Sitting of 3 March 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

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

HERR WILLI BRANDT
Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if I remind the House that the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Herr Willi Brandt, is being received in the Royal Gallery at 3.45 p.m. today and will be addressing Members of both Houses.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered.
  To be read the Third time.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 12th March.

  YORKSHIRE DERWENT WATER BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th March, at Seven o'clock.

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 12th March.

  CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the adjourned debate on Second Reading of Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill be resumed on Thursday 5th March.—[Mr. Rossi.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Return ordered,
  containing an Epitome of the Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts, 1938 to 1969, and of the Treasury Minutes thereon, with an Index for the period 1857–1969.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Rent Control
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses are currently subject to rent control legislation; and what proportion these represent of all private rented houses and of the total housing stock, respectively.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): The number of tenancies in England and Wales at December, 1969, subject to rent control is estimated at rather more than 1,300,000. On the basis of provisional estimates, this is about 40 per cent. of the total of all privately rented tenancies and less than 8 per cent. of the total housing stock.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that rent control bears a major responsibility for the continuing scandal of inadequate housing?
    Hon. Members: Nonsense!
    Mr. Biffen: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proposals he has to break the stranglehold of rent control by facilitating an extension of the fair rent provisions?
    Mr. Howell: All the evidence coming to my Department is that rent control is absolutely essential in the interests of large numbers of people who would otherwise be unable to afford decent accommodation.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Tories lifted rent control in 1957 things got a hell of a lot worse? Will he see to it that he does not do anything to lift controls?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is quite right. The first thing that this Government did was to repeal the notorious Brooke Rent Act, and the Opposition did not vote against its repeal.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is that figure of 1,300,000 the controlled rents compared with the fair rents, or does this include regulated rents? If not, would the Minister break the figure down? Would he like to hazard a guess as to the national total by which controlled rents fell below fair rents and consequently the amount by which we are losing out on repair and maintenance of our national stock of houses?
    Mr. Howell: I would require a lot of time to answer all the points in the hon. Gentleman's question. I think there are 1,200,000 rent-regulated tenancies included in the numbers I have given the House.

    Council House Subsidies
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the percentage difference in the cost of building council houses in the South-West and the South-East of England which is taken into account by his Department in assessing eligibility for subsidy; when this percentage difference calculated.
    was last changed; and how it is
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The South-West Region qualifies for a 6 per cent. addition to the yardsticks compared with 10 per cent. for the South-
    236
    East Region. The regional variations, which were last changed in April, 1969, are based upon a comparative analysis of tender prices.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that this figure does not square with the experience of many local authorities, particularly in Cornwall, which are getting a subsidy of substantially less than 100 per cent. of the cost of supplying new council houses? This is having a catastrophic effect on the rents of new council houses, which very few potential tenants can afford.
    Mr. Freeson: I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he suggesting that there is not a difference along the lines I have suggested between the South-West and the South-East? I think that he should check his facts a little more carefully before pursuing this point. On the general level of cost, the yardsticks are the subject of review at the present time.

    Council House Loans (Interest)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the average rate of interest, after the payment of the Government subsidy, paid by all local authorities in England and Wales on money borrowed for council housebuilding in 1969.
    Mr. Freeson: Under the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 the average rate of interest on council house building in 1969 was, in effect, 4 per cent. Additional subsidies for high building and expensive sites were also paid in many cases.
    Mr. Pardoe: I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the extremely high interest rates, does he realise that many councils are having to pay rates substantially higher than 4 per cent?
    Mr. Freeson: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has, again, not checked his facts correctly. I said, in effect, that all new house building in 1969 was held at a level of 4 per cent. by way of the subsidy system which we are now operating.

    Biggleswade (Sewerage Scheme)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to approve the sewerage

    237
    scheme recently submitted by the Biggles-wade Rural District Council in Mid-Bedfordshire.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): An engineering inspector is to visit the area on 10th March to investigate the council's scheme for Arlesey, Stotfold and neighbouring parishes, and I shall give my decision as soon as possible after I receive the report. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the decision letter.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that this is at least some cause for welcome in the area? The pollution of this part of the River Ouse is now giving cause for serious concern because of the delay with these essential schemes, and will he try to hurry up the decision?
    Mr. Greenwood: Pollution is a matter of great concern, but I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, although we have been in discussion with the council for some considerable time, we had the last piece of information from it only on 9th February, and the fixing of the meeting with the inspector has taken place as quickly as possible after that.

    Tendering
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the results achieved by Circular 79 of 1967 advising local authorities on the shortcomings of open tendering.
    Mr. Freeson: There has been a marked reduction in open competitive tendering since selective tendering was commended to authorities in 1964, and this has continued since the issue of Circular 79/67. By the second quarter of 1969 the proportion of dwellings covered by schemes placed in open competition was only 12·7 per cent.
    Mr. Boyden: Will my hon. Friend say how many local authorities are inhibited by their standing orders from undertaking tenders not in open competition?
    Mr. Freeson: That information is not available to me, but I hope that the influence of the circular will continue and that the local authorities which are not operating this policy will increasingly switch over to what we have commended to them.

    Local Housing Authorities (Cost-effectiveness)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will publish statistics on the relative cost-effectiveness of the local authorities in building council houses.
    Mr. Freeson: Complete information on relative cost-effectiveness as between local housing authorities is not available. But local authorities can get some measure of their performance by comparing their tender prices with the regional housing cost yardsticks.
    Mr. Boyden: Will my hon. Friend's Department do something about the particularly expensive house building by local authorities?
    Mr. Freeson: One difficulty relates to the time span experienced by local authorities in getting major contracts completed, as many of the schemes are much larger than those undertaken by firms constructing houses for owner-occupation. Our regional officers are pursuing this matter regularly with local authorities. If my hon. Friend has particular cases which he would like to put to us, we shall be glad to investigate them.

    Mortgage Repayments
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT for each of the last 10 years the monthly repayments required for an 80 per cent. mortgage taken out for an average-priced new house in each year, allowing for changes in mortgage interest rates during this period.
    Mr. Freeson: I will, with permission, list the table of figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Speed: I am grateful to the Minister, but is not it a fact that a man who is earning an average industrial wage cannot qualify for such a building society mortgage because of record high prices and interest rates?
    Mr. Freeson: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong on this score. Although I am unable to quote exact figures, there has been a considerable increase in the rate of owner-occupation in recent years.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister publish, with those figures, comparative figures for European countries? Will not those figures show that the relative interest rates in Great Britain compared with other countries have been lower under the Labour Government than under Tory Governments?
    Mr. Freeson: That is perfectly correct. Whatever difficulties we are experiencing here, and there are undoubted difficulties, the figures extant in this country compare favourably, to a degree, with those in other countries. What is more, the rate of reduction in the house-building programmes in other countries has been much greater than in this country during the past year.
    Following is the information:

    Monthly repayments on 80 per cent. advance over 25 years

    Interest Rate

    Purchase Price£

    Gross

    Net of Tax Relief*

    Year

    per cent.

    approx.

    £

    s.

    £

    s.

    1959

    5½

    2,430

    12

    2

    9

    8

    1960

    6

    2,555

    13

    6

    10

    5

    1961

    6½

    2,810

    15

    7

    11

    14

    1962

    6½

    3,005

    16

    8

    12

    10

    1963

    6

    3,195

    16

    13

    12

    16

    1964

    6

    3,433

    17

    18

    13

    15

    1965

    6¾

    3,768

    21

    1

    15

    13

    1966

    7⅛

    4,030

    23

    6

    17

    3

    1967

    7⅛

    4,283

    24

    16

    18

    5

    1968

    7⅝

    4,499

    27

    4

    19

    17

    1969

    8½

    4,775

    31

    2

    22

    8

    * Tax relief has been computed for the first year of the mortgage based on earned income taxed at the standard rate.

    Council Houses (Sales)
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many council houses have been sold in each of the past three years.
    Mr. Greenwood: The numbers of council houses sold in the past three years are as follows:

    1967,

    …

    …

    …

    3, 200

    1968

    …

    …

    …

    8,571

    1969

    …

    …

    …

    7,521

    Mr. Speed: How does the Minister equate the restriction on council house sales with the Government's avowed intention of giving more responsibility to local authorities?
    Mr. Greenwood: This is a matter which involves national policies, and we have throughout made it quite clear that the discretion we want local authorities
    240
    to operate must be subject to over-riding national considerations. We have the very strongest policy objections, as a Government, to paying out subsidy on houses which will then be disposed of.
    Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that many of his hon. Friends feel that the figures which he has given are far too high, especially in relation to the sale of council houses in areas of great housing need such as Liverpool and Birmingham? Should not the Government act vigorously to ensure that there should be no sale of council houses in areas where there is a great need for houses?
    Mr. Greenwood: The figures are certainly higher than I would want. On the other hand, there are cases where it is justifiable on pure management grounds for there to be a disposal of council houses. It would be quite wrong to place on the Department the too heavy administrative burden which would be placed upon it if we took the powers asked for by my hon. Friend. But I am sympathetic to his point of view.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the progress of the review of housing finance that his Department is undertaking.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will announce the result of his Departmental inquiries into housing finance.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the progress of his current review of housing finance.
    Mr. Greenwood: The comprehensive review of housing finance has reached an advanced stage, but it will be some time before it is completed.
    Mr. Walker: Before completion of the review, will the Minister make a statement about local authorities such as Birmingham which, on houses built in 1967 and 1968, rather than being subsidised down to 4 per cent. rate of interest, are now paying more than 6 per cent. rate of interest?
    Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentlemen's facts are right, this is no doubt a matter which can be pursued in one of our numerous debates on this subject. I think it will be better to see what the review of housing finance says before I anticipate what action I am likely to take in the light of that review.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the review give special consideration to local authorities which have a large number of loans to convert, which will inevitably involve them in heavy financial burdens?
    Mr. Greenwood: This is a very great problem, and I think that the review will deal with it adequately.

    Rent Schemes
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent schemes proposed by local authorities were rejected by him between July 1968 and December 1969; and how many of these schemes that were rejected contained proposals involving an average rent increase of less than 7s. 6d. per week.
    Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend rejected 229 proposals for rent increases, 205 of which involved average increases of less than 7s. 6d. a week.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will the Minister tell us, first, whether any of these applications came from the City of Liverpool and, secondly, why he considers it necessary to interfere in the attempts of democratically-elected local authorities to balance their housing accounts?
    Mr. Howell: None of the rejected applications involved the City of Liverpool. It is quite clear from the debate on the Rent (Control of Increases) Bill that it is still necessary to stop some local authorities which do not need to make rent increases from doing so.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Hull the Tory council is putting up the rents of old-age pensioners from 25s. to nearly £4 for a single. bedroomed house? Is he able to do anything about that?
    Mr. Howell: If the circumstances are as my hon. Friend suggests, an application would certainly have to come before my right hon. Friend, and it would be unlikely to be acceptable.

    Birmingham Overspill
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when an announcement will be made on the outcome of the public inquiry into Birmingham's overspill proposals.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The proposals of the Birmingham City Council were called in by my right hon. Friend on 11th February 1969, and the public local inquiry into nearly 600 objections was completed in November. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the inspector's report in April. Whilst he fully appreciates the need for an early decision on these important proposals, it is equally important that they should receive the detailed consideration they deserve.
    Mr. Dance: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the anxiety of many of my constituents in North Worcestershire about these proposals? I hope that a decision will be reached fairly soon.
    Mr. Howell: We shall certainly bear all that in mind, but the hon. Gentleman would want us to reach the right decision and have time to do so.

    Housing Programme
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a further statement on the house-building programme for 1970.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his revised estimate of the number of new dwellings to be built during 1970.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a further statement on the 1970 house-building programme.
    Mr. Greenwood: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 3rd February to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and Harborough (Mr. Farr)—[Vol. 795, c. 200–2.]
    Mr. Morrison: Is there any truth in the reports that the Government are

    243
    about to introduce a 100 per cent. mortgage scheme as advocated by this side of the House for the last three years?
    Mr. Greenwood: Local authorities for a long time have had the power to introduce 100 per cent. mortgages, and the Housing Act 1967 further helped them in that direction.
    Mr. Allaun: Are the Government now considering restoring the full £195 million a year loans to local authorities to grant mortgages? Surely they could be afforded now, since they are Government loans, not grants?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Government progress in restoring the economy of the country. However, we ought to wait a little longer before making any announcement about the extension of a new loans scheme, although I would like to do so.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the decline in the number of approvals recently given for local authority housing.
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied with the number of new houses started during January 1970; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is concerned over the decline in the level of local authority housing contracts and starts. I am visiting 20 or more priority area authorities to press for increased building, slum clearance and general improvement area programmes.
    Mr. Morrison: What increases in the cost of local authority land for housing have occurred over the last two years?
    Mr. Freeson: I could not give the figure offhand, but there has been considerable help by Government to local authorities which have to buy land at high cost by way of expensive site sub-stales. Therefore, there is no reason why local authorities which are having to pay market prices for land should hold back on house building. They are being assisted to a greater level than ever before by Government subsidy.
    Mr. Roebuck: Could my hon. Friend say whether he has had any success in
    244
    persuading Conservative-controlled local authorities to ignore the advice given to them by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) to the effect that they ought not to build council houses for all sorts of seemingly good purposes? In particular, will he see whether he can bring the Conservative-controlled Borough of Harrow to a better understanding of its responsibilities? Is he aware that the council put out no tenders for house building in 1969?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware that the Harrow Council did not put out any tenders during 1969. So far I regret to say it has refused to meet me to discuss the housing situation in Harrow. I regret to say that there are still far too many councils among those I have visited, as well as others, which are unnecessarily and quite wrongly cutting back on their house building programme no doubt encouraged by spokesmen, and indeed leading spokesmen, on the other side of the House.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the misquotation that both he and the Prime Minister have used I made it perfectly clear that we want many more council houses built for good social purposes? But what we also want is that existing tenants of council houses should be allowed to buy them.
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman cannot wriggle out of this one. He has stated on a number of occasions—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Walker: Quote me.
    Mr. Freeson: I will—that there should be a curb on council house building, and I am quoting. The hon. Gentleman and other Members on the other side of the House have been busy in this place and in other places seeking to discourage local authorities from building houses. They cannot have it both ways. Are we to have from them a call for a reduction by half in council house building, as was our experience under the Conservative Government, at the same time as they were calling for an increased slum clearance programme?

    Planning and Development (Compensation)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the progress

    245
    he has made in his consideration of the memorandum submitted to him by the Chartered Land Societies on the question of the provision of compensation in planning and development cases.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I refer the hon. Member to what I said during the debate on the Second Reading of the Planning Blight and Worsenment Bill on Friday, 27th February.
    Mr. Lane: While the modest steps announced on Friday are welcome, will the hon. Gentleman remember the many thousands of individuals who are suffering mental anxiety and financial hardship because of compensation problems? Will he pursue this matter with high priority so that the Government may make an announcement about further steps in weeks rather than months?
    Mr. Howell: I do not think I can add anything only four days after a major whole-day debate on this matter in the House in which I was told by the Opposition that I took too long in stating the Government's policy.

    Surplus Houses
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the number of surplus houses which will be available by 1973.
    Mr. Greenwood: The overall numerical surplus of houses over households in 1973 is still expected to be of the order of 1 million, but I cannot stress too emphatically that this surplus will not be evenly spread throughout the country and that shortages and bad housing, as I have repeatedly said, will persist in some areas.
    Mr. Rossi: Is there any connection between the answer the Minister has just given and the fact that he has declinied to accept from me a Question about the number of homeless families? Is he washing his hands of the plight of homeless families by saying that it is the responsibility of another Department?
    Mr. Greenwood: That is a most unworthy remark. The Question was transferred because in the terms in which it was drafted it was considered to be more appropriately a matter within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that the Conservative Party in Liverpool says that there will be a surplus of council houses by 1972, but that at the same time the Conservative Party, both in Liverpool and in the country as a whole, is saying that the Government's housing policy has failed? Would my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that we could not possibly have a surplus by 1972, and that the Conservatives are using this as an excuse not to go ahead with a proper building programme of council houses in an area like Liverpool which badly needs them?
    Mr. Greenwood: Certainly in conurbations like Merseyside shortage and bad housing will continue for some time to come, even though slum clearance is being carried out. One can only deduce from the fact that so many Conservative authorities are stopping their housing programmes that they regard the problem in their areas as already solved.

    Publicly-owned Land (Sale to Private Developers)
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the sale by local authorities of publicly-owned land purchased for council housing to private developers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend's consent is already required if the land was purchased compulsorily and not subsequently appropriated or is being offered for sale at less than market value. Local authorities wishing to sell lend should act in accordance with circulars 48 of 1959 and 57 of 1966, and, in particular, they must satisfy themselves that the land is, in fact, surplus to requirements. Apart from these considerations, decisions to put forward proposals for land acquisition or disposal must be taken by a local authority having regard to local needs. It would not be appropriate for such decisions to be subject to further Government scrutiny.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that a particular plot of land in my constituency was bought out of revenue by a Labour council and that a Tory Government refused to give permission to this far-seeing measure designed

    247
    to meet housing needs in that city? Is it not a deplorable state of affairs that the Tory council is now cutting down on the building of houses needed for slum clearance?
    Mr. Howell: I am not aware of that, and if the facts are as stated I would have a great deal of sympathy. It is a matter that should be decided at the polls.
    Sir G. Nabarro: But would the hon. Gentleman turn the coin on the other side and deprecate local authorities which remain gorged with unwanted land that they hang on to indefinitely?
    Mr. Howell: There is very little evidence that that is occurring in our great conurbations where there are tremendous housing needs.

    Kingston-upon-Hull (Rent Rebate Scheme)
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what guidance his Department gave to the Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation in introducing its proposed rents rebate scheme.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The corporation, along with other local authorities, was given general advice in Circular 46/67, which set out the principles on which sound rent rebate schemes might be based.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that this new rent rebate scheme introduced by a Tory council is associated with one of the most vicious increases in rents introduced by any Tory council in the country? It will have a terrible effect on the low-wage-earning community and its effects will also be felt in industrial relations and wage demands. Will my hon. Friend look at cases of housing being subject to reletting?
    Mr. Howell: If it is as vicious as my hon. Friend says, it will have to come to us for approval and it would be wrong for me to say anything about the matter now. But I emphasise, as I said on the previous Question, that all these undesirable trends should be dealt with at the local elections and should be clearly stated by my hon. Friends in Hull.

    Public Parks, London
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now received proposals from the Greater London Council for the allocation of public parks between the Greater London Council and the London borough councils.
    Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir. A scheme was submitted by the Greater London Council last October, and I am now considering it.
    Mr. Moyle: Would my right hon Friend bear in mind during his considerations that there is no general desire on the part of inhabitants of London to have their public parks mucked around with by the Greater London Council, and also that employees' negotiating machinery and excellent training schemes should be maintained for the future.
    Mr. Greenwood: I have received many representations from a wide-based section of the population, including sports organisations, trade unions and other bodies representing workers involved in this matter. I think that my hon. Friend will realise that until I have had discussions with the G.L.C. and the London boroughs it is difficult to make any pronouncement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Can the Minister indicate how long he expects the consultations to take and when he anticipates being able to make an announcement?
    Mr. Greenwood: This is a complicated problem, and we have not yet started discussions. But I realise the need for as rapid a decision as is consistent with the proper handling of it in order to remove the uncertainty which is hanging over the people employed.

    Common Land (Registration)
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made with the registration of land under the Commons Registration Act 1965.
    Mr. Denis Howell: On 2nd January, 1970, when the period for applications expired, over 13,700 areas in England and Wales had been registered as common or green and there were over 2,100

    249
    outstanding applications for registration of land. Some authorities need further time to deal with the outstanding applications. My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales accordingly propose to make regulations extending until 31st July, 1970, the period within which registrations may be made.
    Mr. Lyon: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the total known area of common land these figures represent? If there is a considerable percentage left where no application has been made, will it not be a serious matter and should not some attempt be made to extend the advertising about it?
    Mr. Howell: It is impossible to give the percentage. We are confident that in the additional time now being allowed all the registrations that we or the authorities have under consideration can be effectively made.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister agree that it is a complicated matter and that there are many people who should register property who do not understand the procedures? During the extended period, on which I congratulate him, will he do his utmost to make certain that the regulations and the procedures are understood by those who should register, as they are not understood in a large part of the rural area?
    Mr. Howell: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and to my hon. Friend for drawing this matter to our attention. I will have it examined and take action, if necessary.

    Conservation Areas
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement on the Government's policy towards the studies in conservation of the four towns, particularly Lord Esher's report on York.
    Mr. Greenwood: The conservation reports on York, Bath, Chichester and Chester have been studied by the Preservation Policy Group, under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Kennet. The group is now preparing its report. I hope to make a statement shortly.
    Mr. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of celebrating Conservation Year would be to make a small amount available to each of these four cities as a trial experiment in the conservation of historic centres? Will he confer with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning and also with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the announcement, when it is made, is highly favourable?
    Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend will realise that I share his close personal interest in York. I do not think that these problems could be in better hands than those of the Preservation Policy Group. I have no doubt that my noble Friend, Lord Kennet, and his colleagues will have in mind the various financial considerations to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

    Coastal Oil Pollution
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made recently in setting up machinery for dealing with coastal pollution by oil; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Greenwood: As was said on 18th November in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), there is now a series of interlocking schemes of organisation round the coast to deal with beach pollution. Some local authorities have been reviewing their schemes in the light of detailed suggestions we sent to them last August. Another recent development is an arrangement by which oil companies can take the lead in dealing with pollution arising from a spillage of their products.
    Mrs. Short: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that the destruction of one of our most precious resources —the coastline—and the effect that oil pollution is having on plants and animal habitats should be dealt with most stringently? While welcoming also what he said about local authorities, may I ask whether he thinks that much tougher steps should be taken to prevent the discharge of oil into the sea in the first place?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that one of the most important things is to have the right machinery for dealing with oil pollution when it occurs. There has been a substantial improvement over the last year. However, I agree about the importance of this matter, and I hope that hon. Members will study the report published a day or two ago by the Countryside Commission on the need for protecting the coastline.
    Sir S. McAdden: Will the Minister tell us whatever happened to the interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southend, East about a reward of £1,000 being offered for information leading to the discovery of those who are guilty of dumping oil in coastal waters, which was promised careful consideration?
    Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman will send me the £1,000 I will be responsible for the advertisement.

    Committee on Sewage Disposal
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on Sewage Disposal.
    Mr. Greenwood: I understand that the working party is considering a draft for signature, and I hope to receive its report in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the report does not deal with the specific problem of London sewage disposal, it will cause grave anxiety? Is he further aware that the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council has plans in my constituency to deposit sewage sludge on open land within 300 yards of the Thamesmead housing development? This is quite outrageous. Will my right hon. Friend do something about it?
    Mr. Greenwood: I should certainly be surprised if the report did not deal with the subject of pollution of the River Thames.
    I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), who has been chairing this working party, which has worked extremely quickly and thoroughly. I believe that the report will
    252
    be most valuable and will, I think please my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Chataway: Even before receiving the report, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing Circular 64/68, which has done so much to inhibit anti-pollution measures in rivers?
    Mr. Greenwood: I could not possibly do that at this stage. It is wiser to wait for the report. Various considerations are involved. It would be unwise now to give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING

    Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what progress is being made towards setting up a national body to co-ordinate efforts to control pollution of the environment.
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will now announce the names of the Chairman and members of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning when he hopes to complete his negotiations for setting up a national body to co-ordinate efforts to control pollution of the environment.
    The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): As far as outside advice is concerned, I would refer my hon. Friends to the Prime Minister's announcement on 17th February of the membership of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The commission held its first meeting on 25th February. As far as co-ordination by the Government is concerned, good progress is being made with the creation of a central unit responsible directly to me.
    Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time that the Royal

    253
    Commission reports, let alone by the time that any recommendations that it makes may be enacted, thousands of tons of pollution will have been deposited on the country? Can we be assured that there will be quick action on this?
    Mr. Crosland: Certainly we shall not wait for the Royal Commission to report before taking action. Action is going on continuously, as evidenced by the recent developments in terms of oil pollution, pesticides, organochlorines, and so on. My hon. Friend need have no fear that all action will await a report of the Royal Commission.
    Mr. Atkinsons: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the people appointed to serve on the Royal Commission are most distinguished but that if we are to find a solution to most pollution problems it will be found in engineering? In view of that, will he have another look at the composition of the Royal Commission with a view to appointing two further members from the ranks of our most eminent engineers?
    Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend has made a most interesting and important suggestion. I will take it into account very carefully when I come to consider either additions to or changes in the membership of the commission.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that we are the first modern State to attempt a co-ordinated attack on the problem and that, therefore, the Government are to be congratulated on their initiative? As for the Royal Commission, is there not a case for having at least someone under 40 on it, and certainly a woman?
    Mr. Crosland: I considered with the greatest possible care the question of a young man, possibly like my hon. Friend, the question of a woman, the question of an additional Welshman, the question of a Co-operator, and all the questions which are familiar to any Minister who has to appoint a commission. At the end of the day, I think that we have an extremely good commission.
    My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is almost the first country, despite all the excellent, but piecemeal and fragmented work which has gone on, which has set up machinery to enable it to take an overall co-ordinated view.
    Mr. Chataway: The Minister will be aware that the United States appointed such central machinery some time ago. Can he say how many scientific advisers, male or female, he has appointed so far to his Central Anti-Pollution Unit?
    Mr. Crosland: The Central Anti Pollution Unit is now in course of being built up. I would not like to give a figure at this moment as people are being taken on continuously.
    As for the United States, I must make it clear that, whatever the machinery, this country has been far in advance of the United States in almost every antipollution activity.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if, in view of the effect of air pollution on weather and climate, he will arrange for the Meteorological Office to publish the results of its research into this matter to date; and if he will ensure that it is laid before the Royal Commission on Environment.
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. The results of current research by the Meteorological Office on these matters will be published in the normal way and will be available to the Royal Commission.

    Northern Economic Planning Council (Letter)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning whether the Northern Economic Planning Council has now received a reply from the Sunderland County Borough Council to the council's letter of 10th December, 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State (Mr. T. W. Urwin): Yes, Sir, and there are to be detailed discussions between the planning council and the county borough council of joint action to stimulate local interest in industrial training.
    Mr. Willey: While I welcome the progress being made, can my hon. Friend say whether a date has been fixed for an exhibition and whether he has taken any steps to encourage the co-operation of industrialists and trade unionists in this way?
    Mr. Urwin: There is no date yet fixed. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the helpful suggestion which he made on 3rd February concerning the participation of employers and trade unionists will be taken into account by the officials arranging these discussions.

    Regional Economic Planning Councils
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will strengthen the regional economic planning councils to enable them to prepare more comprehensive development plans for their regions.
    Mr. Crosland: As the White Paper on Local Government Reform in England made clear, I want to enable the economic planning councils, in co-operation with local government, now to carry their work forward towards the development of firmer regional plans, and I have already started discussions to this end. I do not think that it would be practicable or desirable to change the basic composition of the councils at the present time.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real need for more staff to get on with the detailed work which it is necessary to have more than the perhaps valuable outline plans that we have had so far?
    Mr. Crosland: I agree with the basic objective, which is one of great urgency. I have already discussed it with the chairmen of all the councils, and I propose now to discuss it with the local authority associations to try to advance the matter rapidly.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that the Northern Economic Planning Council is in difficulty at the moment because it does not have a chairman? Is he taking any action to appoint a new chairman to the council?
    Mr. Crosland: I have asked the deputy chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council to act as chairman, and I know that he will prove to be an extremely effective chairman during this period.

