not laid down anything more dogmatic than simply that we want to look at the subject again in the light of our general predilection in favour of freedom.
I am afraid that I have spoken to your Lordships too long, so I will end on this

415
short note. We want to restore the self-confidence of this country more than anything else, and we know how to do it. The details will obviously emerge during our detailed debates in the coming Session. Surely we have some grounds for our assertion, if we are short of investment, as noble Lords have said, that profitability is perhaps the best incentive to investment. Surely we are right to say that consumer choice is some help towards efficiency in industry. Surely we are right to say, if we are asked where we are going to find the money for reduced taxation, that if people only recovered confidence in the value of their own money by controlling the price inflation we could save instead of taxing the people. We could put an end to surplus budgeting and there is a thousand million pounds to be had for the asking, without any diminution of Government expenditure whatever, by any Chancellor of the Exchequer who can inspire the British people with confidence in their own pound sterling.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chalfont, who appears not to be in his place, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.
Moved, that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday next.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  SCIENTOLOGY INQUIRY REPORT
  SCIENTOLOGY INQUIRY REPORT