    Education (Metropolitan Authorities)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and
    256
    Regional Planning whether he will publish the evidence which has led him to allocate responsibility for primary and secondary education to the upper-tier metropolitan authorities.
    Mr. Crosland: The Government took this decision on their own judgment of the merits, after weighing all the relevant arguments. The decision has been widely welcomed in the education world.
    Mr. Brooks: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it has not been universally welcomed and that the metropolitan districts which are now to lose this all-important function, contrary to the intentions of Seebohm and Maud, in many cases are larger than some States represented at the United Nations. If he presses ahead with his proposal, may I inform him that many of us in Wirral may be tempted to declare U.D.I.?
    Mr. Crosland: That is a declaration which will gravely alarm both sides of the House. But, as to the substance as opposed to the sinister threats in my hon. Friend's question, I agree that it has not been universally welcomed. I chose my words carefully in saying that it had been widely welcomed in the education world—by the N.U.T., for instance. I think it is fair to say that it has been welcomed by most hon. Members in this House who have an interest in education matters. As for my hon. Friend's point about the implications for the size of the metropolitan districts, his next Question has a bearing on that.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning whether, in the light of his decision to make education the responsibility of metropolitan regional authorities, he will agree to divide the proposed South Merseyside Metropolitan District into two separate units.
    Mr. Crosland: I can assure my hon. Friend that, unless U.D.I. is declared by this time, our consultations with local authorities on metropolitan districts will cover the pattern as well as detailed boundaries. I shall not reach a final conclusion on South Merseyside until these consultations are complete.
    Mr. Brooks: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the flexibility which he

    257
    clearly envisages, will he recall that Mr. Senior has referred specifically to this area as one now meriting division? This is an urgent matter, in view of the need to know the future structure in the light of the implementation of the Seebohm Report.
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. But when we discuss metropolitan districts we have to remember that, even though they will not now be education authorities, they will remain housing authorities and social services authorities. They must be of a size to carry out those functions effectively. Nevertheless, I do not rule out what my hon. Friend suggests in advance of the consultations.

    HEADS OF COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENTS (MEETINGS)
    Ql. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for future meetings with Heads of Commonwealth Governments.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Commonwealth Secretary-General announced last Saturday that the next Meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government would be held in Singapore in January, 1971.
    Mr. Marten: While greatly welcoming the news and also wishing the conference every success, may I ask the Prime Minister to emphasise at that meeting that Britain would deplore any steps which would weaken the threads which bind the Commonwealth together, particularly in our negotiations to get into the Common Market and also in our defence responsibilities with the Commonwealth?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the Common Market will be fully discussed, as indeed has happened on past occasions.
    Concerning defence policies, there has been a productive Commonwealth conference since the Government's decision on east of Suez, and I cannot recall very much in the way of any Commonwealth view against the Government's policy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that, so far as our information enables us to judge, some of the Commonwealth countries are bound
    258
    to be at a disadvantage if we decide to enter the Common Market. Will my right hon. Friend let us have another White Paper on that subject?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will recall that these matters were raised and dealt with in the debate on the Common Market last week. He will also be aware of what we have said about vital Commonwealth interests in the White Paper governing the basis on which we shall approach these negotiations.
    My right hon. Friend will further be aware that some Commonwealth countries in both East and West Africa have been making their own association with the Common Market in terms which have meant reverse preferences for Britain.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Prime Minister seriously consider extending an invitation to representatives of Wales and Scotland to attend the next Commonwealth Conference in readiness for the day when those nations will be among the free and equal nations of the Commonwealth?
    The Prime Minister: The Government of the United Kingdom will provide better representation for Wales and Scotland than the hon. Gentleman and his party.

    DENMARK (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Denmark.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend had any contact with the Prime Minister of Denmark on the issue of sea fishing of the Atlantic salmon, on which some of us have had harsh words to say about friends? If he has, may I ask whether any replies have been sent?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As has already appeared in the Press here and in Denmark, I have sent a personal message on the subject raised by my hon. Friend to the Danish Prime Minister, to the Swedish Prime Minister, and to the

    259
    Federal German Chancellor. We have also had regular consultations with Denmark, Sweden and Germany at official level. I have just had a reply from the Danish Prime Minister, which I am considering. I believe that it will be possible to work something out.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the large majority of the members of the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission have agreed to a ban, will the Government pursue this firmly with Denmark and also at every opportunity take it up with West Germany, because both these countries do not have salmon rivers?
    The Prime Minister: This point has been made by me to the three Prime Ministers concerned. I am hoping for further discussions with the Danish Prime Minister to see whether a solution can be reached. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because of his reference to the other countries, that Iceland supports us in this matter. The matter will be pursued vigorously with all the Governments concerned.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from President Nixon regarding the effect of sanctions against Rhodesia on United States imports of chrome; and what reply he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has it not been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention that the United States does not see why it should go on importing this strategic material either from the U.S.S.R. or from Rhodesia through third countries?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be a spokesman for the United States, but my dealings are with President Nixon. As I said in answer to his Question, President Nixon did not draw this to my attention, whatever the hon. Gentleman wants to do on behalf of President Nixon's country.
    Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give the Africans of Zimbabwe, for whom he is still responsible, an assurance that Smith and his cronies will be held personally responsible, during the liberation
    260
    struggle which will continue, until it is successful, for the deaths of any freedom-fighters after capture?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on the situation following the purported establishment of a republic in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the Question, may we hope that the American Government, as a permanent member of the Security Council, will take the view that principles do not decrease in value because they are expensive? Would he agree that, if Lord Salisbury can remove official support from the illegal régime, anybody can?
    The Prime Minister: I should be very surprised if the United States Government, as loyal members of the United Nations, flew in the face of a United Nations resolution of this kind. I note what has been said about the noble Lord, Lord Salisbury, but, obviously, his example is not being universally followed in this House, and we are still waiting for a condemnation from the Opposition Front Bench of what has happened. —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Question No. 4.
    Hon. Members: Wake up.
    The Prime Minister: It is not this Front Bench who need to be woken up. I would say to hon. Gentlemen—
    Mr. Faulds: A disgraceful performance by the Leader of the Opposition. He has not got the guts of Salisbury. And that is not saying much.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must not advertise the fact every time that he is here.
    Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend was trying to advertise the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is here, and that he is failing in his duty.

    N.A.T.O.(NUCLEAR PLANNING GROUP)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Prime Minister what discussions he had recently in Washington about the Nuclear Planning Group in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reports already given to the House on my visit to Washington. Both Governments are in full agreement on the valuable rôle in the Alliance played by the Nuclear Planning Group.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: What nuclear weapons have we now which are not assigned to N.A.T.O.?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my Answer last week on this Question, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will no doubt take an opportunity, if not more than one, in the defence debate planned for this week to deal with certain misrepresentations that occurred.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: If N.A.T.O. were the first to use an atom bomb, would it not be likely to prove a suicide weapon? Is it not likely that the Russians, instead of being deterred, would retaliate similarly, or even escalate to the use of hydrogen bombs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recognise that that is an entirely hypothetical question. He will know that these matters are dealt with in the Defence White Paper which the House will be debating for two days this week, and that my right hon. Friend is perfectly competent to deal with the kinds of anxiety which are in my hon. Friend's mind.

    HUMBERSIDE (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Humberside area during the present Session of Parliament.
    The Prime Minister: I hope to do so again, Sir.
    Mr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful and welcome answer, but would he also bear in mind, in remembering the affection shown him last week by his Liverpool and Bootle colleagues, that he is always welcome in Hull? But would he note that our unemployment is a little above that of Liverpool? Would he especially look at our difficulties in this respect when he does come?
    The Prime Minister: I have to interpret Humberside not only as Hull but also as South Humberside, which I visited recently. It is because of anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members for these constituencies and our own studies of the matter that we have scheduled this area as an intermediate area. The Act under which this was done came into force only a few days ago. My hon. Friend will also know of the various recommendations in the Humberside Report which have been accepted by the Government and have been put into effect.
    Mr. Tapsell: What has happened to the Humber Bridge which we were promised just before the last General Election?
    The Prime Minister: If he followed this more carefully, the hon. Gentleman would know that the Government have announced that we intend to go ahead with the construction of the Humber Bridge.

    AIRCRAFT NOISE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Prime Minister whether he will transfer responsibility for dealing with noise nuisance caused by aircraft from the Board of Trade to the Department of Health and Social Security.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what I said at Question Time on 17th February—[Vol. 796, c. 204–5.]
    Mr. Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread feeling that the Department of Health would be more single-minded in its pursuit of noise abatement than the Board of Trade, which is also responsible for the promotion of aviation? Is it not inevitable that for the Board of Trade noise abatement must always be a subsidiary consideration?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that that is a fair commentary on the activities of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have thought a great deal about this. It is right that the Department responsible

    263
    for civil aviation should have the main responsibility here. It has a duty—as the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend is considering what steps should now be taken—to make regulations about noise. In addition to the President of the Board of Trade, of course, the Minister of Technology is responsible for the experiments being carried out, some of which I have seen in progress at the Pyestock Research Establishment, for cutting down the noise of aero-engines in the process of manufacture.

    INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will submit further proposals to the National Economic Development Council to increase industrial investment.
    The Prime Minister: Recommendations relating to industrial investment from the Economic Development Committees involved in the industrial consultations on "The Task Ahead" are currently being examined.
    Mr. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the very favourable forecasts in Government documents and by the Institute of Economics will encourage industrialists to invest even more and that there will be a fair distribution of increased wealth between industrial investment and personal consumption?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, expenditure on manufacturing investment in the second and third quarters of 1969 was 12 per cent. higher in real terms than in the corresponding quarters of 1968, and the latest inquiry conducted by the Department concerned shows a continuation of this trend.
    Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the failure to achieve a much higher rate of industrial investment is serious for the future economy of the country, and that the White Paper on Public Expenditure was particularly disappointing and weak in this respect?
    The Prime Minister: The problem of inadequate industrial investment compared to some of our industrial competitors has been a continuing problem of this country for some 15 years, and
    264
    probably more. That is why I welcome the fact that there are now signs of a pick-up in industrial investment, which is already running at record levels. We shall do all we can to encourage this improvement in investment, particularly in the basic manufacturing industries.
    Mr. David Howell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister of Technology and the President of the Board of Trade undertook last February to begin a study of the effectiveness of investment incentives? Has he seen Press reports that now, apparently, this will not be finished until the summer? Will he ask these Ministers to get a move on on this very important subject?
    The Prime Minister: This is continuing, and, of course, these matters have been discussed with industry through the medium of the N.E.D.C.s for particular industries, as I said in my main Answer. But I thought that the hon. Gentleman's own party was now committed to dropping investment grants altogether.

    NORTH-EAST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister if he will publish the text of his letter to the North-East Development Council refusing their request to meet him, and the date the reply was sent.
    The Prime Minister: With the agreement of the council, the letter sent to it on my behalf on 19th February has been published, and a copy is available in the Library.
    Dame Irene Ward: Why, when my Question was on the Order Paper, did the right hon. Gentleman release the document to the Press this morning between 11 and 11.30? Is this not a gross abuse of the traditions of the House?
    The Prime Minister: Studying the Question put by the hon. Gentleman—
    Dame Irene Ward: Hon. Lady.
    The Prime Minister: I profoundly apologise.
    Studying the Question, as I did, put down by the hon. Lady, I thought that I

    265
    did exactly what she was asking me in the Question to do.
    Dame Irene Ward rose
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, when I hope that the Prime Minister will be present to reply.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the early giving of notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment cuts out another hon. Member's supplementary question.

HEATHROW AIRPORT (DISPUTE)
Mr. Corfield (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the current position at Heathrow Airport.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The unofficial strike of firemen continues. The British Airports Authority has made temporary arrangements to maintain fire service to meet the safety requirements for the airport.
I understand that the Authority has told the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose members the firemen are, that the Authority is ready to discuss the firemen's claims as a matter of urgency through any of the agreed procedures available.
Talks are in progress between the Authority and the union, and the Department of Employment and Productivity is in touch with both parties.
Mr. Corfield: Will the temporary arrangements enable Heathrow to stay open throughout 24 hours? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, in the face of the possibility of short-notice diversions occurring, that all safety precautions can be maintained? Can he say to where these diversions will be made and, in particular, whether Gatwick and Stansted are in a position to take diverted aircraft?
Mr. Roberts: The three questions asked by the hon. Gentleman are
266
extremely important. First, I understand that the temporary arrangements apply to 12 hours during day time; the fire officers who are now standing by for emergency service must have rest periods.
Secondly, the diversions are to Manchester, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted. The position varies as between these four airports. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to go into detail on this aspect I will, but, for the moment, diversion is being effectively carried through.
Thirdly, I am assured that the safety aspect is well taken care of.
Mr. Lipton: To what extent is there a wide gap between the parties to the dispute? Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that whatever discussions occur they will not be spread over days and possibly weeks?
Mr. Roberts: I can certainly give that assurance. The Department of Employment and Productivity has been in touch with the T.U.C. which, in turn, has been in touch with the union concerned. Every effort is being made now and will be made in future to secure that this most unfortunate and wasteful dispute is resolved as quickly as possible.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that whenever diversions occur wide publicity is given to the fact on radio and television, for the convenience of the public? Would he agree that this disgraceful piece of anarchy is the worst advertisement in the world in Britain's shop window?
Mr. Roberts: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about radio announcements. It is important that the travelling public is kept as fully as possible in the picture of available facilities.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he would not expect me to join him in that sort of language at this time.
Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the continuing bad industrial relations within the British Airports Authority, is my right hon. Friend prepared to order an immediate investigation into why this is the case?
Mr. Roberts: I could not accept that the position is as my hon. Friend described it, and, therefore, I do not see the need at present for such an investigation.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this latest example of a minority striking to the adverse result of our national prosperity is just one more example to which Lord Stokes drew attention in the motor industry and the whole of industrial relations? Is it not time that the Government rethought their entire attitude towards improved industrial relations and immediately brought forward legislation, as they promised a year ago, that they would do?
Mr. Roberts: Important though these matters are, they go rather wide of the Question and of my Department's responsibilities.
Mr. Dalyell: As one who was diverted on the midnight's plane last night from Edinburgh to Birmingham, rather than to Luton, may I offer B.E.A. congratulations on the slickness and efficiency of its arrangements at a time of some crisis for B.E.A.?
Mr. Roberts: I will take special steps to see that B.E.A. is made aware of my hon. Friend's congratulations.
Mr. Lubbock: Is it not a fact that this dispute is only one of very many that are taking place at Heathrow Airport? Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) in the light of the study that has been taking place during the past year into the question of disputes? What steps are now being taken by the union to convey to the men on unofficial strike the offer of urgent discussions? What action can the right hon. Gentleman take in the long term to improve communications between the union and the officers and men it is supposed to be serving?
Mr. Roberts: Those points are more appropriately dealt with by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. I have no doubt that she will take full note of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) on this subject.
Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that some of the exaggerated statements that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite do not help at this time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that strikes of this
268
kind are by no means confined to Heathrow Airport, but occur throughout the world in the various aircraft industries? For example, is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon Members who attend the Council of Europe are often held up because of Air France strikes, which regularly take place in France, and that this has nothing whatever to do with the British working man?
Mr. Roberts: The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was a statement of fact. The answer to the first part is that I very willingly echo the hope that nothing will be said to make the discussions which are now going on more difficult than they are.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Has the Minister seen a statement made by the firemen's representative to the effect that fire, officers are not competent to deal with complicated fire fighting equipment? Would he comment on whether or not that is true?
Mr. Roberts: I will only comment to the extent of saying that there is absolutely no foundation for that statement, it it was made.
Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly that made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who was a mouthpiece for B.A.L.P.A. during the pilots' trouble, represent an entirely different attitude from that being taken by the firemen at the airport? Is my right hon. Friend aware of our hope that normal industrial negotiations will resolve this dispute, and that it is no good blaming the pilots or the firemen on this issue?
Mr. Roberts: Those matters also range into the sphere which is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. I am bound to say that our first objective should be to see that this dispute, like every other, is dealt with by normal constitutional methods.
Mr. Ouslow: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much per hour this strike is costing the nation?
Mr. Roberts: Not without notice.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: If my right hon. Friend should be considering the suggestion of hon Gentlemen opposite that

269
there should be a ballot before a strike takes place, would he at the same time consider the desirability of having a ballot before company directors go to horse race meetings, which they do every day, and on the golf course, which is exactly the same sort of thing?
Mr. Roberts: Again, these are matters which range far beyond my Departmental responsibilities. I have no doubt that in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow my hon. Friend's comments will be read with varying degrees of interest by various people.
Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend agree that disputes of this sort, whether they involve pilots, firemen or possibly in the future even air traffic controllers, cause great inconvenience and great potential danger? Since it is over 12 months since the Commission on Industrial Relations was set up to look into the problems of collective bargaining, would he agree that this is the sort of urgent matter which it could ideally explore?
Mr. Roberts: I think that the whole House would very strongly support what my hon. Friend has said about inconvenience to the public and the need to use available procedures to settle problems of this kind.

SCOTLAND (TEACHING COUNCIL ORDER)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I must ask the indulgence of the House to make a statement about the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965 (Amendment of Constitution of the Council) Order, 1969, which has just been laid before the House. This Order extended the period of office of the existing General Teaching Council for Scotland from four years to four years and six months.
I informed the House on 6th March, 1969, that I proposed to make the Order so as to give time for the completion of the review of the constitution and functions of the council that I was putting in hand.
I made the Order on 21st April, 1969, and it came into operation on 30th April.
270
It was made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965, and, by virtue of Section 14(2) of that Act read in conjunction with Sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, it should have been laid before both Houses of Parliament after it was made and before it came into operation.
It has recently been discovered that the requirement to lay the Order in that way was not complied with. I am advised that the failure to lay the Order did not prevent it from having full legal effect from the date of coming into operation specified in the Order. Failure to lay at the proper time was, however, a serious matter and I ask the House to accept my apologies for it.
Hon. Members may recall that in November, 1967, following a recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure in that year, this House resolved that all Statutory Instruments should be submitted to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments whether or not they were required to be laid before the House. This Instrument was accordingly sent to the Select Committee on 9th May.
The failure to lay the Instrument was noticed when my Department was preparing the further Order required to give effect to the decisions regarding the constitution and functions of the council that I announced on 21st January. I shall shortly be making this further Order and laying it before both Houses.
I should make it clear that it is, of course, open to hon. Members to put down a Motion in the usual way for the annulment of the Order made in April, 1969, which, as I have said, has today been laid before the House.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: We on this side of the House of course accept the Secretary of State's apology, while agreeing that this is a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman made clear that this discourtesy to the House was not intended. Is it not surprising, however, that this should have been overlooked, since the subject of the Teaching Council has been continuously before the Government over the past two years?
Mr. Ross: I entirely agree and I regret that this matter was overlooked. It is one of those things. There are so many

271
hurdles which should have prevented this that it is surprising it was overlooked from start to finish. I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) asked a Question on 27th June about it and it was not even spotted then.
Mr. Grimond: While, of course, we all accept the Secretary of State's apology, may I ask him to clear up two points? I understand that he was bound to lay the Order under Statute, yet he said that it did not affect its legal standing. Does this mean that the legal effect of Orders is irrelevant, or that reconsideration by the House is irrelevant to the legal effect of Orders?
The right hon. Gentleman also suggests that the House can still annul the Order, but has not the time in which we could annul it come to an end, and what would be the effect if we did?
Mr. Ross: I have laid the Order. The original Teaching Council would have gone on until 31st January, 1970, but the House extended it for six months to allow for the election of the new council following the reorganisation I had put in hand as long as about a year ago.
On the question about the legality of the Order, the view has been taken by the Law Officers, both when the Bill which became the Statutory Instruments Act was before the House and subsequently, that it was not the intention that the laying of an Order should be a condition precedent to its coming into operation; and the present Lord Advocate shares that view.
Of course, from the point of view of the House, by not doing this I denied an opportunity for hon. Members to pray against the Order. That is the serious part. It so happens that this was something which generally the House was agreed about, but I thought it only right to apologise to the House.
Mr. Dalyell: Since no one has taken the trouble to object, surely no harm was done?
Mr. Ross: It is not a case of harm being done. This is in the Statute and we should comply with it.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While we all accept the Secretary of State's explanation, is it not necessary that the question
272
of the legality of the Order should be looked into rather further? As the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we have had no opportunity to pray against this Order and there are some aspects of this problem which are highly contentious. It seems unsatisfactory that although we did not have an opportunity to pray against it, the Order should have carried legality, none the less.
Mr. Ross: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not pursue his inquiries. That would have been helpful, but we will now have an opportunity to pray against the further Order which I shall bring in, relating to the reconstitution of the council.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that according to Erskine May the last time that this happened was at a time of grave national crisis in 1944, in respect of fire Orders made in 1941? On that occasion an indemnity Bill had to be put before the House to indemnify the Secretary of State against the consequences.
Erskine May says:
"The subsequent indemnity Act saved the Secretary of State from the consequences of the failure to lay and deemed the Regulations to have been laid but did not purport to declare their validity.'
Does this rule not completely conflict with the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has been given by the Lord Advocate?
Mr. Ross: I can only give the hon. Member and the House the advice given by the Law Officers at the time when the principal Act on which the laying depends—the Statutory Instruments Act —was going through the House and the further advice received from the Lord Advocate in respect of this case.
The hon. Member referred to one particular case, but there have been a number of cases from 1941, in 1962 and 1963. The way in which they were dealt with generally related to the circumstances of each particular case.
Mr. Dewar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ability of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for making a molehill into a mountain passeth all understanding?
Mr. Ross: I do not think that that is fair. If I construed it as a molehill, I would not have been here making this statement today.

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING (SCOTLAND)
3.47 p.m.
Mr. George Younger: I beg to Move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to carry out certain of the recommendations in the report of the Hunter Committee to assist in the development of fishing in Scotland.
The House will remember that it was as long ago as 12th March, 1962, that the Hunter Committee was set up by the last Conservative Government with a wide remit to review the law relating to salmon and trout fisheries in Scotland. The committee produced an interim report on the subject of drift-net fishing for salmon in the sea on 10th June, 1963, and produced its final report on 24th May, 1965. This was the result of over 50 meetings covering 66 days of work, and ran in all to 109 pages, which have been generally agreed to be a most useful and thorough review of the subject resulting in a considerable number of detailed recommendations.
It is now very nearly five years since the publication of that report and over eight years since the Hunter Committee was set up. Over the past two years there has been growing anxiety among those concerned with the need to develop fishing in Scotland at the absence of any action, or even any clear statement of intention, from the Government on this matter. It is in an attempt to meet at least some of this concern which comes from anglers' clubs, tourist interests and private owners that I am asking leave today to introduce my Bill.
Everyone will agree that the subject is most complicated. There are those who believe sincerely that nothing whatever can or should be done until a complete change of all aspects of fishing has been drawn up and agreed. I can well see the force of this, but I submit that to wait for all the technical experiments which will be needed to form a sensible solution to the problems of fishing as a whole and salmon fishing in particular will be to wait for several more years; and these are years which we cannot afford to waste at a time when leisure for us all is in such need of development and when the true potential of tourism is so greatly hampered by the inadequacy of the law.
274
As I am so well aware of the difficulties, the measures which I shall propose in the Bill are only a very small first step. I do not propose that the fishing of salmon or migratory trout shall be in any way affected. Nor would I propose to bring in any measures affecting rivers, as I think that these must await a fuller implementation of the Hunter Report as a whole. Nor would I propose to include any of the area covered by the River Tweed Commissioners, as they have already introduced by other means their own arrangements, which, I understand, are working satisfactorily.
I propose to confine the proposals in the Bill, which is a difficult matter for a private Member to introduce, to fishing in fresh water lochs which are fairly easy to define. There are approximately 10,000 such lochs in Scotland, according to the best information I can find. Although by no means all of these are suitable for stocking with brown trout, very many of them are.
The problem at present is that in most cases it simply is not practicable to stock and manage such fisheries properly, because the law does not allow adequate protection for the resultant fishing by those who have contributed in some way towards the proper costs of management. This is particularly inhibiting to anglers' clubs which wish to develop such fishing for the benefit of all their members and also to people and organisations who genuinely wish to develop such fishing for the tourist trade, which is a vital earner of foreign currency and which is crying out for expansion.
I shall, therefore, propose in the Bill the setting up of a Scottish anglers' trust, as suggested in paragraph 117 of the Hunter Report but on a smaller scale, to deal only at present with the development of brown trout fishing in fresh water lochs. The trust would be a sort of co-operative of anglers and would be able to register, on request by the owners or tenants, a loch, provided that it was properly managed and that it was properly open for fishing, by members in the case of an angling club, or by the public on some reasonable form of payment in other cases. A loch thus registered would then be entitled to protection by law against unauthorised fishing by those who had not in anyway contributed

275
to the upkeeping of the fishing. Registration would not be granted unless these conditions were met.
Anyone who has studied the Hunter Report will agree that these proposals are modest in the extreme and cannot be a substitute for implementation of the report as a whole in due course.
Nor am I in any way inflexible as to the suggestions I would make in the Bill. I should be glad to co-operate in any alterations which may be suggested either by the Government or by the Opposition. I ask only that we do not allow the complete delay that we have had on any action of any kind for so long to continue indefinitely into the future. In saying this, I am certain that I speak for the vast majority of those interested in fishing in Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Younger, Mr. Hector Monro, Mr. BruceGardyne, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Mr. John Brewis, and Mr. Edward M. Taylor.

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING (SCOTLAND)
Bill to carry out certain of the recommendations in the report of the Hunter Committee to assist in the development of fishing in Scotland, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 1st May and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.55 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am particularly happy to introduce the Bill, because I am certain that it fills an important gap in our safety legislation. I believe that both sides of the industry will welcome the Bill and recognise its necessity.
  Deep-sea trawling is generally known to be a hazardous occupation, but it is not always realised just how great the risks are. Calculations for accidents at work among fishermen aged 15–64 in England and Wales over a four-year period showed that they were more at risk than the average male worker by a factor of no less than 17 times. This was five times higher than the degree of risk even in coal mining.
  That bald comparison needs little embellishing to emphasise the importance of the Bill. Moreover, the calculation which I have mentioned related to all fishermen including those in the inshore fleet, so that the degree of risk for those serving on deep-sea trawlers is probably even higher. No doubt fishing will continue to be dangerous, whatever we do, but an accident rate as high as this must be reduced.
  There was a time when the accident rate was appallingly high in merchant shipping generally, but, starting in the 19th century, successive Governments have been active in raising safety standards. There is now a large body of safety legislation in and under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Because of the international nature of merchant shipping, these standards have been embodied in a series of international conventions, in which the United Kingdom has taken a lead, and, especially since the formation of the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, just over 10 years ago, the pace of international work on marine safety has been high. The present casualty rate of the British merchant

  277
  fleet is, indeed, now one of the lowest in the world.
  It is rather a paradox that we should be talking today about fishing, which is one of the most dangerous occupations in Britain, when we have one of the safest merchant fleets in the world. That contrast shows what can be done by government action and government drive.
  Understandably, because the merchant fleet is engaged in international voyages, this work has concentrated largely on improving standards on first passenger vessels and then, in the 1960 convention and the legislation which has followed it, also cargo ships. Now it is time to put a corresponding degree of effort into the safety of fishing vessels.
  A number of disasters have occurred to emphasise the dangers to which especially the distant water fishermen are exposed. In 1953, for example, three trawlers were overwhelmed within a month of each other. In 1955, the "Lorella" and the "Roderigo" capsized off Iceland on the same day. In 1965, the "Blue Crusader" and the "Boston Pioneer" were lost within a month.
  That disaster occurred when I was Minister of State, with responsibility for shipping. I shall never forget the position which it put me in, as the Minister answerable to the public for safety, when I found that we lacked even the powers to introduce the safety regulations that might have averted such losses.
  As Minister responsible for shipping and safety at sea, I always see the national picture—not just Aberdeen, Lowestoft, Grimsby, or Hull. I am deeply aware of all the accidents and not just the fears and anxieties in one port, especially after an accident. I read all accident reports and consider the causes, such as instability, fire on board and freak waves in force 10 gales, clawing a trawler down to the depths of the ocean, smashing it to smithereens, vessel and men never to be seen again. Many of these reports remain imprinted on my mind. No one will ever fully realise their impact.
  Hon. Members will no doubt remember my experience of going to sea overnight in a small trawler and being caught in a force 8 gale. The vessel was the "Ross Tern". I witnessed the fight back home for six hours as the vessel ploughed back to the quieter waters of the Humber.
  278
  Standing on the bridge with the late skipper, Mr. Charles Hodson, I saw holes in the sea like vast set pots, and as we sank into them gigantic waves swept over the vessel. All the time, racing through my mind were the many reports of instability, freak waves and vessels lost at sea. It was a most frightening experience, which I shall never forget, and it has strongly endeared the fishermen of our islands to me.
  At the beginning of 1968 came the loss of three Hull trawlers within less than one month. My predecessor lost no time in setting up a committee of inquiry under Admiral Sir Deric Holland-Martin to examine the major factors affecting the safety of deep sea trawlers and their crews, and to make recommendations. In only 14 months the committee made an admirable job of this task, which was daunting in the range of topics to be considered.
  The committee's report was printed and published last July. It included no fewer than 83 recommendations dealing not only with the structure of fishing vessels and their equipment, but also with such matters as fatigue, working conditions, conditions of employment, and management, all of which were shown to have a bearing on safety.
  The recommendations are of varying importance, of course, but there is no one area that can be singled out as providing the key to safety. The committee emphasised the need to act on all its recommendations if a reasonable standard was to be achieved.
  Immediately upon publication, my predecessor announced that the Government accepted the report in principle, subject to consultation with the industry as to its detailed implementation and financing. We are anxious to put it into effect as fast as is reasonably practicable. Immediately after publication of the report consultation with the industry began, and is still continuing. Responsibility for implementation is divided between the two sides of industry, on the one hand, and the Government, on the other. There are some matters which could be put into effect without delay, and I am glad to say that the industry has wasted no time in getting on with its own negotiations and introducing the improvements recommended.

  279
  We, too, are making progress with carrying out those recommendations which lie within our existing powers, and the House will know that we have already again stationed a fishery support ship off Iceland this winter. However, many of the recommendations addressed to the Government require not only detailed and lengthy discussions with the industry over the formulation of regulations, but also the provision of the necessary powers for the Board of Trade.
  Fortunately, the Merchant Shipping Bill was already before the House, and we have taken the opportunity of introducing provisions there which will enable us to implement six of the Holland-Martin recommendations, relating to hours of work at sea, certification of trawler officers and accident reporting. Only last week a new Clause was approved in Committee which will give powers to implement the recommendations relating to safe working practices on board. It is also our intention to introduce a new Clause extending the Government's powers to require the carriage of radio installations on the lines of the Holland-Martin recommendations. As these provisions apply to merchant shipping vessels generally, it was thought appropriate that they should be included in that Bill.
  The Bill before us now will give us the rest of the powers that we need and will enable us to implement six other Holland-Martin recommendations. Clause 1 will enable us to make rules covering four important aspects of the construction of trawlers that were dealt with in the report.
  First, on stability, standards for new trawlers will be based on stability criteria drawn up by I.M.C.O. and, as far as possible, we shall seek to apply the same standards to existing ships. This may be a difficult matter, where substantial modification is needed, and we are in the middle of a programme of tests to find out the stability characteristics of all the vessels in the deep-sea fleet.
  Second, rules will be made on weather-tight integrity similar to those contained in the Load Line Rules, 1968, for merchant ships, giving statutory force to the Code 1 of the Recommended Code of Safety of Fishermen on Trawlers which
  280
  was prepared by a committee under Board of Trade chairmanship only last year.
  Third, rules on hull strength will be largely based on the standards set by the Classification Societies. And, fourth, rules will be made for structural fire protection, a matter of particular importance in view of several serious fires which have occurred on modern freezer trawlers in recent years. Here again. there may be difficulty in applying the desirable standards to existing ships.
  Under Clause 2, the Board of Trade proposes to make rules whereby those vessels to which the rules are applicable would be subjected to annual survey or inspection. In addition to structural safety, these surveys will also cover lifesaving appliances and radio, for which rules applicable to fishing vessels already exist. Wherever practicable and appropriate surveys will be delegated to Classification Societies, and this will substantially ease the load of additional work for the Board of Trade's professional staff.
  To enforce the survey requirements, fishing vessels will be required by Clause 4 to hold appropriate certificates issued under Clause 3. The Holland-Martin Report recommended a single fishing vessel certificate covering all the principal aspects of the ship's safety, but it may prove more convenient to have separate certificates for construction, life- saving appliances and radio.
  In issuing certificates it will be possible under Clause 1(2) to exempt a vessel from any safety requirements and to impose conditions for doing so. This will probably be necessary for those vessels which cannot be brought up to the I.M.C.O. stability standards very quickly.
  An important feature of the Bill is that under Clause 1(1) different rules can be made for different classes of vessel, and under Clause 11(4) rules for different descriptions of vessel may be brought into force at different times. The point of this is that the same rules would not be appropriate for all kinds of fishing vessels, nor can we expect to solve all the many problems in devising appropriate rules simultaneously. We shall have to have certain priorities.
  The Holland-Martin Report related specifically only to deep-sea fishing

  281
  vessels, but it would be a mistake not to consider also the very much larger fleet of inshore fishing vessels, whose crews share many of the risks involved in deep-sea fishing. For this reason, the Bill applies to all fishing vessels, but our intention is to make rules in the first place for vessels covered by the Holland-Martin recommendations.
  The rest of the Bill needs little explanation. I would mention only that Clauses 1, 4 and 5 contain penalities for contravening the rules, for going to sea without the appropriate certificates and for altering vessels for which certificates have been issued without notifying the Board of Trade. Clause 6 contains the power to prescribe fees, in particular, in regard to surveys, certificates and exemptions.
  I am well aware that the full implementation of all the Holland-Martin recommendations will entail considerable cost. Preliminary discussions are being held with the industry to try to clarify what the nature and extent of the costs are likely to be, so that decisions can later be made as to how they should be shared. There will be close consultations on this question with my right hon. Friends the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as with the industry.
  As hon. Members will realise, the Bill is a vital first step. It is an essential enabling Measure, and the regulations that we shall make under it will deal with some of the most important matters in the Holland-Martin Report.
  Formulation of these rules is a major task, but we are pressing on quickly in consultation with the industry. Together with the relevant clauses in the Merchant Shipping Bill, this is a vital part of the joint effort that we are undertaking with the industry to improve safety standards in fishing, and I believe that the intention of the Bill will be applauded on all sides.
  This Bill is concerned with the vital subject of safety at sea. In British merchant shipping, we have progressed from a state of affairs in the last century when our safety record was bad, through Government intervention and efforts by both sides of the shipping industry to our present position in which the safety
  282
  record of British merchant ships is one of the best in the world.
  There have been many milestones on the way: international safety conventions in which the United Kingdom played the lead, and the building up during the last few years of the international structure of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.
  The state of affairs in the fishing industry, and, in particular, the deep-sea fishing industry, has, however, been different and much less satisfactory. There has been little regulation while our attention was concentrated on merchant ships. There are now about 18,000 men who serve on fishing vessels, of whom approximately 7,500 serve on the distant water fleets. Between 1958 and 1967, there were 208 deaths on deep-sea trawlers, and less than half of these were due to casualties to the ships themselves. Accidents to individual fishermen were at least an equally serious cause of death.
  It is time to put this state of affairs right. We have had the valuable Holland-Martin Report, and we are now proceeding in various ways to implement the recommendations. In the Merchant Shipping Bill we are taking the powers which are needed to regulate the manning question, and the prevention of accidents on board ship, where at present there is a gap in what the Government can require.
  The Bill which we are considering today is concerned, on the other hand, with the structure and equipment of the trawlers themselves. Here, too, we must take powers to lay down proper standards and see that these are maintained. This will be a very considerable task, but I know that in this effort we shall have the willing help of both sides of the fishing industry. The Bill represents a very great step forward, therefore, in safeguarding safety at sea, and I commend it to the House.
  In conclusion, as an ex-mineworker and one who has had experience of a dangerous occupation, now having responsibility for making the regulations that will determine the degree of safety at sea, I believe that we in this House should all humbly remember that in the remoteness of this Chamber and the type of life we lead it is rate that we personally share the grief and sorrow of major accidents and

  283
  tragedies. Because of that, it makes it all the more important that we collectively apply our minds to making the lives of those who earn our wealth in these dangerous occupations much safer and, at the same time, lessen the grief and heartaches among our people.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Like the President of the Board of Trade, we warmly welcome the Bill. It is a curious thing that when the House is dealing with ships both sides seem closer together than on almost any other occasions, certainly much closer than when we are dealing with aircraft, a subject which seems to divide rather than unite the House.
  I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Opposition, of thanking Admiral Sir Deric Holland-Martin and his colleagues for their fascinating report which, to a layman such as myself, is very clearly written. I thought, for example, that the committee, in dealing in paragraph 83 with the difficult problem of stability, expressed itself in four lines in a way that was a revelation. It said:
  "Stability is a property which the designer can put into a ship in any required quantity; if the quantity is deficient the ship may capsize in extreme weather, if it is excessive the ship will probably be unnecessarily large and expensive, difficult to operate and stiff and uncomfortable in her movements."
  That, in a nutshell, sums up the dilemma and the width of the bracket in dealing with the matter. I do not think that I have ever heard a difficult problem more concisely and succinctly expressed.
  There is one sentence in the report which I would not commend. It is about the only one and it comes in paragraph 99, when the committee is talking of the difficult problem of getting about trawlers:
  "We recommend that an investigation be made into the ergonomics of human locomotion in an oscillating and slippery environment…"
  I was tempted to draw from that parallels from the modern political scene, but I thought, in view of the love feast between the two sides of the House on this topic, that it would be dangerous to do so.
  The Bill is very thin in weight because all the serious matters are to be dealt
  284
  with under regulations, in the modern way; and I make no complaint about that. We have, of course, no idea what the regulations are to be except from the brief remarks of the Minister. It is for consideration whether there should not be written into the Bill, as was done in the Merchant Shipping Bill, a statutory obligation to consult. I am sure that that will happen, but it is just as well to make it quite clear beyond doubt.
  It is customary, on a Bill of this kind, for the Opposition to say that while welcoming it they will examine it very closely in Committee, line by line. I do not think that it would be honest to say that of this Bill, because there is very little to examine. The examination will take place when we get the regulations. That is the important stage. One thing I might say to the right hon. Gentleman on that is that I noticed that the regulations under Clause 7 of the Bill are to be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
  I understand the reason for that. I here will be many. This House cannot clutter itself with affirmative Resolution procedure under every Bill, because if it did so it would grind to a halt. But the affirmative procedure gives the House very much greater control m the way of amendment. If I may repeat what I said in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill, under the negative procedure regulations are very often brought into force before the House has a chance to discuss them; whereas under the affirmative procedure regulations are brought in in draft and, therefore, in practice, there is an opportunity of amending them; not technically, but in practice. The Government can more easily withdraw the draft and make it again in amended form. Under the negative procedure it is often impossible for the Government to do so.
  I want it to be clear that I am not asking that all these regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, because that would be asking too much. But I am asking, first, that there should be a statutory obligation to consult and, secondly, that regulations should come before the House before they are put into force. I dare say that it will not be necessary in a great majority of cases to pray against them. But if it is necessary we want to have a feeling of reality about it, and to know that the regulations can

  285
  be withdrawn and relaid, if the House so feels, without loss of face on the part of the Government or without loss of administrative convenience. That is all I want to say about the machinery of the Bill. It is important, because the Bill is purely an enabling Measure.
  The rest of what I have to say is mainly a series of questions. I begin with stability. In paragraph 87, the Holland-Martin Report suggests that further investigation by the Board of Trade should be made as to the extent to which the existing fleet fails to measure up to the I.M.C.O. standards. That is a very difficult question. Has the Board made the investigation? If so, what is the result? The problem is very difficult and will be very expensive to remedy. According to paragraph 96, structural strength seems to have been generally satisfactory.
  What has happened about the recommendation relating to survival clothing? We all remember that, in one of the disasters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, one man's life was saved because he was wearing survival clothing. The court of inquiry attributed his survival to that fact. It is a matter of great importance and I hope that we shall have some information about it, and about any further studies on the dreaded problem of ice accretion.
  The report reads very solemnly en the question of ice accretion. It comes generally to the conclusion that nothing much can be done about it except for the skippers to run for it, if I may use that expression, at an early stage. Although the report makes recommendations, it concludes that these must, in a sense, be marginal and that, when the dreaded ice begins to form, the only thing that can be done is to get out of the area. Therefore, of course, the fleet will depend increasingly, I believe, upon the protection vessel which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I wonder whether we could have more information about how the "Orsino" is faring—I think that it is still called the "Orsino". Other countries, particularly the Federal Republic of Germany, have many more vessels than we have, and I wonder what the Board of Trade's plans are to get our protection a little higher up the international league and more nearly the equivalent of the German basis.
  286
  Indeed, is there any hope, as we move into the European Economic Community, of getting this matter of protection vessels on an international basis? Is seems desirable that that should be done in Europe. I hope that efforts are being made to achieve it. I am sure that it would be much less expensive if ancient rivalries could somehow be sunk. It would be to the advantage of all.
  My other questions relate to cost. The report, although it has a chapter on the matter, is vague on the subject. It was fairly specific on that part of the new code of safety which we are not dealing with in the Bill—that is to say, dealing with the human factor, which will be dealt with by regulations under the new Merchant Shipping Bill. But, as far as the physical environment is concerned—the ship and its equipment—we are very much in the dark, and, of course, it is of paramount importance. At present, the modern subsidy to this fleet runs to about £4 million per annum and I have seen it suggested that the cost of implementation of these proposals will be perhaps as much as that. Therefore, if most of the cost is to fall upon the industry, the whole benefit of the subsidy—and it has been of great benefit—will be cut down.
  I know that it is impossible to quantify exactly, but may we know what the Board of Trade thinks will be the cost to the industry of the measures proposed in the regulations and how it sees the cost split between the Government and the industry? If it cannot be done, then it cannot be, but it is a matter of enormous importance, because this is an industry in competition with many other countries and cost is, therefore, of the essence.
  I share all the words the right hon. Gentleman so movingly uttered about the drama and tragedy and importance of the fishermen who go out particularly into the middle and further waters. The risk is alarming still—17 times above the average, broadly speaking. But it is also true to say that less than half of the deaths at any rate are due to the matters we are discussing in the Bill. Most are due to human negligence and disregard of things which should be regarded. This is responsible for far more accidents.
  That does not mean to say that the matters in this Bill are not important,

  287
  because the causation is twofold. It is easier to be negligent, and more understandable to be negligent, if one has bad equipment than if one has good, and, therefore, if we provide good equipment and good ships the chances of negligence itself are much reduced. For that reason, among others, although recognising that the human factor is more important than the physical, the physical factor is by no means to be despised.
  The Opposition give the Bill a warm and speedy passage.
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: Like my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whose eloquent and moving speech I enjoyed, I warmly welcome the Bill. I go further. As a back bencher representing a fishing port, I feel privileged, as we all are, to play a small part in legislation which will make the lives of these intrepid and at times fearless men more comfortable in dangerous Arctic waters.
  This is an enabling Bill, but on the Statute Book it will give a cutting edge to the Board of Trade and enable it, through statutory regulations, to carry things which, in the past, we have desired to get, but which were left to voluntary means and activity. I am sure that the Bill will pass quickly to the Statute Book. In a way, it is a twin of the Merchant Shipping Bill—at least, it is complementary to it—for there are many Schedules in that Bill which appertain to fishermen's lives. Such is the deep concern of the House that I believe we shall quickly get the Bill through Parliament.
  I want to say without much ado that I echo what my right hon. Friend said about statistics of casualties and accidents to deep-sea fishermen. He is of coal mining stock, like myself, but deep-sea fishing has a much higher incidence of casualties than coal mining has, despite the popular view of city dwellers. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) talked about the human factor, and it is not unimportant, despite the improved ships which we hope will be built in future.
  I was in my constituency at the weekend talking to a fisherman who is now 70 and who spent many years at sea. He said to me, "Of course, we are a race apart.
  288
  Our psychology is geared to monetary incentives and our take back pay is based upon a percentage of the catch". So, amidst all the hardships and dangers at sea they are inclined to take chances—particularly young skippers who have their way to make in the future with their owners—and even in icing conditions the Holland-Martin Report says that they will wait for "just one more haul". Therefore, it behoves us, as was said by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, to give our men the best possible ships that we can.
  The Merchant Shipping Bill has been mentioned. There were many hon. Gentlemen who compared the vessels, and, even more so, would compare the fishing vessels that we are talking about today, with floating factories. We must make every effort to try to get conditions on our floating factories on the water as near as possible to those in the factories on shore; and this is what we are attempting to do in the Bill.
  We must beware of making the Holland-Martin Report into a bible, but there is no doubt that in at least one respect it is a bible for fishermen, and for legislators, too. It says, in paragraph 123:
  "Unlike most merchant ships, a trawler (even an old-fashioned side trawler) may be regarded as a small floating factory on which men are employed to process fish on large modern freezers, where the handling and processing of the catch is relatively complex, the analogy is even more appropriate. It is somewhat illogical that employees in factories should be protected at work by legal regulations on the design and operation of machinery when no similar requirements exist for the protection of trawler men at sea."
  This is the object of the Bill, and it indicates the new approach of many hon. Members who have been talking this way in another Committee.
  I now deal with the parts of the Bill which, in my view, are vitally important. Clause 1 is paramount. I want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). Soon after the 1964 election he came to Hull and at that time some people may have thought that his mind was, if not obsessed, at least certainly fixed on this matter of safety. He came to the fish dock and the words which were always on his lips were "stability and design", but particularly "stability". Following that visit, many hon. Members on this side of the

  289
  House went to the National Physical Laboratory, at Teddington, and saw a fascinating experiment about size, shape, design and dimension of vessels, and particularly about stability. Later, there came our shattering disasters in Hull in 1968.
  I firmly believe that it is the Minister's intention—and it should be—that the Board of Trade must and will seek statutory powers to lay down stability standards for all new trawlers. The position is not quite so simple with the older trawlers, but there are standards laid down by I.M.C.O. Since all our own vessels are built with 40 per cent. of Government money and all are vetted by the White Fish Authority, we can easily obtain these standards in the new vessels.
  I have yet to meet a fisherman who does not believe that stern fishing is safer than side trawling. This is absolutely clear; there can be no discussion about it. I have met no one who denied this—certainly not in the case of freezers. In wet fishers one vessel, the "C. S. Forester", of Hull, is not only a magnificent vessel, but has almost cracked all records for value of catch as well. It is a convincing success both to the owners and to the fishermen themselves.
  What of existing vessels and their stability? It was not easy to do, but an investigation was made into the loss of the two vessels, the "Ross Cleveland" and the "Kingston Peridot", and I am informed that both were below I M.C.O. standards. As I understand, at the moment an investigation is taking place at Government expense into all vessels in service. I believe that this exercise should be sharpened up. The quicker we can get this work done the better. This is the view of most people in the industry to whom I have spoken.
  It is imperative for the Government to take powers immediately, to forbid the use of all trawlers below standard. We owe it to our men to do that, and I never wish to hear again the 19th century words used to me sometimes during January, 1968—the "floating coffin". I add, in fairness to the Hull firms in my constituency, that even without legislation all the Hull trawlers have been insured by the mutual insurance companies and were inspected. The Holland-Martin Report is very fair about these matters.
  290
  The Minister mentioned what, to me, is a sinister feature of recent years—the serious fires that have occurred upon our trawlers. I am thinking about the "St. Finbar" off Labrador in 1966. Although we had an official inquiry into the loss of that vessel, local opinion showed scepticism about the findings. It would be contentious to use the words which have been used on the dock and elsewhere about "whitewashing". Again, to be fair, I must say that the Holland-Martin Report does state again that Hull firms have done good work on a voluntary basis in the matter of making their ships safer for dealing with the danger of fires on board. But we still need measures—and the Bill will provide them—on the Statute Book to tighten up our standards.
  Clause 3 of the Bill deals with fishing vessel certificates and Clause 4 says that no boat can go to sea without those certificates of safety and seaworthiness. I can confirm from my own experience in the Fisheries Committee of the Council of Europe that the West Germans have these conditions. Those of us who have been lucky enough to go aboard German vessels and the protection vessel "Frithjof"—and I am as jealous as anyone of my own fishing fleet and my own people here—will know that the quicker we have conditions like those throughout our fishing fleet the better it will be for our men in the industry.
  Earlier, I heard the hon. and learned Member for Darwen talking about international help on the seas to give assistance to vessels in times of difficulty. It is my understanding that this is obtained. There is no walk of life and no field of economic activity where one has more camaraderie and more genuine association—except perhaps in mining than amongst seamen on the sea itself—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This has become a bit too much. We have teachers here lobbying Members. There are about 50 or 60 of them outside, with 20 or 30 police standing out in the cold. There is plenty of room in St. Stephen's Hall, yet they are not being admitted there.
  I claim that constituents have a right to come here and lobby their Members of Parliament. I have raised this before. I do not know who gives anyone such as

  291
  an official of the House power to stop people coming to lobby their Members of Parliament.
  Will you please order that anyoneanyone—who is outside now, and who wants to come in to see his Member of Parliament, is to be admitted, and stop officialdom interfering with the rights of constituents?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House to the situation which he has outlined. Perhaps the Serjeant at Arms will take note of his remarks.
  Mr. Johnson: Before that intervention, I was dealing with the happy subject of camaraderie on the high seas. I know that Portuguese hospital ships off Newfoundland will give aid to anyone, as will Communist, for example, Polish fleets.
  This is not the day for long speeches, because so many of the points which arise, particularly about accidents on ships, will be dealt with in Committee. It is, therefore, superfluous to deal with them now, but I must refer to one or two matters.
  Clause 1 refers to equipment and machinery. Like the Minister, I believe that a much more careful examination must be made into accidents on deck. There was some high-falutin' talk about the "ergonomics of human locomotion upon an oscillating and slippery surface". Holland-Martin has something to say here. I think that the university—hon. Members can guess which one—at a deep-sea fishing port will best be able to tackle this matter of the design of hand rails, doors, etc.
  I sometimes marvel at the money spent by big business on designing chairs, sofas, and furniture for the interiors of houses. If a little of that money were spent on designing the interiors of fishing vessels, there would be far fewer accidents as a result of people slipping on decks covered with fish offal, and suchlike.
  We all accept the need to improve the standards for guarding winches. Fishermen often talk about the dangers of winches and other machinery on deck. Factories on land must guard their machines. We must ensure that factories at sea do the same.
  292
  I am sure that all these matters will be scrutinised carefully in Committee. I welcome the Bill, and I wish it a speedy passage on to the Statute Book.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I, too, give the Bill a very warm welcome. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in his place because, although the President of the Board of Trade has undoubtedly had a good deal to do with the Bill, I fancy that the right hon. Member for Grimsby, in his previous job as President of the Board of Trade, played a part in it, until he found himself kicked upstairs in a rather strange way early last autumn.
  All those who represent fishing constituencies, and, indeed, the whole House, know the appalling distress which is caused by the loss of a trawler, or the loss of an individual fisherman. Certainly, the loss of a trawler results in an atmosphere of gloom which spreads way and beyond the immediate industry. We therefore welcome the Bill and all that it will do to help trawler safety.
  I come immediately to what I think has been one of the major difficulties in providing safety. Since the war the industry has not been showing a large enough return on capital to invest in new ships and new equipment which would have done much to alleviate the problems of safety which we are debating today. It will be no good making orders and regulations about safety unless, at the same time, we make certain that the industry is in an economic position to make a profit afterwards.
  I make no bones about it. There is only one way in which the industry can be helped to make a profit, and that is on the end price. I hope that the Government will not resort to giving additional subsidies in order to make these improvements to vessels, but that they will go on with a policy which will ensure that an economic price is paid for the catch. This will enable investment to take place in the industry so that it keeps up to date and provides a reasonable return for all those engaged in it, be they employers, or employees. This return includes keeping the vessels in a safe and proper condition for people

  293
  to work in. That is the right way to tackle the problem.
  One matter which needs consideration is the provision of an additional radio station. Owing to the drilling for gas and oil in the North Sea, considerable demands are made on the Humber and at Whitley Bay radio stations. There is considerable delay in getting messages through from ships at sea because of the congestion, brought about largely by the oil rigs. The other day I tabled a Question to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications asking whether he would consider providing an additional station, in view of the express need for it. The right hon. Gentleman replied that this was no longer a matter for him, but for the postal authority, or whatever it is called.
  This is a matter for the House, and this is a good opportunity to raise it. I hope that the Minister will do what he can to help in this respect. The other day a skipper told me that his was the eleventh call waiting to be passed through the Humber radio station. It might have been an urgent call, and he would have had to wait for up to two hours, and that is a very long time indeed. Something needs to be done about this problem.
  I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher Cook) said about the support ship. I am surprised that we cannot write into the Bill a statutory duty on the Government to provide one. I feel that after a year or two there may be a sliding away from the responsibility to supply one, and I should like to see the Bill contain a provision to ensure that we have our share of support ships on duty.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that this, or any other, Government would deliberately go out of their way to withdraw the services of a support ship?
  Mr. Prior: I think that it is possible. After all, we have had a support ship for only two years, and perhaps in a few years' time, when all these safety regulations have been introduced, the Government may say that there is no need for a support ship. We have had a support
  294
  ship for only two years. Before that one was not considered necessary, and the time may come when that view is taken again. The hon. Gentleman believes that no Government would get out of the responsibility to provide a support ship, but I think that there is every reason for writing that responsibility into the Bill. It would make it necessary for the Government of the day always to fulfil this obligation. That is what I should like to see.
  Mr. McNamara: Thinking about the hon. Gentleman's argument and his own party's suggestions on cutting Government expenditure, it might be an idea to write it into the Bill.
  Mr. Prior: I would treat that sort of remark with the contempt it obviously deserves. Certainly, I would like to see written into the Bill something committing all Governments to having a support ship. I would have thought that a reasonable thing to do.
  We come now to the question of the financial effect of the Bill and its effects on public service manpower. There are two points here. The first is that the surveys which will have to be carried out on every facet will have to be done by skilled labour; the annual survey dealing with radio and with life-saving appliances, I would have thought, could have been carried out by the fishery officers in the ports concerned. I would like to hear what views the Government have on this. The fishery officers are in constant touch with the industry. They generally get on very well with the industry and they would seem to me to be the people to carry out this job, without any additional cost to the Exchequer.
  Finally, I would like to know when—given a fair passage of the Bill through the House—we are likely to have the rules brought into operation. The sooner the industry knows what it has to do, the quicker it can get on with it and the quicker it can make its dispositions of cost. The fishing industry is now enjoying a minor boom. It probably has a little more money at the moment than it may have at some time in the future. From all points of view, therefore, the sooner this is brought in the better.
  4.53 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am, like many other hon. Members, very glad to see this Bill before the House. My only regret is that we were not debating it some time ago. It needed the terrible tragedies which overtook the "Kingston Peridot", the "Ross Cleveland" and the "St. Romanus" to bring forward this piece of legislation. It appears that there is nothing like a disaster to concentrate the mind. It was only then the "Orsino" was sent out to do the essential services which we now hurry to say are so necessary and which the Germans accepted as such as far back as 1948.
  We have a very long way to go. When one reads the appendix to the Holland-Martin Report, with its description of the German support ships and their enormous range of specialist services—right down to operating theatres—we realise we are only now, rather late, coming to the beginning of a very long road indeed. The appalling accident rate is something we have known about for a very long time. Holland-Martin goes back into the 'fifties with these figures. The bald statement in terms of "standard mortality ratio"—the rather strange dehumanised concept—is something which should have taken up more of our attention a long time ago.
  I was struck by the fact that although it is the disaster that overwhelms a boat that hits the headlines, it is the continuing series of minor mishaps—minor in the sense of numbers involved, but all too serious and perhaps final for the individual involved—which are a feature of the statistics. As the Holland-Martin Report says at paragraph 10:
  "It is clear that accidents to individual crew members at work, occurring when their ships are not in danger present an equally serious—if not more serious—problem."
  I at least would like to see a great deal more work done on this subject.
  Since March, 1968, we have made good speed. Sir Deric Holland-Martin and his Committee are to be congratulated, as are the Government, in that we are beginning to make up some of the leeway. The Bill will be widely welcomed in my part of the world, the port of Aberdeen, where fishing is one of our basic industries. It is interesting to see that over
  296
  1,600 men are employed in the Aberdeen fleet. In 1948 the figure was 2,600. This partially represents the onset of mechanisation—the industry's productivity rate is one which could be copied with great advantage in many other parts of Britain. It also reflects the nature of the industry itself. There will always be a tendency for men to drift out of fishing. Almost every year recently recruits have been outnumbered by the losses from the Aberdeen fleet. This reflects the fact that it is a hunting industry. It is a dangerous trade, and life in the fishing fleet will always be rough.
  For all that, we have a duty as legislators to minimise the hazards inherent in the trade. There is a perhaps rather parochial but still understandable feeling in Aberdeen that when we talk in terms of the fishing industry too often we are talking about the Humber. The near and middle water fleet is too often neglected. This is true whether we are considering rationalisation of the industry by I.R.C. or safety regulations.
  There are one or two specific recommendations in the Holland-Martin Report which refer to the near and middle water fleet. I hope they will not be forgotten when the Government consider what action and regulations they will introduce under the enabling Statute. An enormous amount has been done, probably in every one of the fishing centres. Certainly when it comes to radio and radio communications I have now very few complaints from the men serving on the Aberdeen boats. The regular reporting every 24 hours and the standard of radio equipment is considered satisfactory at the present time. I welcome the fact that statutory force has been given to the improvements that have been voluntarily made. It is certainly necessary to ensure there is no slipping away from the standards we would all like to see.
  Many aspects of the Bill are highly technical and laymen like myself are well advised to keep away from them. I too, like the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cook), was impressed by paragraph 83, dealing with the definition of stability. Those three or four lines are fascinating. There is one general comment which could be

  297
  made by anyone, however inexpert his mind may be:
  "If the quantity"—
  that is, of stability—
  "is deficient the ship may capsize in extreme weather, if it is excessive the ship will probably be unnecessarily large and expensive, difficult to operate and stiff and uncomfortable in her movements."
  It seems the disadvantages fall very sharply into two sections. No one wants a ship which is unmanœuvreable, a ship that cannot be worked efficiently. But in general terms there must never be a tendency, as perhaps there has been in some cases in the past, for the factor of expense to bulk too large in the consideration of where the balance on stability should be struck.
  We are faced with the situation where we will for some time be using the older boats, where the stability ratio cannot be altered. I hope we shall not relax the pressure in the field, for instance, of de-icing the equipment merely because of the harsh realities that the Holland-Martin Report refers to. It may be true that we are a long way away from an adequate answer. It may be that pneumatic sleeves, and so on, have not been developed to a stage where they are the complete solution. But given the nature of the industry and given the financial pressures in the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said, I suspect there will always be this temptation to make one last haul before running for cover when the meteorological people warn that the conditions for icing are approaching fast. We must not relax the search for the answer.
  One of the recommendations of Holland-Martin is that the Board of Trade should consider commissioning design studies for stern trawlers in the smaller range. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, no fishermen would deny that the stern trawler was intrinsically a safer fishing vessel than the conventional side trawler. The Holland-Martin Report mentions this at some length. It admits that there is some argument within the industry about the economic viability of stern trawlers in the near and middle-distance category. In Aberdeen where we have a large fleet of over 100 vessels we have no stern trawlers.
  298
  We had one short-lived experiment—a very small boat that was really a pocket trawler and it did not last. There is one due to arrive soon, ordered by an owner noted for his progressive attitude in this field. I very much hope that it will be a success. There can be no doubt that the greater confidence that stern trawling gives to the crew is a considerable element in improving the safety record of the fleet. When it comes to shooting and hauling the gear there can be no room for argument on this point. I hope that the Board of Trade will consider whether there is some way in which it can act as a catalyst to encourage what must be an important development, which has been far too long in coming in the near and middle-distance fleets.
  The Bill is only one side of the story. I welcome the fact that we are now taking action in the Merchant Shipping Acts to deal with what has been called the human element. We all hear stories about how men have been fishing for literally 40 or 50 hours at a stretch. It is very difficult to get the kind of manning structure which will allow six hours off regularly in 24 in a middle-distance boat where, as Holland-Martin points out, the entire crew of 11 is needed to work the gear. This is mast important and the biggest single contribution that can be made to trawler safety. The endurance of the trawler men is something which we can admire, but at the end of the day the kind of conditions and pressures under which they have to work when they are at the fishing grounds must militate against efficiency and do a lot to encourage the kind of personal accidents to which I have referred.
  Of course, Holland-Martin will be expensive, in terms of the crewing element, the time off and the longer stay ashore between trips. It will also be expensive in terms of boats and equipment once these regulations are finally promulgated. This is something we will have to face, the Government as much as industry, if necessary in partnership. We cannot go on paying the kind of price that we are paying now. It does not matter how much lip-service we pay in terms of admiration for the men who catch the fish which we eat so casually at our dining table; we have to recognise

  299
  the financial implications and do our utmost to ensure that the fleet is safe and that it operates under the kind of conditions which encourages men to stay in an industry which is of great importance to this country and particularly to the areas in which it is based.
  It is an industry very uncertain in its distribution. Where fishing is important it is very important for the locality concerned. I was impressed by what the President of the Board of Trade said about the feeling of powerlessness when he discovered that he could not even lay regulations because he had not got the powers. At least we are now sweeping that away. That must be a cause for celebration. My impression is that in the fleets the men are aware of the safety factor as never before. That is why, for example, they are pressing for joint safety committees in every port, a recommendation of Holland-Martin which I hope will not be forgotten but will be implemented in the near future. I am certain that the Government, having got the power, will now press on energetically and lay the regulations.
  I was glad that the Opposition so freely and properly promised their support and co-operation. I believe that the Minister's approach will be welcomed by all interested in the industry and that there will be enthusiastic support for the work which has been started.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: This has been a harsh winter in the North Sea and in our debate today we feel a sense of sadness for the lives that have been lost in the fishing industry recently. There is no doubt about the widespread support and agreement for the Bill. Anything that can be done to increase safety for our fishermen will be welcomed, and I join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in giving a warm welcome to the start made through the introduction of the Bill.
  I, too, was impressed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, not only for its content, but particularly by the point he made about the safety record of the British merchant fleet over the last century and the very much better record that has been built up as safety regulations, with Government intervention to make them work, and which have
  300
  worked their way through the industry. This must happen in the fishing industry, too.
  The safety of vessels is very much in question in all sections of the fleet. It affects those involved in the most direct ways. The difficulty of obtaining crews to fish in certain waters today shows the extent of the concern about safety. To what extern does the Bill apply to the construction and design of inshore boats? I understand that it applies to any fishing boat, and I would be interested to know whether that extends to the very smallest boats which go out to pick up a few lobster pots off the coast.
  The original concept was that Holland-Martin should involve itself with vessels over 80 feet. That seems to indicate that the smaller boats have not necessarily been considered with the same scientific attention that has been devoted to the larger fishing vessels. The right hon. Gentleman said that these regulations would apply to the trawler fleet. I would like greater clarification about the timetable and the development of the administration involved. I imagine that the advantage of this will be that experts will have the chance to consider the needs of the inshore fleet in the same way as they have considered the needs of the deep-sea fleet. Design studies are particularly helpful. I was glad to hear about the provisions being written into the Merchant Shipping Bill. Obviously, the human factor is at least as important as the construction factor in terms of safety.
  They have the advantage of being comparatively cheaper, particularly in relation to the expense of alterations for ships coming under the survey. Human details, such as clothing, training, medical inspections, radio procedures and fishing hours, are extremely important to safety, but they do not represent the comparatively large capital involvement needed to make our trawling and fishing fleet much more secure.
  Clause 1(2) of the Bill needs clarification. The President of the Board of Trade told us that it was to provide for those boats which could not be brought up to I.M.C.O. standard. Will those vessels be named, so that the fishermen will known what is involved if they sail on them? If we are to have a code of regulations on safety for fishing vessels, all who are involved in the

  301
  industry should be told as soon as possible which vessels comply with the regulations and which do not.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I, like all hon. Members who represent seaports, give a warm welcome to the Bill, not only because it is so necessary but because to a large extent it finishes the Government's support of the fishing industry. I do not mean that the support will not continue, but the fishing industry in Hull has a great deal for which to be grateful to the Government, including the I.R.C., the E.F.T.A. Agreements, the Merchant Shipping Bill and now this Bill. My constituents have much to thank the Labour Government for, and the people there, the families and the unions, are conscious of this.
  Will the Minister tell us more specifically what are the plans to replace the "Orsino"? How far have negotiations gone for the building and construction of a specific ship or to obtain a similar type of vessel? The "Orsino" is not due to be chartered again to the Board of Trade, and we should like to know what vessel will replace it. Could an early statement be made on this?
  May I ask what has happened to Recommendation 83 of the Holland-Martin Committee, which concerns the establishment of the much-needed National Trawler Health and Safety Committee? The first annual report of the T.U.C. Centenary Institute of Occupational Health gives, on page 14, several possible explanations of the high death rates of fishermen, and states:
  "Deep sea fishing attracts unusual men who follow an arduous and exacting job but to elucidate the causes of disease and injury among them demands a prolonged and detailed study of a large fishing population which has not yet been done."
  There are many reasons why it has not been done. Valuable work has been done amongst Grimsby fishermen, and there is an interesting statistical table at the back of the Holland-Martin Report, but there has not been an overall look at the picture. What is the reason for the various types of disease referred to in the Holland-Martin and T.U.C. Reports? Surely, to find the answer to this was specifically the job of the National Trawler Health and Safety Committee. What has happened to that excellent idea and why has it not been developed?
  302
  I hope that my hon. Friends who are members of the Committee which is considering the Merchant Shipping Bill will forgive me if I refer to points which I have made in that Committee. There is no provision in the Bill for a safety representative either from the union or elected from the crew aboard when the trawler is at sea. This is an important omission from the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill moved new Clause 3, paragraph (b) of which reads as follows:
  "the setting up in ships of committees of persons employed in ships to which the regulations apply to be known as ships' safety committees;".
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State replied in this way:
  "The main fishing ports have already established port safety committees on which owners, officers and fishermen are represented, and this may be the best way to handle business in that industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th February 1970; c. 621–2.]
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend. The port safety committees are in the ports and not on the vessels. The situation in a port is very different from that in a fishery vessel at sea in bad weather.
  There are trade union representatives on the port safety committee, although they are heavily outnumbered by owners, insurance companies and various other representatives, but there are no lay members of the trade unions on it. This may be a criticism of the trade unions. Men who are working in this difficult environment from day to day should be on the committee. Even more important, there should be representatives at sea who are able to deal with safety matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) referred to paragraph 123 of the Holland-Martin Report:
  "It is somewhat illogical that employees in factories should be protected at work by legal regulations on the design and operation of machinery when no similar requirements exist for the protection of trawlermen at sea."
  But it could equally well read:
  "It is somewhat illogical that employees in factories should be protected at work by legal regulations on health and safety when no similar requirements exist for the protection of trawlermen at sea."
  We all agree with that, and that is why we welcome the Bill.
  Clause 8(1)(a) of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill, to which

  303
  we gave a Second Reading yesterday, provides that:
  "at a factory at which ten or more persons are for the time being employed by the occupier to work in the factory (exclusive of casual workers), there may be appointed from among them by the recognised trade union or unions persons to act as safety representatives under this Act in the interests of the persons so employed;".
  That is obviously a most important provision which could adequately fit the situation on the trawler. It is particularly important because the trawler owners have set their minds against this sort of representation. They have not dealt with the recommendation in the Holland-Martin Report that there should be a re-examination by unions and employers of the complaint procedure on board trawlers. This is regrettable since Holland-Martin went to some length to look at the complaint procedure and recommended that experiments should be made by the progressive firms to look at the matter of representation at sea.
  It must be remembered that we are dealing with the human element. Although we can legislate as far as possible for machinery to be covered, for winches to be guarded, and for there to be no fishing in particularly bad weather, we have to consider how to enforce that legislation. I suggest that it should be enforced by the safety representative on board the vessel who is able to lodge a complaint with the skipper about a particular piece of machinery or a certain labour hazard.
  When the Bill goes to Committee I hope that my right hon. Friend will look again at this problem. The situation is somewhat illogical bearing in mind the good example set by the Marine Federation to the trawler owners and also remembering the provisions contained in the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill which we discussed yesterday. Therefore, there should be similar legislation for the fishing industry. I urge this course upon the Government since it is of great importance.
  I should like to echo the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) as to the need for adequate consultation in the industry when regulations are being drawn up. If it cannot be written into the Bill, perhaps the House can be given an
  304
  undertaking that both sides of the industry, employers and unions, will be given adequate opportunity to examine proposed draft regulations before they come before the House, particularly when they are subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
  It is important that both sides of the industry should be able to see regulations since many of these matters are highly technical. There are places, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), into which laymen should never trespass, but we are dealing with men and their representatives who are employed in what all recognise as being the most highly dangerous industry in the world. Therefore, they should be given full opportunity to examine the machinery and regulations under which they will be required to work.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could say in his reply to the debate whether Clause 1 of the Bill, or indeed the regulations under the Merchant Shipping Bill, cover adequate lighting for the working area on the decks. There is provision in recommendations that where oil lamps exist there should be secondary electrical lamps, but it has been brought to my attention by the men's representatives that they would like specific undertakings about adequate lighting on the working deck surface on board vessels.
  I should also like to ask whether, under Clause 1, regulations will be drawn up to safeguard the use of wires. I am informed that what frequently happens is that where wire has been discarded as unsuitable for trawling, it may often be used for smaller jobs on board ships such as winching, small runs of wire on deck, and things of that nature. These wires often are corroded and dangerous. Will adequate regulations be drawn up under the Bill to cover the use of wires to prevent the possibility of accidents?
  We all welcome the Bill. When one says that it is long overdue, it also means that one regrets that it was ever due. It is a sad reflection that at this time in the 20th century a Bill needs to be introduced to protect the lives of so many men in this industry and also to protect the future of their wives and families. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the warm and sincere way in

  305
  which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced the Bill. He expressed the feelings of our constituents in words far better than the majority of us could hope to use.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: Like everybody else who has taken part in the debate, I welcome the Bill and the manner in which it was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. Anybody from a fishing port would acknowledge the emotion he expressed, having himself been to sea. He understands the emotional impact of a disaster in a fishing port. It goes far beyond the people immediately involved. It has the same impact as a mining disaster or some other great natural catastrophe. The Measure is welcome because, although it will not make conditions absolutely safe—and none of us can hope to do that—it will make the situation as safe as possible so far as legislation can achieve this end.
  I will not repeat many of the arguments which have been put forward; they have been expressed far better than I could express them. I should like to take up the matter mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about the negative procedure. I have often thought that there is a case in this House for having, in addition to our present Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which merely exists to see that the Ministries have complied with various requirements, smaller committees, such as a fisheries committee, to consider the various matters and suggestions that arise before a matter comes finally before the House for approval.
  Mr. James Johnson: Could we not follow the example of the city of Bucharest, which has a fisheries committee that meets to discuss a Bill beforehand and indeed shapes Bills for Ministers?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We should not pursue that matter too far since it is not in the Bill.
  Mr. Clegg: With the best will in the world, I could not follow the hon. Gentleman as far as Bucharest. To turn to particular items, the Bill is not concerned in the first place with the industry, but with the shipbuilding industry which is going to build and develop new trawlers.
  306
  What liaison exists between the Board of Trade surveyors and the shipbuilders engaged in building trawlers about the application of the new standards? May we be told more about the research aspects? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) raised one aspect about de-icing procedures. Personally, I feel that not enough has been done in research. Many of the regulations will deal with the structure of the ship, the ballast and stability of the vessel, and so on, but I hope that in addition there will be research into the machinery used on board to make it safer and, if the matter comes within the purview of the Board of Trade, to make living conditions on board better than they are at present. This is a problem for the industry. It has not only to get safe ships if it is to get crews, but ships with better living accommodation. On the East Coast, the competition from shore-based industry for labour is so intense that, unless there is a combination of safety and comfort at sea, there will not be a viable fishing industry, because the men will not be there to go to sea.
  I want to refer to the problem of the inshore fisherman. The President of the Board of Trade was in my constituency recently, and he knows that there are many to be found there. I was glad to hear that consultations are to take place, and presumably they will be the last phase of the operation. But what concerns me is the ability of the inshore fishing interests to take part in those consultations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could instruct his Department to liaise with the fisheries officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who know what these men are thinking and what their problems are. I hope that there will be adequate liaison on that point.
  I welcome the Bill. I think that it will be the start of a new era in the profession. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said. We want a viable industry. To do that we must get new trawlers and modify our old ones as soon as possible. The more viable that the industry is, the sooner we can have new vessels, especially the stern-trawling type recommended by the Board of Trade.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Before coming to the burden of my remarks, I

  307
  want to take up two points which have been raised in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) spoke about accidents on board trawlers. I believe that the White Fish Authority is about to undertake a research programme into the causes and results of accidents on a statistical basis, at least, in the very near future. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that.
  The other point was that made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) who spoke about the endurance factor and the working hours. His remarks in that respect are as applicable to the inshore fleet as they are to the other sections of the fishing industry.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I give a warm welcome to the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the fatalities that there have been over the course of years. In the replies to a series of Questions which I asked the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in January of this year, some very disturbing results were shown.
  One of my Questions asked for a comparison between the fatality rates in various selected industries. Taking an average of the five years to the end of 1968, at one end of the scale I found that the number of people killed in the motor car manufacturing industry was 0·2 persons per thousand employed. Over the same period in the coalmining industry, the figure was 0·37 persons per thousand employed. In other mining and quarrying, it was 0·75 persons per thousand employed. At the other end of the scale I found that in fishing the figure was 1·85 persons per thousand employed. Over that period of five years, I found that it is almost six times as dangerous to be a fisherman as it is to be a coal miner, and 2½ times more dangerous to be a fisherman than it is to be employed in other mining and quarrying.
  Another measure of the problem that one faces in the context of safety at sea is that, over a similar period to the end of 1968, an average of no less than 10 men were lost at sea or died of injuries each year in the Scottish inshore vessels. In England and Wales, the average was
  308
  only two per year, although it is fair to point out that slightly fewer men are employed in the inshore fleet in England than are employed in Scotland.
  The figures for the distant water fleet for England and Wales show that 107 men were lost at sea or died of injuries in the same period. That is an average of 21 a year. The figures were tragically inflated by the loss of the three trawlers "St. Romanus", "Kingston Peridot" and "Ross Cleveland". It was the loss of those trawlers which was the genesis of the Bill which is before us today, via the Holland-Martin Report.
  The Government are right to extend the provisions of the Bill and the scope of the Holland-Martin Report to other fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom. Naturally, I am concerned with safety in the inshore fleet because I have in my constituency probably the biggest concentration of inshore vessels in any part of the United Kingdom.
  It is also a tragic fact that two vessels based on my constituency or crewed by my constituents have been lost with all hands in the past two years. I refer to the "Refleurir" and the "Coral Isle". The latter vessel disappeared with all hands in December of last year and, as this is possibly the first opportunity of doing so, I am sure that hon. Members will join me in expressing our sympathy to the relatives of the lost crew. In addition to the six men who were lost in the "Coral Isle", in the past three months a total of nine men have been lost from my constituency, and one was very seriously injured.
  It is a truism that fishermen are extremely brave men. I have heard it said that they are men who work with death at their left hands. They are by no means morbid about it. By nature, they are of a cheerful and resilient disposition. It is also true to say that familiarity with the sea does not breed contempt in our fishermen. But it breeds a sort of casualness, and I hope that this Bill and its progeny in the shape of Statutory Instruments will provide safety measures which fishermen themselves would never dream of applying.
  There is no doubt that some of the results of the rules and regulations will be unpopular with owners and skippers. However, we as a House have to face the responsibility of seeing, on behalf of

  309
  fishermen and owners and, more important, the families of fishermen, that everything possible is done to apply the results of modern design, research, and so on.
  I should like at this juncture to pay tribute to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has been extremely courteous and helpful to me during the course of the representations that I have made to him about the safety at sea of the inshore fleet. I have one or two questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who I understand will reply to the debate and who has a great knowledge of the problem.
  First, the rules will eventually give rise to modifications and alterations in the structure and equipping of vessels. Will such modifications rank for grant? I have in mind, for instance, the installing of power blocks. It is conceivable that, as a result of the research which has been done, the installation of power blocks may be obligatory in inshore vessels.
  Will the certificates which are to be issued under Clause 3 be, in effect, certificates of sea-worthiness overall? Will they include not only the structure of the vessel, its water-tightness and all other things like that, but also its stability, as it were?
  What about surveyors? The "Financial effects of the Bill and its effects on public service manpower", on page ii state that
  "The administration of requirements imposed under the Bill will involve a small increase in the staff of the Board of Trade engaged in marine surveys."
  If all fishing vessels are to be covered annually, it seems that more than a small increase will be necessary to cope with this certification. How many people does the Board of Trade foresee being employed in this way and when will a sufficient number become available? In the interim, has the Board of Trade considered utilising the services of surveyors at present employed by insurance companies and so on?
  When is it anticipated that the certificates will be applied to inshore vessels? I have no doubt, from the terms of the Bill, that they will be. But what kind of time scale is involved?
  310
  The Government say, quite rightly, that consultations are necessary before the rules are framed and brought before Parliament. I hope that the Government will not be dilatory in bring forward rules for the inshore fleet as well as for other parts of the industry. As I have tried to point out from the figures, it is equally urgent for that section of the industry as for the deep sea trawlers.
  In opening the President mentioned stability tests for trawlers. May we have art indication, again as regards the inshore fleet, about the work being done on the stability of inshore vessels? This is important, because, for economic reasons, some boats are going further and further afield—that may not be quite the right expression when applied to fishing. However, they are going much further away from the shore than was the usual procedure earlier.
  I am sure that as the Bill progresses through Committee many points will come to our notice. I have had a certain amount of correspondence with boat builders in my constituency, and I anticipate more. I very much hope that action can, and will be, taken as speedily as possible not only in the interests of the safety of the fishermen themselves, but also, as I said earlier, in the interests of the families who wait at home. There is a tremendous strain on those families, and anything we can do to improve the safety of the men who go to sea in fishing vessels will be appreciated throughout the land—not least in the fishing ports. For this reason, I give a very hearty welcome to the Bill.
  5.45 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: My interest in the fishing industry stems from connections in my constituency with the inshore fleet. But once one gets interested in fishing, one tends to get interested in the industry as a whole. Therefore, I can welcome the Bill as sincerely as almost every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken.
  The fact that I am interested in the inshore fleet reinforces in a way, that most of the dangers to those who go to sea in ships exist, with some exceptions, very close to the shore. Therefore, the provisions embodied in Clause 3 apply as much whether ships go far out to sea or stay close to the shore. This needs stressing particularly.

  311
  One of my hon. Friends mentioned support ships. This matter also needs following up. Whilst I have most connection with inshore fishing, I hear from others what is going on. I believe that the pattern of fishing changes, but that there is not sufficient flexibility in the help that is given by support ships as the fleet moves about. I wonder whether we might hear something about that.
  Naturally, because my constituency is connected with the inshore industry, I wonder what impact the Bill will have on the inshore fleet and whether the considerations which will have to be borne in mind and the certificates which will have to be given will put a limit on where boats may go.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) mentioned the economic factor forcing people to go further out to sea. He also mentioned power blocks. I believe that these may, in certain circumstances, enable people to go on fishing because they have power to help them, whereas, so many years ago, when they did not have the power to help them, they could not have gone on fishing. Therefore, the fact that we use science and invention to help leads, to a certain extent, into further danger. I hope that the provisions that are made will be sensibly applied. It is difficult to understand from the Bill who will do what, particularly concerning the inshore fleet.
  The majority of points which could be raised have already been made, but I should like to mention one which, whilst not in the Bill, has a great effect on safety at sea—namely, forecasting.
  People may say that we have all the weather forecasting that we need. But I have heard from fishermen in my constituency, particularly those who go for line fishing in the Faroes and that part of the world, that, whilst there are perfectly good weather forecasts made at night and at midday, at the time of day when they finish their day's fishing they do not have adequate weather forecasts to enable them to decide whether to stay and fish for another day or to make for home. A synopsis of the weather at 6 o'clock in the evening would require about another two minutes of broadcasting time.
  I should think that even the "popsiest" of "pop" music devotees
  312
  would be happy to give up two minutes of broadcasting time to ensure a greater measure of safety at sea. I hope that this will be borne in mind.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: We were all impressed by the sincere way in which the President of the Board of Trade spoke and the general interest which he and his predecessor have taken in the Bill. I hope that he has been equally pleased by the support which the Bill has received from every speaker in this debate. This underlines the importance of the Bill—although there is not much meat in it. The meat comes later when the Board of Trade regulations are published.
  I was glad that the Minister said that there would be full consultation with all sides of the industry before the regulations are published. I would remind him of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said about the problem of the negative procedure. Could all these regulations be tabled together? It would be a pity if they came up one after another. The Opposition will certainly want to debate them when they are tabled. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the regulations to be published? I appreciate that he cannot give us an exact date but it would be helpful to know whether it would he in the next month or the next three months. I imagine that they would be published, at any rate, before the Summer Recess.
  The accident rate in the deep-water fleet is, of course, far too high and must be reduced, and the Bill will, we hope, help to reduce it. But it is only fair to point out that the industry itself has done quite a lot in this direction and has set certain standards. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the mutual insurance companies in most of the major ports have played a great part in promoting safety. These are co-operative and non-profit-making bodies.
  I was struck by an article in the Fish Trades Gazette on 25th February, in which the writer said:
  "In my experience of the industry, I have seen the local owners lead the industry and be far ahead of Government regulations in providing radio, radar, fire-fighting equipment, navigational aids, self-inflating dinghies, one man centre line boat davits and many other things."

  313
  I only quote this to put the record straight and to show that, although the accident rate, as has been agreed, is far too high, the industry has not been negligent, but has done all it can to reduce it.
  I turn now to Clause 1 and the Holland-Martin recommendations 16 to 25. These hull, equipment and machinery regulations will obviously apply to all new ships, but I am still not clear what the Government have in mind about existing vessels. Are there to be special regulations for each type of ship, as the right hon. Gentleman hinted, or will there be general regulations, with exemptions, which the Bill allows him to make, for specific ships? Will these be merely by classes or types of ship, or will they also affect the area, or perhaps the season, or the amount of catch which each ship is allowed to take from the sea, as these factors obviously affect stability to some degree? There is a danger that if we have too many classes under regulations, particularly with regard to fishing grounds and seasons, and we may get into such confusion that this Bill will do more harm than good. I hope that this will be borne in mind when the regulations are drawn up.
  On recommendation No. 19 of the Holland-Martin Report, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen mentioned the I.M.C.O. standards of stability. How many existing ships would pass that test? I appreciate that the Minister may not know this figure, but it was discussed when the Holland-Martin Report was presented to the House. Probably the Minister has some idea whether the majority of existing ships are likely to pass the test or not. If not, of course, a rather serious situation arises, because I understand that it is a costly job to improve the stability of ships and we do not want to put too many older ships out of commission too quickly.
  The Holland-Martin recommendation No. 22, on fire hazards at sea, has been referred to. This is accepted as one of the greatest risks to be run at sea, since it is so much more dangerous than fire on land. The Holland-Martin Report on page 44 said:
  "The Hull Steam Trawlers Mutual Insurance and Protecting Company has led the way in formulating standards of structural fire protection for Hull trawlers and we consider that
  314
  full account should be taken of this work in formulating the statutory requirements."
  To what extent is that a fact? In other words, are the majority of older ships likely to conform or could they conform without too much additional expense, to the necessary improvements required to check the spread of fire?
  A number of hon. Gentleman have referred to the application of these regulations to the inshore fleet. They will apply, I suppose rightly, first to the distant-water fleet. I am sure that the Minister will want to say something about the inshore fleet, whether there will be entirely different sets of regulations—obviously there is even more diversity among inshore vessels than distant-water or middle-water vessels—and whether he agrees with the suggestion that the fishery officers should be consulted about the inshore fleet, because they are very experienced in this type of work.
  I turn now to Clause 2 and Holland-Martin Recommendations Nos. 7 to 15 and 26 to 39, which cover practically all the safety equipment requirements in a ship. We all agree that safety is essential. I was particularly pleased when the Minister made it clear that the recommendation that distant-water trawlers should carry wireless as well as R/T was to be enforced, and, in fact, is in force and working satisfactorily. This is a very important matter.
  The matter of inflatable boats and survival suits has been raised, as has the ever-present danger of black ice, which affects stability. I know that some experiments have been done on these matters. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman could make a short reference to them, but we should like to know who will be responsible for research into safety. The Board of Trade is drawing up regulations and will be responsible for making exceptions, and issuing certificates. But is there any organisation responsible for research into safety into fishing vessels? The White Fish Authority considers an aspect of this work, but the basic job of the W.F.A. is on economic research. A lot of fallout effects problems of safety, but do the Government intend to give the authority a little more scope in this respect? Most people would agree that research into this aspect of safety at sea will be of great value. Perhaps the

  315
  W.F.A. can be given a wider field to cover?
  The subject of fatigue is covered by a number of recommendations in the Holland-Martin Report. The House can lay down statutory provisions in regard to hours of work but it is very difficult to enforce these on the fishing grounds, as anyone who has been there knows. The question of the turn-round of the ship and, perhaps, the need for more leave between fishing trips, particularly distant-water ones, should be considered, but this and the whole question of the human element and of manning is referred to in the Merchant Shipping Bill, so I must not discuss it at any length here. This also applies to training, which the House will agree is very important, because it, too, effects the human element. With properly trained and certificated seamen, accidents are much less likely.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about a safety representative at sea or, as many other hon. Members would describe him, a shop steward at sea. I do not believe that this is necessary. I should like to read from a letter which I have received from the Hull Trawler Officers Guild on this matter:
  "I would…like to state that we as a Guild representing the Trawler Officers of Hull consist of 300 Members who are very competent. experienced and time-served Fishermen, we know our ships and we know what our job is, we will not in any way have our authority as Skippers undermined by Shop Stewards (Ship Board representation) this will not work."
  I mention this only to point out that the whole question is not as simple as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North implied. Indeed, there seems to be considerable opposition to the suggestion from certain parts of the industry.
  Mr. MacNamara: If the hon. Gentleman examines everything that I have said on this issue he will find that neither I nor the union has at any time ever challenged the fact that ultimate responsibility for the safety of the crew, the craft and the cargo should be with the skipper. The hon. Gentleman is under the same misapprehension in considering the phrase "shop steward" as the guild is under.
  Mr. Wall: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman must equally accept that in a small ship with a small crew there is a danger, if a person is doing the sort of work the hon. Gentleman has in mind, that there could arise a conflict with the skipper, or that his authority might be challenged. We should not forget that most ports have port discipline committees which work well. Perhaps we should leave them to undertake this work.
  Mr. MacNamara indicated dissent.
  Mr. Wall: This matter is not easy to resolve, and it is causing considerable concern in certain sections of the industry. The hon. Gentleman and I must agree to disagree about it.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen and others raised the question of support ships. It is encumbent on the Government to supply adequate support for the fishing fleet, in the same way as it is becoming their resonsibility to supply air/sea rescue services. Today, R.A.F. helicopters are having to do this job, and in this technological age this type of work has become part of the services that must be provided as a national emergency service.
  One ship, the "Orsino", is not sufficient, although she has done a good job. I do not know how much she has cost to charter, but she is not designed for this support task, and I agree with hon. Members who have called for the building of a specially designed ship along the lines of the German "Frithjof". Protection of this kind used to be provided by the Fishery Protection Squadron of the Royal Navy, we are here discussing the question of safety against the elements and not against an enemy.
  In this connection, the letter from the Hull Trawler Officers Guild, from which I quoted, also stated that there had been a
  "…very strong complaint from …Members regarding the service or lack of service of the Fishery Protection Vessels …and 95 per cent. of the Hull Fishing Fleet are at present fishing off the Norwegian Coast while "Orsino" is stationed off Iceland."
  The point is that with just one ship, the "Orsino", operating off Iceland, if 95 per cent. of the fleet is operating off Norway, the "Orsino" cannot give a great deal of help in those circumstances.

  317
  A case occurred recently when a man was injured off Bear Island and a Norwegian frigate had to steam for 16 hours to pick him up and then steam 16 hours to get him to hospital in Norway. I hope that the Government will look at this matter, remembering that in the old days ships of the Royal Navy were specially allocated and their crews were specially trained for fishery protection work. Today ships are detached for this purpose from the Western Fleet, and we do not have the same liaison and service.
  I support the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen about the need for co-operation with support ships of other nations. It was pointed out that co-operation exists. It does. But what we need is co-ordination to ensure that Norwegian vessels will be in certain waters at certain times, that Icelandic vessels will be in other waters and that British vessels will be elsewhere, so that all areas are covered by support ships of various countries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said that the real need was for an adequate return on capital so that money could be reinvested in ships and equipment. This brings me to the whole question of cost. The Minister will recall that when the then President of the Board of Trade presented the Holland-Martin Report to the House, I asked him—this was in July, 1969—
  "what will be the approximate cost of these recommendations and how will it be divided between the Government and the industry?"
  He replied:
  "It is not possible to put a precise figure on the cost of these proposals, but it will be substantial. How this should be shared is one of the most important matters I must discuss with the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1725–6.]
  I imagine that those discussions are still going on.
  The Holland-Martin Report suggested that the increased manning scales recommended might alone cost £1-4 million. Much of this manning problem may be overcome by greater automation, which may reduce the size of crews, as has already occurred in the engineroom. Can we have an approximation of the Government's views on the total cost of these regulations and of the share as between Government and industry?
  Though we talk of cost, the House as a whole recognises that men's lives are
  318
  above cost. The loss of the "St. Romanus", the "Ross Cleveland" and the "Kingston Peridot" shocked the nation. Fishermen pursue a dangerous trade. The Bill will not prevent such tragedies, but it will make them less likely. This, at least, we owe to the men who died.
  6.7 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Although I speak tonight as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, I remind hon. Members that I am also the representative of a fishing constituency. For many years I have been concerned, both as Parliamentary Secretary and as the hon. Member for Leith, with the high cost of fishing in terms of men's lives. Thus, tonight I am doubly pleased to be playing a part in getting that price down.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said that often in this House hon. Members spoke of Hull and Grimsby—he might have mentioned Lowestoft and Fleetwood—as representing the whole of the fishing industry. That complaint was somewhat different from the one I received in a recent fishing debate from the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who asked if an hon. Member who represented an English constituency would be allowed to participate, apparently indicating that only Scottish hon. Members wished to speak on the subject.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out precisely what we are discussing. He said that the Bill covered all fishing vessels but that we needed certain priorities. The House will accept this. It is out intention to implement the Holland-Martin recommendations for deep-sea vessels, and no hon. Member would argue that this should not be one of our firs priorities.
  The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) questioned me about the support price costs. The Estimate provision in the current year is £3 million in capital grants—these are paid through the White Fish Authority—and £4 million in operating subsidy. These are Great Britain figures covering the deep sea and inshore fleets, and it will be seen from these figures that we

  319
  have made allowance for considerable assistance. In addition, I agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that for the first time for a considerable period the fishing fleet has been doing rather better. We are grateful for this.
  The hon. and learned Member for Darwen also raised the question of stability. The check on the stability characteristics of the existing distant water fleet is about 80 per cent. complete. It seems that only about one-quarter, if not less, of existing trawlers do not meet I.M.C.O. standards and will need modifications or limitations. The answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on this aspect is that this check would be applied to other vessels if necessary.
  The question of survival clothing has been examined by a committee of the Board of Trade in conjunction with the question of inflatable life rafts, and we understand that all vessels sailing to distant waters from all ports are having their life rafts fitted with aluminium foil bags. Our view is that, for the present at least, these provide the only practicable solution to the problem. Obviously we shall go on considering what can be done.
  The hon. Member for Lowestoft asked me about the question of manpower. As my right hon. Friend said, survey work will be left to classification societies, wherever that is appropriate. A small increase in the professional staff of the Board of Trade seems unavoidable. We shall consider what help can be given by others, such as fishery officers. No matter who does the work, it will cost something. It is important to ensure that whoever does it has the right qualifications and knowledge of the subject. For example, it seems best to employ Post Office surveyors for radio, as is the practice for merchant ships.
  Safety committees have already been set up in all the deep sea fishing ports. This follows the recommendation of the Holland-Martin Committee.
  As to research, in submitting the report of his committee, Sir Deric Holland-Martin referred to work which had been completed by an inter-departmental committee established by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology in February, 1968 to consider whether any
  320
  research work should be undertaken into technical aspects of trawler safety in addition to the various studies already in hand.
  This committee had concluded that there was no need for new studies, but a need, rather, for closer evaluation of studies—for example, on de-icing equipment—which had already been usefully developed. Further trials are still being carried out--for example, of the various types of equipment specially installed in the "Orsino". The Board of Trade and the White Fish Authority are continually engaged in research of this kind, as on other matters relevant to the problem. I assure the House that this work is proceeding.
  Clause 1 provides for the provision of adequate lighting. However, the manner and the use of lighting and other equipment is covered by the new Clause in the Merchant Shipping Bill on safe working practices.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised a question about the National Trawler Health and Safety Committee Recommendation No. 83. This question was discussed briefly with both sides of the industry soon after the publication of the Holland-Martin Report. It was the general opinion of both sides of the industry that the safety committees in the ports were working well and there was probably no need to set up a co-ordinating committee. However, no final decision has been taken, and the matter can always be considered further.
  The House will agree that the Holland-Martin Committee has shown us the way to achieve greater safety with its comprehensive and far-reaching report. This is concerned not only with the more obvious matters directly affecting safety, such as the design of the ships, but also with matters affecting the quality of the industry and the environment that it provides for the men working in it. Indeed, the report stresses that all its recommendations should be taken together if a satisfactory standard of safety is to be achieved.
  If this is done, and the recommendations are put into effect conscientiously, I believe that we can hope to see a change in the whole atmosphere of the industry.

  321
  We should see not only a safer industry, but also a more contented and efficient industry, better able to meet the competition that it faces from the fishing fleets of Europe.
  This hopeful prospect depends to a great extent on the willingness of those in the industry themselves to make changes. I believe that the willingness is there, and so far as it lies in our power we on the Government side will try to ensure that the impetus given by the Holland-Martin Report is not lost.
  Of course these changes cannot all be achieved without cost. Even though the final result may be a more efficient and profitable industry meeting the cost during the initial years will be a problem. In particular, compliance with the regulations that will eventually be made under this Bill, and also under the Merchant Shipping Bill, will undoubtedly add to the costs which the fishing industry has to bear; and the Government are conscious of this.
  Many of these costs will arise on capital account and will qualify for grant-aid in the same way as any other improvements to fishing vessels. This answers the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) under the current support arrangements at the rate of 35 per cent. for deep sea vessels and 40 per cent. for the others. These rates apply equally to the construction of new vessels so that added costs of this kind will receive the same treatment.
  To an extent also the measures will affect operating costs. Here again, under the present deep-sea subsidy arrangements these extra costs will be automatically taken into account in arriving at the total operating subsidy to be paid in each period. The inshore subsidy arrangements are somewhat different, since they do not provide for an automatic adjustment of rates. Rates are, however, reviewed annually and any increased costs arising in respect of safety measures will be taken into account in the same way as all other factors affecting the profitability of the fleet.
  We recognise that the full and immediate implementation of all the Holland-Martin recommendations would nevertheless leave a heavy burden to be shouldered by the industry, although until the content of the various rules
  322
  and regulations yet to be made is known it is difficult to get a very clear view of its magnitude. Most hon. Members will agree with this. To guess at it would not help us much.
  Timing will be an important factor influencing the cost of such new requirements as the Board of Trade may impose under this Bill for the safe construction of fishing vessels. New ships should not raise many problems, but applying similar standards to existing vessels could be a much more difficult matter and the cost of the necessary alterations could be substantial.
  Thus there are likely to be difficult decisions to take in individual cases, balancing safety, the cost of alterations, and the remaining useful life of the ship. In some cases it may be reasonable to exempt certain ships from some of the requirements as permitted under Clause 1(2), and simultaneously restrict the ship's operation in some way—for example, by not allowing it to operate in the most hazardous sea areas in the winter. There may even be some cases in which the only sensible and economic course is to withdraw the vessel from fishing altogether. That is some reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon).
  Obviously these problems cannot all be solved at once. To avoid any disruption of supplies, the Board of Trade will have to take into account the rate at which new ships are likely to enter the fleet and phase a programme of improving existing ships accordingly. This will demand close consultation with the industry.
  It is the Board of Trade's normal practice in regulating the safety of merchant ships to arrange full consultation with both sides of the industry, and the same practice will be applied in this case. Indeed, this process has already started, and discussions on various technical matters are in train.
  I assure the House that there should be no fear that new regulations will be suddenly proposed without warning. However, in view of the concern which hon. Members have expressed on this point, my right hon. Friend is ready to add a provision to the Bill making it mandatory, before introducing regulations, to consult the representatives of

  323
  those in the industry who would be affected by them. This provision would be similar in form to Clause 94(2) of the Merchant Shipping Bill. It would give statutory force to what is in any case the Board of Trade's intention.
  I should now like to say a word about the inshore fishermen. They have not been brought into the public eye by spectacular and tragic losses such as afflicted the deep-sea industry two years ago, and which have afflicted the industry for many years before that. One had only to listen to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade instancing cases over the years to see that a big price has had to be paid. They may not face the icing hazards of the Iceland fishing grounds in winter, but the seas around our coasts can be violent, and the inshore fisherman does not have the comparative comfort and protection of a large, modern stern-trawler.
  This is why the Board of Trade proposes, once regulations for the deep-sea fleet have been put into effect, to consider to what extent similar protection should be extended to inshore fishermen.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has anyone made an estimate of the timetable for that?
  Mr. Hoy: No; until we get a complete record of all that has to be done it would be impossible to make a forecast of any kind. I have given the assurance that once the Board of Trade has dealt with this it will be extended to inshore fishermen.
  The Board's staff will need to consider all the factors affecting the safety of the smaller vessels before deciding what
  324
  safety provisions would be appropriate for them; such decisions will be taken only in full consultation with those affected in the industry and, as with the deep-sea fleet, the cost will be an important factor to be taken into account.
  There has been much talk of cost, and I have had to say something about it; we have to recognise that it will be little use making the industry safe if it ceases to be profitable. But profitability can be bought at too high a price in men's lives and the time has come to bring that price down; I believe that in providing the Board of Trade with powers sought in this Bill we shall be opening the way for some real progress in that direction. Because of that I feel it a great honour and privilege to be given the opportunity of saying these few words in support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the safety of fishing vessels, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under that Act; and

  (2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Hoy.]

  RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)
  6.25 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move,
  That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
  The Order increases the amounts of rate support grant which were prescribed for the two years 1969–70 and 1970–71 by the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1969. The Order also makes minor changes in the formulae by which grant is distributed, formulae which were also prescribed by the 1969 Order. The provisions of the Order, and the underlying considerations, are explained in House of Commons Paper No. 124.
  For the two-year period from May, 1969 to May, 1971—the second period of rate support grant—the aggregate amounts of grant were fixed at £182·22 million for 1969–70 and £194·63 million for 1970–71. Provision for this was debated in the House about a year ago, when my right hon. Friend explained that the aggregate amounts of grant represented 64½ per cent. and 65½ per cent. of estimated local authority revenue expenditure for those two years, and 62½ per cent. and 63½ per cent. for the two previous years. This estimate of revenue expenditure, £637 million over the two years, was reached in the light both of the information supplied by local authorities and of the guide lines laid down by the Government for expenditure and growth of expenditure in the public sector. Also, of course, the estimate was based on the level of prices, wages and incomes prevailing about the end of 1968.
  During 1969 the cost of operating local authority services was affected by a number of price changes, and by wages or salary awards to different categories of local authority employees. At the end of September there was a wages award for manual workers. From 1st August there was an increase of salary for the administrative, professional and technical classes of local authority employees. There was a pay award for teachers with effect from April, 1969. These three awards are estimated to have the direct effect of adding £6·2 million to local authority revenue expenditure in 1969–
  326
  70, and the full year effect of about £8¾1: million is felt in 1970–71. There are, of course, further consequential increases, such as the employer's share of superannuation payments related to increased wage or salary levels. Other awards of increased pay or allowances have been announced, affecting most categories of local authority employment. After careful consideration of the terms and effects of different pay awards, we estimate that staff costs are increased by nearly £9 million in 1969–70 and by about £l2¾ million in 1970–71. Higher staff costs are in fact the largest single item in the list of changes which have affected the estimate of local authority expenditure in this grant period.
  Debt service is another large item of current expenditure, and the high rates of interest at which local authorities have had to borrow and reborrow during the year are expected to increase this expenditure by about £3·8 million in 1969–70 and nearly £4½ million in 1970–71. There are also increases in the cost of maintaining local authority buildings such as offices and schools, and of the wide range of goods and services which they have to buy. The resulting increase in expenditure is estimated at about £5£ million, but the higher cost of services will be reflected in the charges and other contributions which local authorities will receive, and off-setting income from these sources should be about £2·6 million higher in a full year.
  These estimates of increased costs are based on information supplied by the local authorities and discussed and considered with them in the light of carefully gathered data about general movements of prices and costs, the composition of expenditure and, of course, the terms of particular pay awards. As a result we are satisfied that the reckon-able expenditure on local authority rate fund services expenditure will be altogether some £326 million in 1969–70 and £346 million in 1970–71. That is, an increase of £16 million in the first year and £20 million in the second year over and above the estimates on which the main order was based. The Government intends that the present standard of local authority services should be maintained, and allowed to grow at the rate previously envisaged. Accordingly, the increase Order steps up the aggregate of rate

  327
  support grant so that the Government contribution to local expenditure remains at the designated levels of 64½ per cent. and 65½ per cent.
  For the year 1969–70 this means that the total amount of rate support grant is increased by £9·8 million to just over £192 million. For the year 1970–71 the total amount of rate support grant is increased by £12.7 million, from £194·6 to £207·3 million. The House is asked to approve the taking of powers to make these additional payments to local authorities.
  Of the additional grant, about £120,000 will be distributed as domestic element, which is used to reduce the rates poundage local authorities would otherwise require to levy on dwelling houses. The increase of domestic element does not change the effect on householders—equivalent to a rate reduction of 2s. 6d. in the £ in 1969–70 and 3s. 4d. in the £ in 1970–71—but is applied to adjust the amount of this element to allow for new estimates of domestic rateable value.
  For distribution of the balance, the grant increase is divided between the resources element and the needs element in the same proportion as in the main order; three-quarters as needs element and one-quarter as resources element. These are the three channels of rate support—through the domestic element to relieve the private householder, through the resources element to assist those authorities with below-average rateable resources, and through the needs element to give assistance in proportion to population as weighted for such factors as the number of children below school age, the proportion of elderly persons, roads mileage relative to population, rate of population change and relative urban or rural distribution of population.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) rose
  Dr. Mahon: If I may finish first. My hon. Friend has had the advantage, as have many hon. Members, of having a very lengthy letter dealing with an individual point concerning the people of West Lothian. I am certain that he would like me to comment on that at the end of the debate. I would like to explain the main burden of the position
  328
  before going into details as to how it affects particular counties.
  These weightings, of course, adapt the distribution of grant in some degree to the different needs which different local authorities have to meet, or in the case of the sparsity weightings to the high unit costs of providing almost all services in remote areas.
  When we debated the main Order for the current grant period in this House on 20th February last year my right hon. Friend explained that changes were being made by the Order in the arrangements for distributing the resources element and the needs element which had been reviewed by representatives of the local authorities in association with officers of his Departments during 1968.
  The most important of these changes was to take out of the calculation of weighted population for purposes of the resources element the weightings for children under 15, and for sparsity, which had survived till then from the days when support for local authority services was by direct percentage grants. Increased weightings for "education units" replaced the under-15 weightings and greatly increased weightings for sparsity were given in the needs element to compensate the authorities which lost the corresponding weighting on the resources element.
  My right hon. Friend explained to the House that, although these changes were generally recognised as an improvement, they were not entirely satisfactory and the review of the arrangements was to continue, with special reference to the distribution of the roads portion of the needs element which was not considered in 1968. Temporary arrangements were made for one year to limit the maximum increase in rates for any authority as a result of the formula changes to ls. by paying transitional grants amounting in all to £113,000. The cost of this was borne by all authorities proportionately. The authorities assisted in this way were the small burghs of Annan, Lerwick, Fort William and Kingussie, and the County Council of Inverness. We did not provide for transitional payments in 1970–71 because we intended to remove the need for them and this is achieved by the improvements of grant distribution which are introduced by this Order.
  We have decided to modify the formulae used for distribution of the

  329
  needs element, and the changes are explained in Part C of the report. They are quite straightforward. They comprise, firstly, an increase of the roads portion of needs element—with weightings where the roads mileage is high in relation to population, which is a reference to my hon. Friend and the reply he has received from the Minister. Secondly there is some scaling down of sparsity weightings for the general portion of needs element.
  For rural counties such as Inverness, Perth and Dumfries this means more grant payable as roads portion, but less grant payable as general portion because the sparsity weightings are reduced. The result is to assist these county authorities and through them their small burghs, but not their large burghs, for the large burghs do not share the county roads portion but they do share the general portion. The unintentional result of last year's Order was that for 1969–70 a few of the burgh authorities were too generously treated, at the expense of landwards areas and small burghs. For the year 1970–71 the new formula goes most of the way to correct this.
  The four cities and most large burghs are not affected by the formula changes incorporated in the Order. There are incidental changes in grant entitlement for a number of counties, and some of those affected might consider that the changes go in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, every grant change cannot be an increase, and in this large and complex grant system it is impossible to manipulate one part without producing effects in another part, but we have consulted the local authority associations and the new formulae are generally accepted by the county councils as bringing an all-round improvement, correcting a localised and specific defect in the mechanism of grant distribution.
  It is a necessary, though not perhaps desirable, consequence of the present grant system and of the "constant prices" assumption on which public expenditure is planned, that a very large and diverse body of local authority expenditure has to be revalued each year. We have been greatly assisted in carrying out the 1969 revaluation by the detailed analysis of expenditure on each service which local authorities have been supplying since 1968, in their out-turn statements for the
  330
  last completed year. I know, and so does my noble Friend and the Secretary of State, that this has involved, particularly at the start, much extra work for the chief finance officers of local authorities and their staffs, and it is right that in introducing this Order I should put on record the value both for central and for local government of the information which this hard work has produced.
  I commend the Order, and I will seek to reply to detailed points on any other matters which hon. Gentlemen may seek to raise at the end of the debate, if I may.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I would like to thank the Minister of State for the way in which he has introduced the Order and the explanations he has given. These Orders are not easy to understand, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the figures and the way in which he has described the distribution of the increase in the different ways and between the different elements.
  As I said last year, I have to express a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because in all these questions of distribution, as he said, there are some local authorities which appear to benefit and others which feel that they have been hurt in some way. It was during the debate on the main Order last year that I said it required something like the wisdom of Solomon to be able to distribute this money and keep everyone happy.
  I endorse what the Minister of State said about the amount of work done by local authorities and others in contributing towards the work that goes into the preparation of an Order like this. Obviously, it is extremely helpful to have as much information as possible, and what is provided in this Order and to us as individual Members is very helpful in trying to determine whether this money has been fairly distributed.
  On these occasions the hon. Gentleman comes to the House and reads out these figures, increases of another £9·8 million in grants for 1969–70 and £12·7 million in 1970–71. The figures trip off his tongue so readily that they give an appearance that the Government are being generous towards local authorities.

  331
  Of course, we welcome the amount of money that is being given, but at the same time there are three other matters which we have to take into account.
  In the first place, so far as local authorities are concerned—I will refer to what I said in a similar debate a year ago—let us remember that reckonable expenditure which the Government agreed with local authorities, what they have to spend, falls short of what the local authorities themselves believe is necessary for them to carry out the services which we in Parliament have laid upon them. I would remind the House that for the year 1969–70 reckonable expenditure fell £11½ million short of the local authorities' estimate; and for 1970–71, £11 million short of what the local authorities themselves thought was necessary. I would emphasise to the House that these figures are before any cost increases such as we are discussing this evening have been taken into account.
  I would remind the Minister of State that many of the cost increases contained in the Order which the Minister has described are a direct result of Government action, a direct result of what the Government themselves have done, and are not matters within the control of the local authorities themselves. Here I instance the interest charges, which are one of the highest single items in this Increases Order which we are debating. We have an increase in interest charges for 1969–70 amounting to £3·81 million and in 1970–71, to £4·47 million. I can only think that many local authorities must be looking back and yearning for those days of Tory Government when interest rates were not as high as they are today.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that interest charges are high all over the world? Is he suggesting that the Government have caused that, as well?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am suggesting that the Government are to a great extent responsible for the high interest charges from which this country is suffering at the present time. It is certainly not the fault of local authorities. It is something which the Socialist Government have imposed upon them.
  332
  A third point I want to make which the Minister of State must bear in mind is that many extensions of services have taken place in the course of the year which are not covered by this Order. Only the extra costs are covered. I understand, for example, that in the estimates for running the new social work departments local authorities' actual costs are running out very much higher than was envisaged when we discussed what the reckonable expenditure should be. These are not covered by this Order, and that is an item which local authorities are unable to recoup in an interim period in any way at all.
  Whilst I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that these increases have taken place, and accept that these have been agreed with representatives of local authorities, and recognise also that the Government met in 1969–70 64½ per cent. and in 1970–71 65½ per cent. of these increases, the remainder of these increases—roughly 35–36 per cent.—has to be borne by local authorities them selves and by the ratepayers.
  There are one or two specific questions I would like to ask the Minister, which he has said he will answer at the end of the debate. First or all, in relation to the increases in costs of local authorities, as a result of pay awards, the Minister of State made reference to a specific pay award which took place last year. I would ask the Minister up to what date these pay awards have been taken into account. We all know that there are pay awards under discussion at the moment in relation to teachers and that a nurses pay award has been agreed within the last few weeks. Are these most recent pay awards taken into account in the estimate of increases in reckonable expenditure this year and next, or have these items that are still not completely finalised not been estimated at all?
  It would be helpful to know, because increases of £7 million in the first year and over £10 million in the second year are very big items and if these more recent, very substantial awards have to be taken into account this will be an increase in expenditure which local authorities will have to face. These may not have been taken into account in this Order.
  My second question is in relation to interest charges. Next to increase through

  333
  pay awards, these are the biggest single items in the increases that local authorities have had to face. I would ask the Minister of State how he has allocated between different local authorities, and the different interest charges which local authorities have, in the calculation of the increased interest charges. One of our greatest aids in these debates is the Rating Review which is published each year by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers. Unfortunately, this has not yet been published this year, and therefore I have to rely on the figures for 1968–69.
  If we look at those figures in relation to the cities, for example, there is quite a range of average borrowing rates which the different local authorities have to face. Aberdeen, for instance, borrows at an average of 5·87 per cent.; Dundee at 6·16. If we look at the large burghs we find that Coatbridge borrows at an average rate of 5·25 per cent. while Kirkcaldy has to borrow at 6·23. If we look at the counties we find an even wider spread of borrowing rates. At one end of the scale there is Peebles, which borrows at an average rate of 4·94, with my own county of Angus, borrowing at 6·25 per cent., at the other end of the scale.
  Where interest charges are obviously such a big single major item of these increased costs, how is this increase allocated between different authorities with the different rates of interest charges they have to bear? This is an important point because the policies of different authorities vary. Some borrow on a long-term basis; some have to renew loans more frequently; some have particular projects for which they have to borrow at higher rates. Therefore, the actual burden of interest charges varies considerably in different areas of Scotland. I would like to know how all that is taken into account.
  The third specific point I would like to put to the Minister is: are all the increased costs which local authorities have had to face accounted for? I would like to raise just one item which appears in Appendix 2 to this Order, on page 8, in relation to the Registration of Electors. I notice that the increased costs expected are estimated at £1,000 for 1969–70 and £3,000 for 1970–71. Yet in answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put
  334
  to the Secretary of State on 4th December last:
  "What extra costs are being incurred by local authorities following the decision to reduce the voting age to 18; and whether such costs are eligible for grant",
  the Secretary of State replied:
  "This expenditure has been approximately estimated at £50,000 in the first year and £20,000 a year thereafter."
  He went on to say:
  "Expenditure on electoral registration is reckonable for rate support grant"—
  and therefore one would expect it to be dealt with in an Order of this nature—
  "but the total of the grants up to 1970–71 was fixed before the passing of the Act of 1969. As I indicated to the local authority associations in the course of my meeting with them on 24th January, 1969, it is not normal practice to provide for situations of this kind in a subsequent Increase Order".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 792, c. 359–60, 4th December, 1969.]
  In other words, here we have one single item of increase which in itself may not be very great but in total to any particular local authority may be as much as about £50,000. It is an increase which, for reasons which the Secretary of State has not explained but which he regards as normal practice, is not taken into account in an Order of this kind, although it is an item which normally comes into reckonable expenditure. It is a considerable item over Scotland as a whole. Why are such items not taken into account? The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that this increase will have to be borne completely by the ratepayers unassisted by the Government.
  I turn now to the distribution of needs element. What population figures have been used for this? The element depends very much on population and population densities and so forth. How up to date are the figures? There is some question, for example, of how much the Registrar-General's figures take into account movements of population and of whether some of the sample census figures recently taken are not more accurate. The Scottish Economic Planning Board has made certain estimates, as have others, of population movements. Are these estimates taken into account in determining the distribution of needs element in the rate support grant? This is an important factor. Those of us who come from the remoter areas where population changes take place want to ensure that these

  335
  decisions are based on the most up-to-date figures.
  There is also an item involved which I cannot follow. It is in relation to payments made to Scottish universities. There is nothing in detail to say just what these are. As a point of information, the House would like to know more about this item.
  Although we welcome the assistance the Government give to local authorities in the Order, what is really important at the end of the day is the fact that local authorities and the ratepayers have to face increased costs. The Government take credit for the fact that through meeting nearly two-thirds of the increase in costs they are bearing a substantial part. At the same time, they will recognise that the local authorities have to bear a substantial proportion out of their own rates. In answer to a Parliamentary Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 19th January, the Secretary of State told us that in 1969–70 the domestic rate, despite the help given through the domestic element of the rate support grant, was reckoned to go up by ls. 4d. in the £ against an increase of 9d. in the previous year. At the same time, it was estimated that the rate on the non-domestic subjects was going up by 2s. 2d. in the £ as against 1s. 7d. in the previous year.
  Despite the Government's claim, and despite what is done in this Order, the trend of rates is still remorselessly upward. Despite all the claim for the domestic element, at the end of the day the ordinary householder still has to pay for many of these increases in costs. We welcome what the Government do to help but they should recognise that the ordinary person in Scotland still has to pay heavily for these increased costs.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. George Willis: This Order deals with two things. It provides a calculated amount for the rate support grant for 1969–70 and 1970–71 and it alters the distribution formula which allocates the rate support amongst various local authorities.
  I can understand the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) not wishing to discuss the allocation of this grant because, in the
  336
  change, his county benefits by £101,000, which is equal to what West Lothian loses. I have no doubt that this means about 7d. or 8d. benefit to the rates in Angus. I can well imagine how the Tories in Angus will claim at the next local elections that their policy has enabled rates to be reduced by 7d. or 8d. They will hail it as a great triumph for Tory rule instead of admitting it for what it is—the generosity of the Labour Government. I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman did not want to discuss that. Why should he? After all, £101,000 is no mean sum in his local authority's accounts.
  Part of my constituency, Mussel-burgh, and also Midlothian wish to discuss this matter. For some reason, no special steps have been taken in the Order to bring about changes for the cities, although each of them finds its grant raised slightly under this new redistribution. But Midlothian and Mussel-burgh are put at great disadvantage as a result of the Order.
  The distribution formula was last reviewed in 1968, resulting in the Rate Support Grant Order, 1969, which made grant provision for 1969–70 and 1970–71. That review led to a sharp increase in the rate poundage for certain authorities and, as a result, my noble Friend Lord Hughes undertook that the effects of the review would be further examined, with regard specifically to the position of Inverness County, which had been put at a serious disadvantage.
  The result of this further review has been that certain of the growth areas are severely penalised. This is particularly true of West Lothian and Midlothian. Other areas penalised include Clackmannan. Stirling and Fife. It is hard to understand why growth areas have to be penalised in order to get this slight adjustment which had to be made in the previous formula.
  The White Paper sets out in page 11 the distribution of the needs element of the rate support grant, but unfortunately does not give any comparison with previous years, so that we cannot see, in any of the papers issued by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, what exactly the effects are. Nevertheless, for Midlothian the effect is that it will lose £91,000, while Musselburgh, in my constituency,

  337
  a progressive, efficient, forward-looking local authority, suffers a loss of nearly £13,000. Is it the penalty for being a good local authority that it has its rates increased by about 7d. or 8d.? There is something wrong about that.
  Similarly, Midlothian has been one of the most forward-looking local authorities in Scotland. Years ago, it began making provision for the expected transfer of miners and others from Lanarkshire, and when that process did not quite come about as expected, it continued looking ahead as a growth area. In the provision of housing and other social services which make up a community it has been well in advance. In education it has also been well ahead. But now it find itself suddenly losing £91,000, equivalent, I believe, to about 5d. or 6d. on the rates.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State rather brushed aside the changes in the distribution formula. He said that one or two minor changes are embraced in it. I do not know whether he wanted to dampen the flames of anger at the beginning of the debate in that way, but certainly I cannot accept that these are minor changes. These are very serious changes for these growth areas which themselves fought the changes when the working party considered these proposals.
  The working party makes a number of points about factors which should have been considered and ought to be considered and have not been considered, for example the alteration in the roads formula. Under the distribution formula now a mile of growth area road, which might be a six-lane road, does not receive any more credit than a mile of narrow two-lane road anywhere else. That seems to be grossly unfair, because there is a big difference between being financially responsible for a two-lane road or partly financially responsible for a six-lane road. This is one of the big differences, and no allowance has been made in this formula for it. The effect of the proposals in this Order is to remove any relationship between the roads element and the rate support grant and the previous percentage roads grants which it was specifically designed to replace.
  Mr. John Brewis: I was confused by the example given by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) of a six-lane road. Would
  338
  that not be a principal road and would not the money for that come from some other source?
  Mr. Willis: That might be, but only if it counts as a trunk road. I am dealing with the relationship between the road element and the rate support grant. While the total roads portion of grant increased, Midlothian's share drops in amount in the new proposals. Midlothian is a growing county and it is also one which surrounds Edinburgh and has a large number of important roads running through it from all directions except the north.
  The working party also points out that in the assessment made of the effectivness of the formula and the proposed changes, account has not been taken of any expenditure on sewerage. This is very important in those areas, and Midlothian, in co-operation with West Lothian, has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on a large new sewerage scheme. But no account has been taken of this, and obviously in a growing area it is an increasingly expensive and important matter.
  The "in" word now is pollution. Everyone has suddenly discovered pollution and that we are destroying our environment because we are not disposing of refuse in the proper way. Yet it is precisely at this time that we find that the formula does not take account of this expenditure. It is very large in growth areas, and certainly over the country as a whole it is substantially greater than many of the services whose costs are taken account of in the assessments. That is quite clear.
  Looking at the way in which the educational units are calculated, the working party also makes the point that the credit given for educational units is given only in respect of places which are occupied in schools. In Livingston and other places with new towns, schools are provided and sometimes places are empty for quite a time until the population builds up and occupies them. This is also unfair and none of these matters is taken account of in this new formula. These are all criticisms of the new formula. Some of these factors should have been taken into account and if they had been then the result for the growth areas in Scotland might have been more favourable than it has proved to be.

  339
  Midlothian argues—and I have a certain sympathy with the argument—that it is difficult to know what to do at this stage, because one cannot oppose the Order otherwise one would not get any money at all and Midlothian wants the money. But Midlothian argues—supported I understand by West Lothian and by other areas—that the transitional arrangements made with respect to the previous formula should have continued for another year until there had been a much fuller examination of all the points that should be taken into account. Had this been done the result might have been much more equitable than it has turned out to be. This proposal has been made and I certainly hope that sooner or later the working party will consider the formula again.
  It should consider it again and take account of some of the factors which I have mentioned. I have no doubt that the various financial experts on the working party could probably think of other matters. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns mentioned one or two which he thought should be taken into consideration—or at least he asked questions about the interest rates, and so on. Certainly there are a number of matters which should be taken into consideration. I should like to think that it might have been possible to do something about the Order. However, my experience of administration suggests that it is hardly possible, so I should like to ask for the next best thing. I ask my hon. Friend to undertake that the matter will be reconsidered and that some of the factors I have mentioned will be looked at and the formula for the distribution of this grant examined with a view to making the distribution of the grant much more equitable with a formula which takes account of a considerable number of matters which are not at present taken into account.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith) the Minister of State, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) have all paid tribute to the members of the working party in the job that they have done in advising the Government on the way that things should be done. My hon. Friend the Member for
  340
  North Angus and Mearns also mentioned his own local authority, and I should like to pay my tribute to my local authority for the help it has given me. With the greatest respect to both my hon. Friend and the Minister of State, I find that I can understand things produced by my own county treasurer far more clearly than things produced by either Front Bench.
  Be that as it may, I welcome the result of this review in that the county of Banff is better off by about £16,000. Admittedly, we shall be worse off on the needs element in the general part of the formula because of the change but we shall be better off on the roads element. Every time one of these Orders comes before the House I make the same plea. I acknowledge clearly that the Minister of State has gone a long way towards meeting the difficulties that are found in a county like mine, but, although we are grateful for the small mercy, as I call it, we could naturally do with a lot more. It would be perfectly equitable for us to have more support from the Government and, perhaps, the structure of the formula can be looked at once more. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this, and I take up that point, too.
  The difficulty that I face in my constituency is somewhat different from that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It is that the landward portion of the population is less than 50 per cent. A comparison may be made with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns because, after all, we represent two similar types of area. My hon. Friend's county benefits a great deal more than mine because he does not have the number of small burghs which I have, whose populations do not count in the respect that I have mentioned. I make no apology for returning to this, and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind yet again in the next round of negotiations.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his submissions on behalf of Midlothian County. I should have adopted the same arguments in challenging the Order tonight if it had been possible to do so. I think that we would have challenged it, because it means so

  341
  much to the County of Midlothian, but, as my hon. Friend said, if we challenge the Order no money will be available. I hope that the Minister of State will pay heed to what my right hon. Friend said, and to what this Order means.
  I do not want to deal with the points made by my right hon. Friend, but one rather significant fact which emerges from an examination of the re-appraisal which the Government have made of the formula is that they have put the new towns in the growth areas in a rather ridiculous position. The Government continue to appeal to local authorities in the new towns to build schools in advance of the arrival of school populations, but this formula means that credit for educational units is given only in respect of places occupied in schools.
  I have had letters from angry constituents, particularly in the new town of Livingston, protesting that school places are vacant, and I have had to reply, "This is a calculated policy of the Government. You cannot wait until the school population arrives and then take the decision to build schools". The Government are making their policy look ridiculous, because they are in effect saying that they will penalise a local authority which does what is right and proper and builds schools in advance of the arrival of the school population.
  My hon. Friend must be aware that there are sometimes great stresses and strains when a new town is built in an older part of the area. There are complaints by the older part of the county that the new town is getting more than it should, and that everything there is new, while the older parts have to wait for schools, roads, and so on. The very fact that a new town is built means that the infrastructure, too, has to be provided. There must be roads and sewers, but the formula which my hon. Friend is expousing penalises the policy which a local authority has to pursue when it has a new town. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) applauded the Government's change of heart in the calculation of the formula, because it benefits his area at the expense of the growth areas.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the impact of this formula on the county. When I consider its impact in the burghs
  342
  in my constituency, I find that in Landward it is £56,438; in Bonnyrigg and Lasswade it is £5,030; in Dalkeith it is £6,858; in Loanhead it is £4,324; and in Penicuik it is £5,761.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot be ignorant of the fact that when I mention those burghs I am referring to an area in which the predominant industry—the mining industry—is contracting. At the weekend there was a crisis meeting at one of the collieries. If anything happens there, it will involve sustaining a population of between 6,000 and 7,000, yet the proposition which my hon. Friend is advancing tonight is that the areas which need to attract industry to replace older dying industries should impose heavier rate burdens. I do not know whether this is the proper way to attract industry. This Order has been subjected to great criticism, because when industrialists think about going to an area they look to see what rate burden will be inflicted on them.
  I think that my right hon. Friend made a devastating case for the Government to consider this matter afresh. There should be the transitional period. It is not a question of the gross unfairness of the whole system. We are talking in terms of jobs and employment in part of this area. The Government have espoused the policy that the way to solve the unemployment problem is to have growth areas and big industrial units. They say that if there are big industrial units industries are attracted there. Having said that in one breath, they introduce a formula which imposes a substantial rate burden on the areas concerned. There is not consistency in this policy, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should consider this matter seriously and bring forward a proposition which will allow for a transitional period in which this gross injustice to the County of Midlothian and its burghs can be remedied.
  7.17 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeith: After listening to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) one gets the impression that the formula on which the Government are working is grossly unfair. If it is unfair, I hope that the Minister of State will give some explanation how these calculations were made, because one cannot believe that any Government would go out of their way to inflict penal

  343
  provisions on a county such as Midlothian. This cannot be what they are intending to do.
  I was interested to hear what was said by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I might call him my right hon. constituent. As such he is fairly well placed because, as he said, Edinburgh will not do too badly, but he was speaking vigorously in support of his constituents in Musselburgh who will not do so well.
  One thing which puzzles me is how, in the case of Midlothian, there appears to be a smaller, rather than a larger, allocation for roads. With the closure of the border railway line, one would have thought that for this area there would be an increase in what is provided under the heading of roads. I strongly support my hon. Friend who asked what provision had been made for pay increases for teachers and nurses. I should like to know, too, whether any special provision has been made for the commitment by Edinburgh to put its sewerage schemes in order. This amounts to a very considerable sum of money. I gather they will soon be in default of the law if they do not go ahead with the implementation of these schemes. If this has been allowed for I should be very interested to hear about it.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister of State will be relieved to know I shall not involve myself in questions about Edinburgh, Midlothian and West Lothian. This is a most interesting discussion. Without being uncharitable to anybody, I think our debate proves that we do not know much about it, about how the calculations are made and the background to the Order. It is true that briefs are supplied, saying that authorities are getting more or are getting less. One can argue whether that is a good or a bad thing. It is simple and easily understood, but there are some points on which the Minister is obliged to give some more information.
  One example is the reference to the social work department. Unfortunately in Glasgow this is being made a political football, to some extent, where there is an obsession by some people to keep
  344
  the rates down. The point has already been made that the council do not indicate that it is partly because of the generous support the Government have given that the council was able to do that last year. Is this kind of thing taken into consideration? For example, when the estimates for the social work department are being drawn up in any authority, is it quite clear the additional expenditure envisaged—in this case in the year 1970–71—will be covered by the grant involved? To what extent is pressure put on local authorities, or to what extent is it understood by local authorities that this extra expenditure will attract more grants? Is this point covered in the Order we are discussing?
  How much of this increase of £9·8 million and, for this year, £12·7 million, is budgeted for the increases in salary which have already been agreed for teachers, nurses and police? This is very important.
  I am particularly interested in housing. The Government have always been very generous indeed to Glasgow. This has to be recognised. But are the calculations for Erskine, for example, included in this Order? If the city is saving some money under the arrangement that has been announced, does it mean there will be another recalculation of the grant expected in the city?
  What estimate has the Minister made of expenditure that might be included in the "Report for Progress" issued by the Housing Advisory Committee? This is a most important element in local authority expenditure on the amenities in housing schemes. The reason I refer to this is because in my constituency—in Easter-house in particular—a fairly modest scheme of £80,000, where the scheme is only 10 years old, has suffered a cutback to an expenditure of something like £15,000. Within the Department's own estimate this seems to me an area where much more money will be required to be spent if, as the Government have already said, they support broadly the recommendations of that report. Is this the kind of anticipated expenditure included in this Order?
  The excuse is being made by too many local authorities that they can do nothing, because they are getting insufficient money from the Government. This is

  345
  a most important Order in view of the increased money that is being given, particularly to the domestic ratepayers. What I am concerned about here is the lack of communication by the Government to show the ratepayers how benevolent this Government are. For example, are local authorities required to make quite clear, when announcing the rate poundage or sending rate notices out, that the domestic rate is lower—I believe the figure is now 3s. 4d.—because of a specific Government subsidy? This seems an area worthy of consideration, in the interests of the political health of this Government. Far too many people in local authorities take this fro granted; indeed, so do ratepayers. Many do not even know that the domestic rate is much lower than the commercial or industrial rate. This Order might make it obligatory on local authorities to show the difference and to show where the extra money is coming from. This is an aspect worthy of consideration by the Government.
  7.25 p.m.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: On the last point made by my hon. Friend, we can hardly expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to make it clear to the nation at large that the domestic element is so substantial and that this is entirely due to a new principle of local government finance which we introduced in 1966. The converse of that is that most certainly it falls on my right hon. Friend and myself and all our colleagues to make it quite clear to the people that the domestic element is a new part of rate relief in tis widest sense. Therefore, we ought to be anxious to impress on the general ratepayers that this 3. 4s. is a substantial contribution to offsetting the heavy burden which rates sometimes present to some people.
  On the general proposition regarding industrial derating about which we sometimes hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would place us in a very difficult position in Scotland if we were to derate on the same principle as in England and Wales at the present time. It would put Scottish industry at a considerable disadvantage in relation to English industry, and there would be a positive disincentive for industry to move from the south to Scotland.
  Sir John Gilmour: Is it not true that the rateable values of the
  346
  industries in Scotland are comparable to those in England?
  Dr. Mabon: Yes, this it true. It is a very complicated matter. I have heard it said by various persons in commerce that industry—like commerce, which is fully rated—ought to be fully rated.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss industrial derating in detail on this Order.
  Dr. Mabon: Thank you for bringing me to order, Mr. Speaker, but it was a comparison between the industrial derating and domestic derating which was introduced. Now I have been returned to the path of righteousness, I shall continue.
  Another point was made about the position of social work. In the original Order which the Secretary of State promoted last year, my right hon. Friend referred specifically to Section 92 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968. We have discussed this with the authorities concerned. The simple answer to my hon. Friend's question is that we have already allowed in the main Order for the estimated extra costs involved. No authority can offer as an alibi that we have not taken this into account. We have discussed this again and we are convinced the estimate in the original Order was perfectly proper and right. We believe that the work which can be done under the Social Work Act—of which we are very proud—can be done within the overall framework for growth in local authority current expenditure which we described in last year's Order. We make no further provision in this Order. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will tell any authority that wants to evade its responsibilities in this that it is not being fair in claiming that financially it cannot so do.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm it is the case that certain local authorities are finding the work laid upon them through the Social Work Act more than they estimated a year ago when they discussed this with his Department?
  Dr. Mabon: That is an assertion by some authorities, but it is not supported by others. The formula has never been a Government formula. Since it began it has always been an agreed formula.

  347
  It is not unanimously agreed; no formula ever would be. The hon. Gentleman conceded that, and talked about the wisdom of Solomon.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made a highly indignant speech last year, and I would have done the same, on behalf of the City of Edinburgh.
  Mr. Willis: I made a speech that was highly emotional, not in defence of Edinburgh, but pointing out the justice of asking Edinburgh to pay more.
  Dr. Mabon: I rephrase what I said. My right hon. Friend made an indignant or emotional speech in those terms. He was protesting, as Edinburgh was entitled to protest, that the formula had worked to its disadvantage.
  Mr. Willis: I supported it.
  Dr. Mabon: This year my right hon. Friend does not speak up for the city of Edinburgh. I do not deny a constituency Member his right to protest. Members of Parliament are the best Members of Parliament the constituencies have. This time my right hon. Friend objects to Midlothian being the loser. In no formula arrangement can everybody be a winner. It is absolutely impossible. I believe firmly in changing the formula —reviewing it in more detail, not only on every original and main Order, but also at the increase stage. That is why I tried to defend several of the changes to which I shall come later, which have affected Midlothian and West Lothian.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for drawing the Government's attention to the complaints of both counties on that score. He received a letter from my noble Friend the Minister of State today in which we tried to answer some of the points made.
  The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) asked about Edinburgh's sewerage scheme. I shall come back to my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian and Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in a moment, because they raised the principle of sewerage schemes, as did my right hon. Friend. Edinburgh's sewerage scheme will not generate expenditure in the period concerned. The grant was up to 15th May,
  348
  1971, and the large sewage purification scheme that Edinburgh has in mind will not generate expenditure until after then.
  The last paragraph of the memorandum my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian sent to us referred to the fact that the rate support grant distribution formula takes no account of expenditure on sewerage. But sewerage has always been regarded as a capital-intensive service, and two-thirds of the current expenditure on it is for loan charges. This is the view not only of the Government but of the local authority associations. Their view is that no conceivable grant formula working with objective factors could be produced to take account of local or historical variations in the cost of the service provided by the landward areas of county councils and the councils of all burghs. Perhaps when we reform local government these things will be simpler, but now it is the view of local authorities, as it is ours, that this is not the kind of service that can be taken into account as an objective factor.
  Many authorities have accepted burdens in the past on sewerage, and their burdens are less onerous today. Others have been slow in developing their sewerage schemes, and they are the ones that are naturally asking for additional aid now. Those who were progressive in these developments in the past would be the sufferers if we instituted a modification of this kind, and that modification is not accepted.
  Let us look at the scandalous and penal effect on Midlothian—the gross effect on poor Midlothian—as a result of the changes. Last year, as a result of the changes we made in the formula, Midlothian as a whole gained 4½d. in the rate poundage. This year it loses 5d., so that the net result in the period is a halfpenny loss. I do not regard that as catastrophic. There were no speeches last year thanking us very much for the 4½d. There were plenty of speeches complaining that other places were losing. We must look at the global effect in any period.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State warned the House last year that we were thinking of reviewing the formula, and I give the pledge tonight that we shall review it again. It is a natural part of local authority life, and

  349
  of my right hon. Friend's concern, that the formula, which is not enshrined in Statute, can be changed as we agree from time to time.
  Robert the Bruce's spider is well emulated by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), who constantly makes the same speech and is gradually gaining penny by penny, pound by pound, in changes of the formula. I do not say that everyone should follow him in that regard, but no one can say that he has been ineffective in his speeches on every rate support grant Order since I became a Minister.
  Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend knows, I live in a state of eternal gratitude, at any rate as far as the Government are concerned. But could he clarify our minds on one issue? In the determination of the rate support grant, have future populations and other factors, such as incoming industries, been taken into account. According to the treasurer of West Lothian, Mr. Hill, who is one of those excellent members of staff to whom my hon. Friend rightly referred, this has not been so. I should like clarification on that.
  Dr. Mabon: That is a very important point. Here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was uninformed, which is very uncharacteristic of him, on the principle, though not on the effect. I do not criticise him on that score.
  Let me look at the point about changing the formula in respect of roads which was originally argued. The aim was to even out a range of per capita expenditure after direct grant which extended as high as £26 10s. in Sutherland and went as low as £3 1s. 6d. in Clackmannan. The intention was to average out at just under £3. The result of the change in the formula is quite satisfactory to everyone concerned, except apparently Midlothian and West Lothian. Yet in the case of Midlothian the average comes out at £3·12 against a Scottish average of just under £3, and in West Lothian £3·38. I think that that is not bad for a formula, having had some experience of formulae over time and remembering the vast number of authorities we have, with which we have tried to work out a formula equitable to most. We can never be completely equitable to all.
  350
  I now turn to the argument about growth points. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has argued the case not only on behalf of Midlothian but on behalf of other growth areas in Scotland for several years. The case was made particularly strongly in 1968. As a result of that case, we included a weighting for changes in population, introduced for the first time in last year's Order, in distributing the needs element. I agree that my hon. Friend and others can argue that the effect of that weighting is small, but the growth areas now have the principle accepted in the formula and it is up to them to argue how the weighting of that element in the formula should be increased in respect of not only their own areas but growth areas generally.
  Mention has been made of Livingstone New Town. The cost to the rates of services supplies for the new town's benefits is regulated by the no-profit, no-loss arrangements between the two county councils and the development corporation, and it does not therefore affect their rates in the same way as similar growth elsewhere—for example, as was proposed near Newton Grange and Mayfield. That would come within the growth factor.
  Education is also a matter we have discussed. It is not the view of the majority of authorities that we should take into account anything other than the actual children in the area. This is not a matter in which the Government say to the authorities, "You will do what we tell you". The Government take the general consensus of opinion. It is not a case of a great steamroller of one group of authorities against another. The Association of County Councils has said it is content with the changes—
  An Hon. Member: They are all Tories.
  Dr. Mabon: That is not fair. They are a mixture. It does not follow that there are not Socialist counties, if one may call them that, which are as dissatisfied as Midlothian and West Lothian.
  Mr. Eadie rose—
  Dr. Mahon: Let us not bring party politics into a debate like this.
  Mr. Eadie: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a former member of the County Councils Association. Is he seriously

  351
  saying to the House that a new town authority should not build schools in advance of the school population, so as to try to fit in with the formula? Surely he would encourage local authorities to build schools in advance of requirements. If the formula is in contradiction to that, it is capable of being amended.
  Dr. Mahon: I agree that it is capable of being amended. It may be that my hon. Friend's view is right and that in time the situation will change and people will be converted to that point of view, but at the moment it is not the agreed position. The Government are not willing to come in with a heavy hand and say, "You are wrong; the Eadie doctrine is right". I have enough experience, and so has my hon. Friend, to know that there is no point in trying to thrust upon local authorities a doctrine from which they dissent. Of course my hon. Friend is right in the sense that one must build schools in advance of requirements, but it is not the view of the associations that the formula should be based on that. We cannot force local authorities to accept a formula with which they profoundly disagree.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked me several questions which I will answer quickly. Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 refers to Section 75(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, and that provides us with the answer to the question on page 6 which he mentioned about the Secretary of State's payments to Scottish universities. Schedule 1 provides that the needs element shall be reduced by the Secretary of State's payments to the Scottish universities under Section 75(2) of the 1962 Act.
  Pay awards which are effective up to 30th November 1969, and a few known awards of definite amounts taking effect after that, are allowed for in the Order. All hon. Members will hope that agreement will soon be reached on individual salary scales for Scottish teachers. Whatever settlement is reached, we shall take account of it when the time comes to consider the case for a further increase Order. The figures for teachers' salaries on this Order cover the interim award of £50 per head made last summer and back-dated to April 1969
  352
  and the new scale for teachers in further education evening classes, which also took effect on 1st April 1969.
  On the interest rates question, the Order takes into account the total capital debt of local authorities on reckonable expenditure and the weighted average of the actual loan fund rates. That is what we have done in the past and it is accepted as being the only functional way of working this complicated matter.
  The figures of population which we use each year are drawn from the Registrar-General's estimates of population, and the figure is taken for each local authority area as at the previous June when we are making the calculations.
  Mr. Dalyell: The answer to the question by Mr. Hill is that future population is taken into account as per the Registrar-General. Is the same true of likely incoming industry?
  Dr. Mabon: Whenever the calculation is made, it is on the Registrar-General's figures for the previous June.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns made two principal points in his opening speech. I was surprised to hear him suggest, in an otherwise competent speech, that the Government were entirely responsible for international interest rates. There are not Socialist Governments all over the world, and this is a matter of deep regret to me. I would hardly claim that President Nixon was a Socialist. There is no doubt that international interest rates are reflected in the British market, which in turn reflects the interest charged by the Government and the Public Works Loan Board. Much as we regret them, interest charges are there as a fact.
  The questions which I was asked about housing do not come within the Order, and I cannot respond to them, although I deplore the fact that some authorities are cutting down on housing in order, as they say, to save money. I think that is a penny-wise pound-foolish policy for any authority in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned many times in his speech that the Order falls short of whatever the local authorities ask for. There never has been a time when any Government have given to the local authorities what they asked for. If they did, the most surprised people would be

  353
  the local authority associations. They would think that the Government had collapsed or gone stark raving mad to agree to what they had put forward. Of course they come forward knowing that the Government will pare down what they ask for and bring it to a realistic point. I do not think it is fair to say they are short of whatever estimate they have devised. If the hon. Gentleman says that, he is giving a magnificent hostage to fortune, but that may be in a hundred years' time.
  Earl of Dalkeith: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer the point about whether provision has been made for teachers' and nurses' pay?
  Dr. Mabon: I did answer the noble Lord. I said that all pay awards up to 30th November 1969, and those that we can quantify which take effect after that, are included. As to other arrangements, we shall have to make provision in future increase Orders to take them into account because we do not know what they are.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (COLLIERY WORKERS)
  7.45 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I beg to move,
  That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) and I face each other on many occasions on matters of this kind, and I therefore once again welcome him to a debate which involves my Department. I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology. I know of his continued interest in the industry in which he worked before coming to the House.
  The Order amends the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme which was introduced in 1948 at the request of the coalmining industry. The Scheme has provided supplementary benefit for colliery workers and their dependants who receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts for colliery accidents and diseases. It is administered by a national committee comprising equal numbers of representatives drawn from both sides of the industry and the Scheme's fund has been built up by contributions made from employers and employees only—there has been no charge on the Exchequer or the Industrial Injuries Fund.
  Hon. Members may recall that over the past three years several amending Orders have been brought before this House which have had the effect of holding the rates of supplementary benefit paid under the Scheme at the pre-October, 1967, level whilst negotiations about the Scheme's future were under discussion in the industry. These negotiations have been between the employers and unions in the industry and have concerned not only this Scheme but other benefit schemes in the coalmining industry. Hon. Members may also recall that when in November last I brought the last of these "standstill" Orders before the House I indicated that agreement had been reached in principle on substantial changes to the various schemes.
  The loose ends have now all been tied up, the detailed amendments to the

  355
  various schemes have been drafted, and the agreement as a whole has been ratified by the unions concerned; in the case of the National Union of Mineworkers by a ballot of its areas, and in the case of the National Association of Colliery Over-men, Deputies and Shotfirers by a special delegate conference. The Order is designed to give effect to that agreement as it affects the colliery workers' scheme.
  The agreement between the unions and the National Coal Board provides for improvements in the industry's sick pay and pension schemes, and for the future, those who have accidents or contract diseases will rely on the improved benefits of those schemes and not on the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme to supplement the benefits provided by the State scheme. In the main, however, the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme will continue to provide for existing beneficiaries and for those who in future become entitled to its benefits as a result of past accidents.
  The Order now before the House therefore amends the Scheme so that accidents occurring or prescribed diseases developing on or after 30th March, 1970, will not be covered by the Scheme—hence no awards of colliery workers' supplementary benefits will arise in respect of such future accidents or diseases. Where the accident occurred or the disease developed before 30th March this year the Order provides that supplementary disablement benefit and the supplementary benefits payable under the Scheme following the death of a colliery worker will continue to be paid at the current rates. But supplementary injury benefit will not be paid after 28th March, 1970.
  Because the Scheme will not apply to future cases the agreed amendments provide that the present contributions by the Coal Board, other employers and the workers will cease—the workers will pay increased contributions to the industry's pension schemes. In place of the present contribution arrangements the Order provides for the Coal Board to pay, from 29th March, 1970, £125,000 for each of its " accounting periods "—and there will be 12 accounting periods in any one year —which amounts to about £l½ million a year. This is the amount which the Government Actuary, who is also the Scheme's Actuary, has advised is cur-
  356
  rently needed to enable the fund to meet its continuing liabilities to existing beneficiaries. Provision is made, however, for this sum to be replaced by such other sum as the Actuary from time to time may certify is required.
  The National Committee's powers to invest the fund are revised so that the Scheme's investment policy is in line with those of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the National Coal Board Staff Superannuation Scheme.
  The other amendments in the Order are of a minor character or are a consequence of the changes I have mentioned. As I have indicated, the Order now before the House has been asked for by both sides of the National Committee administering the Scheme and the amendments it makes stem from a comprehensive revision of the coal industry's sick pay and pension schemes agreed following detailed negotiations between the employers and the unions concerned. I commend the Order to the House.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the welcome he gave me. We are constantly encountering each other, and indeed we faced each other in Committee this morning. However, I am always pleased to see him across the Dispatch Box. It is not often that we have the opportunity in this House of discussing an Order which is so universally commended to us by all sides of the industry, and also an Order that will cost us nothing at all. It would be churlish for anybody to oppose such an arrangement.
  We are assured in the Explanatory Memorandum that
  "no part of this fund is derived from the Industrial Injuries Fund or from moneys provided by Parliament."
  We are further assured that the agreement has been ratified by the National Union of Mineworkers and by the National Association of Colliery Over-men, Deputies and Shotfirers. And since we also know that the Order has the approval of the National Coal Board, who are we to put up any opposition to it?
  There are, however, one or two small questions I should like to ask, which are

  357
  not clear to me. Paragraph 3(5) of the Order says, in page 3:
  "…if any report of the Actuary pursuant to this Article shall have disclosed a surplus or a deficiency in the Fund then in any such case the National Committee shall review the Scheme…"
  There is almost bound to be either a surplus or a deficiency in the Fund. It is highly unlikely that the Fund will balance exactly every year. This seems to be putting a rather extensive duty on the National Committee to review the scheme every time there is either a surplus or a deficiency. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on that point?
  Secondly, I am surprised, although I am sure there is good reason for it, that both sides of the coal industry have agreed to the abolition of the local committees under the Scheme. These local committees in the past have proved very valuable. Instead of sending everything to London, it has been possible to get the answer locally. Yet both sides of the industry seem happy to abandon them. May we have a word of explanation? Are the local committees out of date, have they not been referred to recently, or is it becoming a much more centralised scheme and therefore is reference to the National Committee thought to be sufficient in future?
  My last question relates to paragraph 5, in Schedule 1, which sets out the scheme as it will be once the two Houses of Parliament have approved the Order. On page 13, in paragraph 5, one sees that certain payments shall be made not by the Secretary of State but by the National Coal Board
  "at a rate calculated in accordance with Article 4 hereof."
  It is not clear whether the payments shall be made by the Board from these general funds or from the fund created under the Scheme. I imagine that in fact it is from the fund created under the Scheme, but it does not say so. I should be glad to have the reassurance of the Under-Secretary on the point.
  My main point relates to the financing of the new Scheme. It is clear from the Memorandum and from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the National Coal Board will pay £1½ million a year in order to meet its obligations to the already existing cases after the present scheme is wound up. This is understand-
  358
  able. The existing cases cannot just be abandoned and I have no possible objection to the Board taking this step. But from what I am informed the position is not as simple as that.
  Figures I have obtained show that in the last accounting year 1967–68—we do not yet have the 1969 figures—the Board's annual contribution to the Scheme was £3·45 million and the contribution to sick pay schemes amounted to £3·4 million. But when this Scheme is introduced the Board's contribution will be million. as the Under-Secretary has said. It would, therefore, appear that there is a considerable reduction in the obligations of the Board to colliery workers for sickness and injury benefit.
  What is not said in the Order or in the Memorandum is that the Board will also have to provide £800,000 a year for what is called the Old Cases Scheme and that their obligation for sick pay will go up from £3·4 million a year in the last accounting year to an estimated £5·4 million in future, that is to say an extra £2 million. The Mineworkers' Pension Scheme will have to meet an extra cost of £250,000 on long-term benefits and for the long-term benefits for under-officials the obligation will amount to an extra £50,000 a year. Thus, the total obligation of the Board under the scheme as now proposed will amount to £8 million per year instead of £l½ million a year indicated both in the Order and in the accompanying memorandum.
  Since the existing obligation of the Board is £6·85 million, this will mean an additional expenditure by the Board of £1·15 million, which is not so far away from the£1½ million indicated in the Scheme. But I thought it right to point out that it is not simply a payment by the Board of £1½ million in order to look after the existing cases under the scheme. When the Scheme is wound up, the Board will have considerable additional financial obligations for sick pay and old cases which have not been referred to in the Order. That means, therefore, that the financial position will be somewhat more complicated than has been indicated to us.
  With those few observations, I welcome the Order.
  8.0 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: This Order will cause to come to

  359
  an end in March, 1970, benefits which only the mining industry has enjoyed. No other industry and no other group of workers have had such a scheme. It is one of which the miners have been proud. Time and time again it brought great relief to the miner who was injured.
  I would be interested to know a little of the consultations which took place between the miners' representatives and the National Coal Board. Although the State has greatly improved the benefits which are now paid, it is probably because of earnings-related benefits and improvements in the basic scales of industrial injuries benefit that the N.U.M. has been ready to accept the ending of this scheme.
  However, under the earnings-related benefits, no payment is made until after the first two weeks of sickness and, after 26 weeks, there is no further payment of earnings-related benefits. Knowing the kind of accidents which miners have, where sometimes they are not able to work for the rest of their lives, it occurs to me to wonder what the National Coal Board has offered to the N.U.M. in order to get the agreement which apparently has been reached between the two sides of the industry.
  I can remember having discussions on some other matters, and at that time, as a quid pro quo for certain proposals which the N.C.B. was making, it said that it would put the same money in but would increase the mineworker's pension. For far too long that pension remained at 20s. a week, and those of us who represent mining constituencies were continually having representations made to us about the long delay in improving that pension. It is now 30s. a week, and my hon. Friend has told us in presenting this Order that the National Coal Board will pay extra money for improvements in the sick pay and pension schemes.
  Can my hon. Friend say what the improvements will be in the sick pay scheme and the pension scheme? I know that my constituents will want to know that, if they do not already know. So often they come to me at weekends with their questions on these matters. When I report to them this weekend on this Order, I should like to be in a position to tell them what was given by the N.C.B. to get this agreement with the N.U.M. to
  360
  end a Scheme for which the miners were always grateful and of which, over the years, they have been extremely proud.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. O'Malley: With the leave of the House, I will reply briefly to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) asked about the part played by local committees and why the Scheme was being amended in this respect. My understanding is that the local committees have not been required to play any part in the administration of the Scheme for some time past, and so the new draft rules bring the de facto situation up to date.
  The hon. Gentleman then asked about the position of the Government Actuary, and he referred the House to paragraph (5) in page 3. The position is a simple one. The National Committee will look at the situation on a running basis. It will seek the advice of the Government Actuary. If he advises the Committee that there is a need for a revision upwards or downwards in the amount of money that it needs, obviously it will consider whether it is necessary to act on that.
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked a question arising from the last paragraph on page 13 of the Order. He wanted to know from which source the money will be paid. The answer is that it will be paid from the fund created by the scheme.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman noted that the result of this package deal, involving not only the supplementary benefits scheme but the sick pay scheme and the pension scheme, will result in additional expenditure for the National Coal Board. As he knows, this has been a very complicated and comprehensive package deal.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) raised a number of points which I will try and answer briefly. I welcome her to this debate. We all recognise the very significant contribution that she made when she was the Minister responsible for pensions and social security, and I can only answer from my position with a great deal of humility.
  My right hon. Friend asked what had been offered by the N.C.B. and what in general terms had been agreed between the Board and the unions concerned. The

  361
  position is that, in future, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme will pay pensions to severely disabled men who have to retire from the Board's employment because of incapacity, and a supplementary pension to widows who receive the industrial death benefit. The employee's contribution to the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme is transferred to the Mineworkers Pension Scheme, so that some of the payments made out of the supplementary scheme are now being taken over by what is an expanded pension scheme.
  The unions concerned, specifically the N.U.M. and the Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, have agreed with the N.C.B. that there should be an improved wage-related sick pay scheme for all industrial workers, with a longer duration of benefit related to service in the coal industry in place of the present sick pay scheme, which is mainly a flat rate scheme, and the supplementary injury benefit paid under the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme. Basically, this has been a tidying-up operation.
  One other feature is that the industry is providing the same benefits for sickness as those provided for industrial injury. The net result of the package and of the agreement has been the transference of some of the functions of this scheme into the pension scheme and the sick pay scheme rather than the supplementary benefits scheme, and generally, because of the expenditure on the pension scheme, there are real improvements for people in the industry. If my right hon. Friend would like details of the Scheme before the weekend—she referred to speaking to her constituents then—I shall be pleased to let her have a copy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION, NORTH HUMBERSIDE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I suppose I am in a position in which backbenchers delight. Instead of having to compress my thoughts into a bare 15 minutes with the Minister's pleasure, I might even have 18 or perhaps 20 minutes.
  My subject concerns the parlous economic situation on the north bank of the Humber, which is causing anxiety in the City of Kingston upon Hull and adjoining centres such as Hessle and Beverley.
  I should like to begin by referring to the B.B.C. programme about the city of Kingston upon Hull a week or two ago, which caused a furore of anger and, indeed, agony, both official and unofficial, in the city.
  As the Minister knows, people in Hull work hard, and of course, play hard. We have some good football teams. But the B.B.C. gave far too much of the cloth-cap image of hard swearing and slum housing down at the fish dock. Unfair, unkind and inaccurate is what we thought.
  The country's third port and tenth city has fine buildings and beautiful parks. We have our municipal telephone exchange, with cheap calls which the Minister knows about. It has a modern magnificent hospital and a university.
  Nevertheless, the B.B.C. highlighted two fundamental handicaps which are imposed upon us by the chill facts of economic geography. Hull and its efficient modern port are isolated and difficult of access because of a totally inadequate communications system. The population is hard working at wage levels below the national average, with fewer chances of getting new, better paid, or skilled jobs in our society. These are the inexorable facts which stand out start in the statistics of employment and employment opportunities. Last month we had a total of 7,378 unemployed, and only 1,337 unfilled vacancies. Therefore, Hull and district has 10 or 12 men for each unfilled vacancy.

  363
  I asked the Prime Minister today whether he would visit Hull. It is a fact, which my right hon. Friend well knows, that in Hull and district the unemployment statistics are marginally higher than Merseyside, which is a development area. These are the clear facts in our statistics of unemployment. There is no doubt that the economic seesaw is, and has been, slowly but surely tilting against us since 1966—four years. Our position is far more serious than the vaunted or famed Humber feasibility study unit thought when it looked at our estauary and its activities a short time ago.
  To get better access into the city demands an east-west motorway from the A.1 to Gilbersdyke, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who has just come in, at the western exit or entry. We also want the Humber Bridge to link the two banks of the estuary. I should like to take a passing swipe at the Maud Commission—and indeed, perhaps the Government—for recommending that North and South Humberside should be two separate local government units. What other estuary is in this position? Tees, Tyne, Clyde, Mersey? Not one. My experience of history, particularly political history, is that waterways never divide. They unite valleys.
  Concerning rail communication, I should like to quote a former Minister of State who, exactly two years ago, said:
  "A freightliner service to London with one train per day was inaugurated in January, 1968, and its operation has already proved successful. The proposed services to Newcastle, Glasgow and Birmingham should be opened as soon as possible. Traffic between the docks in the east and the freightliner terminal in the west is bound to increase, and, as has been previously pointed out, improved road links between the two by the proposed high level bridge over the River Hull and the South Docks road are vital."
  I have spoken to footplate men and others in the transport industry. I have a memo from A.S.L.E.F., which says:
  "Due to the loss of timber traffic at the docks there are now wide open spaces where a freightliner depot could have been installed in a strategic position to service both Alexandra and King George docks, instead of having to traverse the city from east to west."
  We do not understand why this depot was put west of Hull when it should have been placed in the docks on the
  364
  east, so that the containers and any other goods could be picked up at once and taken away. The men on the footplate are puzzled why this kind of planning goes on.
  Funny things happen in Hull when the B.R.B. begins to move into action. It closes rail lines. The most efficient depot in eastern England, the locomotive depot at Dairycoates, has work taken away to Sheffield and similar spots in west Yorkshire. The sword of Damocles is still poised over us. There is talk—and the unions are very worried about it—of the divisional headquarters being moved from Hull to Doncaster. Indeed, we sometimes feel like Mahomet's coffin —poised between heaven and hell.
  But the most ludicrous thing of all is the fabulous old No. 7 warehouse. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) recently asked questions about this warehouse which stands in the path of this east-west road linking the two halves of Hull over the River Hull. This building will fall down when the contractors are driving their road past Myton Gate and over the River Hull into the King Geore V, the Queen Elizabeth and other docks on the east side. It is monstrous to find this ancient relic of the mid-19th century, which is falling down, along with lock gates and lock walls between the Princes Dock and the Humber Dock, listed for preservation by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I am certain that this has been done by some anonymous inspector, most likely influenced by the Georgian Society and the preservationists, if not egged on, perhaps, by the chairman, who is the Tory leader of the city council. The city engineer and many others qualified, like the Docks Board and others, would have this down if allowed—because it stands in the way of what we believe to be the best development of the city.
  I hope that the Minister of State will knock some heads together in the Ministries of Transport and Housing, which I understand now go in tandem under a supremo, the distinguished right hon. Member for the south bank constituency of Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). We hope that we shall get some attention and, indeed, some action, although sometimes one is a little worried about the time that it takes to get things done.

  365
  I believe that our unemployment statistics would be worse if we took into account distant migration. It is a most disturbing thing that our young people cannot find fit work inside the city and often go a long way away. This is not the usual business of younger executives with cars and better salaries living outside the city in adjoining constituencies: this is distant migration which has not come back to us. The city population is declining in absolute terms. What is disturbing is that our basic industries—fishing is the most obvious case—are also declining in numbers and offering fewer jobs. No city, whatever its past, and however tough it is, can afford to lose this youthful and vigorous element. It leads to a marked social imbalance, as is happening in our city at the moment.
  North Humberside, a deep water port with space to expand, is not being exploited to its full potential. The Government keep telling us that there is no substitute for self-help; but no local authority can finance the infrastructure which is so vital to it out of its own moneys. An example is the Humber Bridge. Without Government aid for this, our finances in the city will be difficult. The business community feels that the economy is stagnating. So, should we qualify for development area status? As I said, our unemployment is slightly higher than Merseyside's.
  The Local Employment Act, for which we are very grateful, will come into force this weekend. The Minister of State may tell us that the intermediate area incentives for which we then qualify will create about 1,600 jobs, perhaps more, we hope, in our whole area over the next four years. These will be mainly for men. We have few jobs for men and plenty for women, whereas the south bank has plenty of jobs for men and few for women. This is another argument for the Humber Bridge—that these men and women could cross and thus help to balance the two economies.
  I would compliment at least two well known firms in my constituency which are expanding against the tide and will benefit by these intermediate area incentives of which the Minister will tell us. They are T. J. Smith and Nephew, a very fine pharmaceuticals firm, and J. Shiphams, a copper firm.
  366
  Can I ask the Minister what further applications for i.d.c.s are in the pipeline? Why cannot we have Government-built factories? By the end of the week we shall have our new intermediate area status. Under the 1944 Act, the Labour council purchased some 300 acres cheaply for long-term industrial investment. This could be a gold mine for the city as a Government trading estate.
  What about help being given with a few government offices, such as we see in Bootle, that famous "Whitehall of the North", as it was described the other day? We should qualify. We have a fine hinterland with some beautiful hills behind, and we have the sea coast. Humberside is a beautiful place, particularly the north bank. I asked the Minister for the Civil Service on 23rd February about Government offices coming to, Hull, and he said that Hull would be considered along with other areas. I hope that the Minister will think more deeply than that about the question.
  I once said in this Chamber on a similar occasion, "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." I hope that we shall see some action and will feel a bit happier on North Humberside in the coming months.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on raising this important subject and thank him for offering me a few moments of his time, which would normally have been restricted with the Minister to half an hour. Since we have got on the Adjournment much earlier than was expected, I might speak rather wider than I had originally intended. I recognise that the Minister has had no notice of what I want to say: indeed, many of the matters which I intend to raise, about communications, do not concern him directly.
  The hon. Member said that Hull suffers a fairly high level of unemployment and has suffered it for some years. As a grey area it will now get some assistance. We hope that this will be enough, but I believe that the Minister must keep this continuously under review.
  I have two industrial matters to refer to First, shipbuilding firms in Hull are all reasonably small, and the same applies

  367
  in Hessle, in my constituency, next door. But they have a very good export record The Minister will know that they are worried about the assistance given to similar firms in development area, which makes it very difficult for them to compete in the export market. I recognise that there is a strong case for attracting firms into a development area, but I know that it is not the Government's intention to create this sort of competition. This is a very difficult question, but the Board of Trade has been reviewing this matter for a long time, and I hope we may be able to resolve it in some way. What is really important is to encourage British firms exporting overseas, especially those which have an established market.
  The other issue is the question of effluent disposal. In its wisdom, over the years, the House has passed various pieces of legislation, which we all support in theory, to ensure clean rivers. But what the House has not done to any real degree is calculate the cost of this legislation or to create priorities. I believe that the law today would enable the Humber Estuary to be made a clean estuary—in other words, that firms would be prohibited from discharging their effluent into the estuary. This has not been enforced. If it were, it might create chaos, would certainly cost a great deal, and would put many firms out of business.
  This is a matter of importance and I hope the Government will decide on planned priorities, starting with non-tidal rivers and then dealing with tidal rivers and estuaries. This affects Beverley in my constituency, where there is an important tannery in this county town. It is protected by a perpetual agreement and, therefore, has its effluent treated by the local borough council at a nominal cost. The firm has offered a considerable increase voluntarily to the council. Nevertheless, because this problem of sewage disposal has been neglected over the years, and because of the need to dispose of trade effluent, the town will be faced with a scheme costing 1½ million, which is an enormous sum for a relatively small town.
  It has occurred to people who have studied this problem that the proposed scheme might be rather lavish for the
  368
  scale of the problem. It has been suggested, for example, that if there had been more co-operation among the council, the Government and firm an equally effective but less costly scheme might have been effected to the benefit of the ratepayers, industry and, indirectly, the Government. This problem is still under discussion, and it illustrates a difficulty which should be faced on a national level.
  A committee is examining the whole question of sewage and effluent disposal. I hope that it will come up with a national solution because the problem can be tackled only on a national basis. It is not fair to expect a small town to produce an expensive scheme simply because it happens to contain industries which need special facilities for treating effluent.
  The most important problem for the Humberside is the question of communications. Given a good port with good water and power facilities and a good hinterland, all of which exist to varying degrees in Northern Humberside, what is basically required to attract industry is good communications.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the surprise that was caused locally by the recent announcement, given in answer to a Parliamentary Question from me, that the two new motorways, the trans-Pennine highway and the extension of the M.1, will not go right into the city of Kingston upon Hull. They are to stop 10 or 15 miles to the west. This seems to be spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.
  If we are to construct great motorways from Liverpool to Hull, we might as well finish the job and bring them right into the City. Perhaps the Minister has carried out traffic surveys and will say, as a result, that present traffic demands do not warrant these motorways going through to the city. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West pointed out the importance of the Humber Bridge, and since the Government have pledged that the bridge will be built—hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall the original pledge given during a certain by-election—and although the Labour Party will not be in office when the bridge comes to be built, it is obvious that the bridge will attract a great deal of traffic which will have to be funnelled off to the north and west.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I agree with the general argument being adduced by the hon. Gentleman. Is his party absolutely committed to the building of a Humber bridge?
  Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of the biggest mistakes a politician can make is to commit himself before seeing the books. I have no doubt that when we come to see the books we shall get a shock. Naturally, the whole matter will have to be considered at that time.
  It would be foolish for us to follow the example of the Labour Party and, for example, put a ceiling on defence expenditure, such as they have done. That action has got hon. Gentlemen opposite into a lot of trouble in the last five years, not to speak of risking the security of the nation. I must not pursue that tonight, particularly since we shall be debating the matter tomorrow.
  A Humber bridge is needed, and it is the Government's intention to prepare the way for it to be built. I hope that, whatever party is in power, the bridge will soon be completed. But it is obviously necessary to ensure adequate access roads and escape routes for the additional traffic that the bridge will generate.
  Some of the traffic going over the Humber bridge will want to go north towards York and the Tyne. As things stand, it will have to go through country roads, through Beverley, Driffield and other places in that direction. If we allow 50-ton container lorries to rumble through our countryside roads, those roads will be broken up even faster than they are being smashed by the present volume of traffic.
  It is important, therefore, for us to proceed as rapidly as possible with a new Hull-Beverley trunk road. This road was first discussed and planned in 1927. In other words, it was agreed 40 years ago that we needed a new trunk road between Hull and Beverley. Only a few days ago the Minister informed me and the East Riding County Council that he was now prepared to authorise the building of a single carriageway from Hull to Beverley to be combined with the south-west bypass to Beverley. In other words, the Minister is offering the bait of
  370
  saying, "If you accept a single carriageway, you will probably get it soon".
  My initial reaction to his offer was that after 40 years we should have a proper bypass with a double carriageway as quickly as possible, particularly as famous buildings like the Minster in Beverely are being seriously endangered by the volume of traffic passing through the town.
  Having had a chance to review the Minister's remarks and having consulted local opinion, I believe that there is something in his offer of a single carriageway—on the basis that half of what we want will be completed twice as fast—and this is acceptable. I hope that it will be borne in mind that this single carriageway is needed extremely quickly. Unless the preparatory work starts within the next year, I doubt whether the road will be completed in time to take additional traffic from the Humber bridge, if the bridge is completed on schedule. The road is badly needed with or without the bridge.
  Good communications is the key to the development of Humberside. Another key is the Humber bridge itself. I have always been worried at the thought of Humberside developing as two separate regions, the old one in the north and the new one in the south. This would be disastrous to both the north and south. Only by constructing a Humber bridge shall we create a Humberside which can be developed as one.
  I congratulate the Minister on saving the Hull-Scarborough railway line, and, although I gather that he is paying a great amount of money to do this—I do not know why it should cost so much—I am pleased that it is being kept open. I also congratulate him on licensing air traffic from Brough now that Leconfield has been abandoned by the civil operator. Air traffic is vital these days, and I hope that the Government are thinking in terms of a reasonably sized airfield for the future. I do not urge them to construct an international airport, but it should be a good feeder airfield and the Goole area would seem ideally placed for this purpose. Obviously, Brough will not be suitable for anything but small aircraft because of the big chimneys which have been constructed in that vicinity. Suffice it to hope that the Government are thinking in terms of the

  371
  East Riding having a good feeder airfield for the 'seventies and' eighties.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and to the Minister of State for my late arrival in this debate. Like other hon. Members, I thought that we should not be debating this matter until about 10 o'clock. I was attending a meeting elsewhere but I felt that there was no better reason for dragging myself away from it than that I should take part in this debate on questions affecting my constituents and Humberside generally.
  It would be wrong if we did not stress, as has been stressed by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the real problems which face our area. A creeping rise in unemployment is causing us considerable alarm. We are not a development area, and we do not usually have factories suddenly closing, but these things are happening here and there. This is a cause for concern. Although we have not the problems of development districts, we do have problems.
  It is absolutely right that people in Hull should realise the significance of what is being done by giving Hull an intermediate status. This means not that we have the problems of the development areas but that the Government have recognised that steps must be taken early to prevent the area having such problems. If the party opposite had taken such steps when hon. Members opposite realised what would happen to the coal industry and other industries, we should not be in this position now. What my right hon. Friends have done is absolutely right, and it is particularly important for Hull.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, it is important, having got intermediate status, that the people of the area should see that the Government are prepared to take an active interest in Hull. I join with my hon. Friend in urging the Government to look at plans for Government-sponsored factories, and perhaps industries, for North Humberside and the whole area. The sort of fillip which a Government factory could
  372
  give to an area such as ours would show that the Government have expectations and hopes. It would encourage local industry to expand and develop on Humberside.
  In some ways local industry is perhaps the key to all this. In a Parliamentary answer today it was shown how local industry can apply for I.D.C.s. A letter to Hull M.P.s has shown that we could expect 1,600 new jobs over the next four weeks. This is splendid news, and we want to see this encouraged. We want not intermediate status or development status but a situation in which the Government could regard us as they regard the South-East and not need to give I.D.C.s because the area would then be better off than other areas. We have a long way to go before that situation comes about. Therefore we want advance factories in our area.
  We have had a disappointment. One of the most important decisions which could and must be rectified is that Hull has not a polytechnic in its colleges for advanced education. In my constituency there is the Regional College of Art and Architecture, the College of Commerce and the College of Architecture. Soon we are to steal from Kingston upon Hull, West the Nautical College. After all, my hon. Friend now has in his constituency the infirmary which was in mine. On the college campus in terms of organisation, teaching ability and staff we have a fine record. We have every right to claim that we should be granted polytechnic status.
  I hope the Minister of State will say that he will urge on the Secretary of State for Education and Science that in the next list of proposed polytechnics Hull will be included because there is a scarcity of polytechnics on the East coast. If we consider Middlesbrough as being on the East coast, we can say that right down to East Anglia there is no polytechnic. Hull is the obvious place for one to be established, not only for the East Riding but also for the south bank of Humberside. As a former teacher in the local college of commerce, I had students coming from as far away as the West Riding. A polytechnic could raise the morale of staffs in those colleges and the status of Hull in the educational and industrial world. It could do an enormous amount of valuable work for industry and the people generally.

  373
  We must look at the developments that have come to Hull. Earlier today I said that the Government had set the fishing industry on its feet. The Government, through the I.R.C., have established a new management and company structure for the industry, which will go a long way to improve the ramshackle 19th century higgledy-piggledy organisation. The Government established a minimum price system for the importation of frozen fillets from E.F.T.A. countries; they have introduced legislation to improve the working conditions of the men in the industry. Today we had a most important debate upon a very important Bill. This is wrongly regarded as our primary industry. We now have a diversification of industry, for which we can thank the Government.
  There has been considerable investment in freight-liner services, with roll-on roll-off facilities. We had the Queen visiting us last year to open the new extension to the King George Dock, now called the Queen Elizabeth Dock. A considerable amount of money has been pumped into the north bank of the Humber, recognising its importance to the country. Discussions are taking place about the Humber Bridge, and on this subject people in Hull will note carefully that the hon. Member for Haltemprice could not say that if his party was returned to power the Conservatives would pledge themselves to build a Humber Bridge.
  Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I do not speak on behalf of the Opposition on this subject. All I would say is that my party is much more likely to build the bridge than the present Government are.
  Mr. McNamara: They must first get office, and if they keep shilly-shallying on issues like this they never will get office. When the hon. Gentleman brings in red herrings, talking about troops East of Suez, he is off the point. The only thing that matters here is that if people have something to sell they will sell it and if we want to buy it we will buy it, and troops East of Suez have nothing to do with that. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to introduce these topics into a debate about our county.
  In the 1964 election the only one of the four Hull M.P.s who mentioned the
  374
  importance of the Humber Bridge was my predecessor, the late Henry Solomon. We have had no firm undertaking from the Tory Party that it will build the bridge if it is returned to power. When the Leader of the Opposition came to Humberside, as President of the Board of Trade, the only stops he pulled out were in the organ of Beverley Minster. We never saw any benefit from his visit. The people of Hull have to realise that their council is beating its breast about employment prospects. Yet when the Tories were in power they did not do a thing for us.
  I join in the disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that in publishing their report and their proposals on Maud the Government did not propose the unification of the north and south banks. With the creation of the authorities, with the tremendous reorganisation in the various services, and with the time scale of the bridge from 1972–76, all the authorities on both banks could be working together for the creation of a unitary authority with the opening of the bridge.
  We should then have the benefits of communication between both banks, Which would be tremendously important, and the benefits which each bank could give to the other in terms of job opportunity and the advanced and highly sophisticated social and educational services which the Labour Council in Hull has created. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, who I am glad to see is now with us, to think again on this question.
  In many ways much of the impetus must come locally. The Government can do much. They can give us intermediate status. They can push capital into the publicly-owned industries, as they have done. But basically the local authority and the people in the area must themselves endeavour to broadcast the advantages of industry coming to Hull.
  There are many great advantages. Hull is situated in very beautiful countryside—the Wolds of Yorkshire. Close at hand are very attractive holiday resorts. Thanks to this Government, there is a good train line to Filey and Scarborough. There are very good education facilities. There are very beautiful facilities and

  375
  buildings in the area. We have a council which is concerned with our local theatre. The new voluntary organisation is successfully running our art centre in my division. We have a university. We have all the attributes which many cities want to have.
  Despite all the efforts which have been made in Hull in the past, we can still do more. Coupled with what the Government have done, we can do much to create our own salvation. Unemployment is our immediate and main concern. Despite some of the bad publicity our city has had recently, by selling its advantages and showing what a unique position it holds we could do much from within our own county, in partnership with the Government, to overcome many of the evils.
  8.52 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. Eric Varley): This has been a short and useful debate on the problems of an area with which I am already well acquainted, not only through the Ministry of Technology regional office, but also through the effective advocacy of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).
  Also, I get very able assistance in these matters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning who is here with us on the Front Bench. I know that he has extensive knowledge of this area. We co-operate very closely on the question of regional industrial development.
  The House has been giving the regions a good deal of attention in recent months. We have had a number of constructive debates, and only last Thursday the new Local Employment Act received the Royal Assent. When it comes into force this week we shall be able to extend assistance to a number of new areas, North Humberside amongst them, where the rate of economic development ought now to gather greater impetus. It is right that we should take time to air the problems of the regions. Planning for the best use of regional resources and for the
  376
  narowing of regional disparities is an important part of management of the national economy. But our success in establishing the economies of the less prosperous areas on a sounder footing depends in the long run on the achievement of a sound basis for economic growth in the national economy, national economic prosperity, and, of course, on a stable surplus on our balance of payments.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Haltemprice injected a party note when he said earlier in the debate that the Opposition, if they ever got a chance, would want to see the books. Well, in 1964 we got an opportunity to see the books. They were in a pretty disastrous state at that time, and if the Opposition should ever have an opportunity to look at the books within the next 12 months they will find them in a much sounder and healtheir state than they were when we took over.
  Now that we have moved into surplus it would be very easy to succumb to the temptation to relax too soon some of the rigorous and often painful measures we have had to take. These measures can now be seen to be working, but we must ensure that our overall economic strength brings with it greater strength for all areas and regions in the country. We must make sure that we build firmly on our economic strength so that long-term employment prospects remain sound; and the achievement of a sound basis for steady growth must take first priority. The Government have shown over the last five years that they attach very great importance to correcting regional disparities and to helping each region to make full use of its productive resources. We have developed a wide and flexible range of incentives to help the less prosperous areas to overcome their structural and economic weaknesses. We have recognised that the scale of the problems of different areas varies and calls for different levels of assistance; and with the vastly increased flow of information at our disposal we can take account of such factors as population change and employment trends, as well as unemployment, in assessing these needs. We are achieving a growing sophistication in the diagnosis of regional ills, and their treatment, and the long-term prognosis is good.

  377
  I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West said tonight. North Humberside is an important national asset. It is a major port and a major community, and, along with South Humberside, its potential as a major national growth area cannot be disputed. It can accommodate population and industry to a very great extent.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the Merseyside problem was not quite as bad as the Hull problem. I accept that unemployment on Merseyside is at present marginally lower than in the Hull area, although this is not true of any other development area. Nevertheless, there has been a continuing loss of jobs on Merseyside, notably in the heavy electrical industry and shipbuilding, over the last 12 months. As a consequence unemployment on Merseyside has increased and the problems there appear to us to be very deep-seated. Development area status will have to continue for Merseyside.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West also mentioned the question of British Railways' rationalisation proposals and the move of the divisional office to Doncaster. I know that discussions are taking place between the Railways Board and trade unions and that my hon. Friends are also in touch with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on this particular point. I understand that they are to see him soon and I know they will not expect me to go into detail on that. My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of migration. This is one of the factors that led us to designate North Humberside as an intermediate area.
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice talked about effluent disposal. I cannot give him an authoritative answer now on that, but I have listened to him about the subject before at a private meeting and I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend and convey to him the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned airport facilities for Humberside. The whole question of airports for Humberside will need to be considered in the long term in the light of decisions about expansion on Humberside. There are a number of alternatives. All of them will
  378
  depend in the long run on the commercial prospects of civil air services. The Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council is concerned that Humberside should not lose its air services and has made its views known to the Air Transport Licensing Board and the Government. A proposal for a new intercontinental terminal by 1980 is to be kept under review in the light of the developing air transport situation. Meantime, the local authorities are earmarking a possible site in the Goole area against this contingency. If this materialises, it will be readily accessible to North Humberside.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised the question of a possible Government factory for Humberside and I will return to that later because we are considering something along these lines. He also referred to the question of a polytechnic. I know he realises that this is not within my responsibility but here, too, I will let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and how strongly he feels. My hon. Friend also paid proper tribute to the Government for their support of the fishing industry, and I very much appreciated it.
  Last year, the Government, following the publication of the Hunt Report, announced their intention to designate North Humberside as an intermediate area. This decision was taken after very careful consideration of the area's circumstances and against two serious constraints. The first was that the problems of the development areas were generally much more severe than any other part of the country and that they should retain a substantial margin of preference in assistance to industry. The second was that no substantial additional financial resources could be made available at this time.
  North Humberside will now have available grants at 25 per cent. for factory building, Government-built factories and the full range of development area training grants and other training assistance, together with assistance for the transfer of key workers. As I have said, my hon. Friend mentioned the question of a Government factory. We are drawing up what we consider to be a modest programme of advance factories for intermediate areas and the needs of the Hull

  379
  area will certainly be borne in mind, together with the representations my hon. Friend has made tonight.
  Industrial development certificates are now issued freely on the same basis as in development areas. In addition, a capital grant of 75 per cent. is available to local authorities for the clearance of derelict land. Quite apart from this direct assistance, we announced last year that the Humber bridge would be built in time for it to be in service by 1976. Furthermore, substantial improvements are planned for Hull's road links with the West Riding and the main national trunk routes.
  Mr. James Johnson: I asked my hon. Friend to say something about the financing of the bridge. I made the point that, although the Government are telling us to help ourselves, it is a bit difficult for local authorities to finance all their infrastructure.
  Mr. Varley: I cannot give an absolute and authoritative assurance now, but I can tell my hon. Friend that part of the withdrawal of the S.E.P. from the development areas to finance the intermediate area programme will be used for infrastructure and part will probably be used for some of the roads in the Humberside area.
  Mr. McNamara: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the bridge, would he care to comment on the fact that the Opposition will not categorically say that they will build a bridge?
  Mr. Varley: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North dealt very effectively with that. It is rather strange that we have not had a statement from the Opposition on this matter. We get all sorts of statements on a whole range of subjects, and it is a pity that they cannot say something about this. I am sure that people in Hull will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. James Johnson: Would my hon. Friend accept that the Opposition are unlikely to win the next General Election and therefore it is a hypothetical conjecture?
  Mr. Varley: Absolutely. On the question of the bridge, perhaps I did not deal
  380
  completely with the point raised by my hon. Friend. As I understand it, part of the withdrawal of the selective employment premium will be used for financing the Humber bridge, but perhaps if I am not absolutely correct on that I can drop my hon. Friend a note in order that it should be absolutely clear. The bridge will clearly have a fundamental effect on both banks of the Humber. It should in time lead to the development of north and south Humber as a single economic and social unit and the services and facilities of Hull will be opened up to the communities on the south bank—particularly Scunthorpe, where there is development taking place now in the steel industry, and Grimsby with its central area reorganisation under way. The adjoining resort of Cleethorpes should benefit from the increase of visitors from the north bank. Therefore, over the next few years we shall have taken big steps towards overcoming the area's disadvantages for industrial development—its remoteness and the divisive effect of the Humber estuary. These are firm decisions which industry can take into account now.
  It has been put to us that we should be doing even more for North Humberside. I think it would be unreasonable to assume that the measures which we are taking will be inadequate even before the Local Employment Act, 1970, has come into force.
  The measures we have chosen are directly linked to the provision of new jobs and are those most likely to have a direct impact on employment. Sixteen hundred jobs—the great majority for men—are already expected to arise from new industrial building over the next four years and with the incentives now available the rate at which new jobs are created should increase. Already we have received 23 provisional applications for building grant for projects in North Humberside. Time will show whether we have got the balance right. The new intermediate areas have been selected on the strict criteria of need and the measures carefully chosen to make the greatest impact with the limited resources available.
  I am confident that we shall be successful in attracting new industries to North Humberside, but this can only be achieved over a period. It is the Government's

  381
  job to try to create the conditions in which industry can flourish and be competitive; to help all parts of the country to make the most of their resources and their full contribution to national prosperity. But it is for industry to provide jobs and opportunities also. Indeed projects cannot be planned, launched and manned overnight. The supply of mobile industry is limited and the Government must hold the balance between the needs of different parts of the country through the operation of their I.D.C. control and the application of their incentives.
  We shall be watching the progress on Humberside and the impact of our measures very closely. I am confident that the help we are giving to them, to-
  382
  gether with the bridge and the improved road links, will greatly increase the attractiveness of the area to new industry and that we shall be successful in overcoming the problems now besetting the area.
  My hon. Friend has done a service to his constituents and to the whole of Humberside by raising this important subject this evening. From my point of view, and consistent with my obligations to other areas of Britain, I shall do all that I can to assist him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  Road Planning
  Road Planning
  South West Economic Planning Council
  South West Economic Planning Council
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Ordnance Survey Maps (Royalties)
  Ordnance Survey Maps (Royalties)
  People and Planning (Report)
  People and Planning (Report)
  Housing Act, 1969
  Housing Act, 1969
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Residential Areas (Improvement)
  Residential Areas (Improvement)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Interest Rate Subsidy)
  Housing (Interest Rate Subsidy)
  Mortgage Repayments
  Mortgage Repayments
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
  River Pollution (Circular 64/68)
  River Pollution (Circular 64/68)
  Housing, Dorset (Waiting Lists)
  Housing, Dorset (Waiting Lists)
  Samuel Plimsoll (Birthplace)
  Samuel Plimsoll (Birthplace)
  Housing Improvements (Rating Assessments)
  Housing Improvements (Rating Assessments)
  Tall Buildings (Construction)
  Tall Buildings (Construction)
  Bulky Refuse (Disposal)
  Bulky Refuse (Disposal)
  Greater London Council (Rents)
  Greater London Council (Rents)
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Harlow (Condensation Problems)
  Harlow (Condensation Problems)
  Building Programme, Kingston-upon- Hull
  Building Programme, Kingston-upon- Hull
  Surface Water (Disposal)
  Surface Water (Disposal)
  Milton Keynes (Transport Facilities)
  Milton Keynes (Transport Facilities)
  Unfurnished Tenancies (Rent Regulation)
  Unfurnished Tenancies (Rent Regulation)
  House Mortgage Repayments
  House Mortgage Repayments
  Easington and Peterlee (Housing Lists)
  Easington and Peterlee (Housing Lists)
  Langstrothdale (Rights of Way)
  Langstrothdale (Rights of Way)
  Flats, Macclesfield (Alterations)
  Flats, Macclesfield (Alterations)
  Borrow Pits
  Borrow Pits
  Rents and Mortgage Repayments
  Rents and Mortgage Repayments
  Council House Building (Direct Labour)
  Council House Building (Direct Labour)
  Water Supplies, Macclesfield (Charge)
  Water Supplies, Macclesfield (Charge)
  Extractive Industries, Berkshire (Derelict Land)
  Extractive Industries, Berkshire (Derelict Land)
  Andover Hospital (Extension)
  Andover Hospital (Extension)
  Effluents (Discharge)
  Effluents (Discharge)
  Rate Rebates, Hartlepool
  Rate Rebates, Hartlepool
  Housing Information Services
  Housing Information Services
  House Building Corporation
  House Building Corporation
  Financial Grants, Birmingham
  Financial Grants, Birmingham
  G.L.C. Housing Estates (Transfer)
  G.L.C. Housing Estates (Transfer)
  Slum Clearance, Oldham
  Slum Clearance, Oldham
  Wellingborough Town Development (Inquiry)
  Wellingborough Town Development (Inquiry)
  Houses (Central Heating)
  Houses (Central Heating)
  Derelict Land, Yorkshire and Humberside
  Derelict Land, Yorkshire and Humberside
  Local Authorities (Audits)
  Local Authorities (Audits)
  Shops, Offices and Industrial Premises (London)
  Shops, Offices and Industrial Premises (London)
  Redevelopment Schemes (Affected Householders)
  Redevelopment Schemes (Affected Householders)
  House Building Firms (Bank Loans)
  House Building Firms (Bank Loans)
  Housing Programmes
  Housing Programmes
  Council Houses (Exchanges)
  Council Houses (Exchanges)
  Councillors (Payment)
  Councillors (Payment)
  Maintenances and Repair Work
  Maintenances and Repair Work
  No. 7 Warehouse, Hull
  No. 7 Warehouse, Hull
  Brighton Sloane Street Site
  Brighton Sloane Street Site
  Housing Waiting Lists (London)
  Housing Waiting Lists (London)
  Lambeth (Housing Delegation)
  Lambeth (Housing Delegation)
  New Towns (Greater London Families)
  New Towns (Greater London Families)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Unemployment (Northern Region)
  Unemployment (Northern Region)
  Windmills
  Windmills
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Bank Profits (Taxation)
  Bank Profits (Taxation)
  Immigrants (Remittances of Earnings)
  Immigrants (Remittances of Earnings)
  Strip Clubs
  Strip Clubs
  Housing Authorities (Loans)
  Housing Authorities (Loans)
  Inland Revenue (Leaflet P3G)
  Inland Revenue (Leaflet P3G)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Personal Incomes, Savings and Expenditure and Taxation
  Personal Incomes, Savings and Expenditure and Taxation
TRANSPORT
  Road Works (Pit Heap Waste)
  Road Works (Pit Heap Waste)
  A456 Road, Hagley (Western Road Junction)
  A456 Road, Hagley (Western Road Junction)
  Drink and Driving
  Drink and Driving
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Motorway Schemes (Blighted Properties)
  Motorway Schemes (Blighted Properties)
  Driving Licences (Epileptic Persons)
  Driving Licences (Epileptic Persons)
  Unlicensed Road Vehicles
  Unlicensed Road Vehicles
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Home Helps (Brighton)
  Home Helps (Brighton)
  Hospitals (Revenue Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Revenue Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure and Contributions)
  National Health Service (Expenditure and Contributions)
  Regional Casualty Centres
  Regional Casualty Centres
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969
  Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969
  Schoolchildren (Truancy)
  Schoolchildren (Truancy)
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Metropolitan Police Area (Indictable Offences)
  Metropolitan Police Area (Indictable Offences)
  Offences (Statistics)
  Offences (Statistics)
DEFENCE
  Servicemen (Discharge by Purchase)
  Servicemen (Discharge by Purchase)
  Beira Patrol (Cost)
  Beira Patrol (Cost)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Boards and Committees
  Boards and Committees
  East African Commonwealth Countries (Reverse Preferences)
  East African Commonwealth Countries (Reverse Preferences)
  GOVERNMENT SOCIAL SURVEY AND GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE (MERGER)
  GOVERNMENT SOCIAL SURVEY AND GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE (MERGER)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabies
  Rabies
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Music
  Music
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Boards and Committees
  Boards and Committees
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Accidents
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Abbey Gardens (Road Crossing)
  Abbey Gardens (Road Crossing)
SCOTLAND
  Service Industries
  Service Industries
BOARD OF TRADE
  Boards and Committees
  Boards and Committees
  Distributive Trades (Stocks)
  Distributive Trades (Stocks)
  Air-Sea Rescue
  Air-Sea Rescue
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  London Local Radio Station
  London Local Radio Station
TECHNOLOGY
  Industrial Development Certificates, Hull
  Industrial Development Certificates, Hull
WALES
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ADULT EDUCATION FACILITIES
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made during the last five years in encouraging non-technical adult education financially and otherwise, both in State institutions and in accredited voluntary educational centres; and to what extent the number of classes and of enrolled students has increased.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, between the financial years 1965/66 and 1969/70, total grants made by the Department of Education and Science to university extramural departments and the districts of the Workers' Educational Association, to independent long-term residential colleges and to other voluntary national associations, rose from approximately £1·1 million to £1·6 million. Details of expenditure by local education authorities are not available. Between the academic years 1964/65 and 1968/69 students enrolled in local authority classes rose from 1·13 million to 1·39 million and in local authority residential colleges from 58,000 to 61,000; in classes run by extramural departments and W.E.A. districts from 219,000 to 248,000; and in the independent residential colleges from 390 to 425. The number of courses run by the extramural departments, W.E.A. districts and local authority residential colleges increased from about 11,500 to about 13,400.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that exhaustive reply, may I ask her whether particular attention has been given to what
220
I call the voluntary adult education centres, which are of tremendous importance, apart from the other fine work being done in other institutions?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I can assure my noble friend that this is so. He will no doubt also know that a Committee has been set up, under the chairmanship of Sir Lionel Russell, to look into the whole field of adult education.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that education should always have a purpose and that this differentiation between technical and non-technical education is highly undesirable?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, if my noble friend were asking me personally whether there were too many labels in society generally today, I would say, Yes—and education is no exception. As to education having a purpose, of course it must have a purpose; but that is not necessarily to earn a living, but for living.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it would help adult education if there were more uniformity in granting awards to mature students at adult residential courses? Further, may I ask whether the Department will give further advice to local education authorities on this matter?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will know that the Department have always been rather opposed to giving mandatory advice. In this connection, I would not entirely agree that uniformity is necessary, though I agree that some authorities are more forthcoming than others.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her right honourable friend in another place said that there was considerable discrepancy; that this was to be deplored, and that the Department would consider giving more advice?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in view of the magnificent opportunities outlined by the noble Baroness, will Her Majesty's Government tell the chancellors of universities that students will suffer no hardship if they are sent down for playing the fool, as they have this adequate alternative educational system?

IMMIGRANT CHILDREN: ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES
2.35 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage other students to follow the example of Eton sixth-formers at Slough, and Cambridge undergraduates at Southall, in teaching immigrant children the English language.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, voluntary language classes and holiday courses for immigrant children have been held in several areas of the country. The Government recognises the valuable contribution that can be made by volunteers, working under professional supervision. Education and Home Office Ministers have met representatives of the National Union of Students, and support their aim of extending student involvement in community projects of this kind. The possibility of experiments under the Urban Aid Programme is at present being discussed by the Community Relations Commission, the Home Office and the National Union of Students.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend I would ask whether she is aware that in public schools like Eton College an extraordinary number of students are now engaged in public and social service, which is rather contrary to the impression given in public media? May I ask her concretely this further question? While I appreciate what the Commission for Community Relations are doing in co-operation with the local authorities, the National Union of Students and other bodies, would the Government consider sending a circular to local authorities urging them to co-operate and to make clear that grants from the Urban Aid Programme would be available for this purpose?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend fully that the public schools have in this respect, and in community service generally, a very good record which perhaps is rot always recognised, I would add that, as
222
my noble friend will know, a number of other interesting experiments and projects have been taking place in conjunction with other schools and universities. On my noble friend's second point, he will know that the Department has sent out a circular in connection with the Urban Aid Programme to encourage local education authorities to do what he suggests.

EDUCATION FOR A MULTIRACIAL SOCIETY
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the implied criticism of the Department of Education and Science in The Problems of Coloured School-leavers (Cmnd. 4268), they will take steps to ensure that the scope, depth and number of courses appropriate to a multiracial society, in colleges of education, will be increased.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, responsibility for courses at colleges of education rests with their academic boards and with the area training organisations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has expressed the Government's agreement with the view of the Select Committee on Race Relations that every college should teach its students something about race relations and the problems of immigrants. The evidence to which I referred in my Written Answer to the noble Lord on January 29 shows that the response in the colleges to the need he mentions has grown rapidly: it is still growing. My right honourable friend has recently written to all area training organisations asking them to review the content and structure of the courses they supervise and has drawn attention in this context to the specific problem of teaching immigrant children.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware that "something about race relations" is not enough? Is she aware that the next generation will really decide whether this

223
country is truly multiracial, and will she give an assurance that the teachers' part in achieving such a state will get high priority from central Government.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I accept at once my noble friend's point that race relationships are of high priority, but as a product of a college of education I would point out that there are other matters which are of equally high priority. Colleges of education give attention to the training of teachers to deal with a child not only in one narrow context but as a complete human being.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that unless the Department of Education and Science give some clear lead in this matter, it is improbable that the various colleges will do anything serious?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I would say that the Department are giving a clear lead. I said that my right honourable friend has written to all area training organisations. I would remind my noble friend that in the end the training colleges are not the direct responsibility of the Department, which must act through the area organisations.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lord, does not the noble Baroness think that one of the most immediately helpful initiatives would be, as recommended in the White Paper, to provide more courses not only for students in training colleges but also for teachers in service, on the mixed race problems which they encounter?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I understand that this is already being done and that it will be done in increasing numbers.

EMPLOYMENT IN SCOTLAND
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons were in employment in Scotland by the end of 1969, and how many are expected to be in employment in Scotland by the end of this calendar year.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the most recent estimates are that 2,221,000 persons were in civil employment in Scotland at March, 1969. The Department of Employment and Productivity is not prepared to give forecasts of the future level of employment.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply, and would ask him this simple question—and I would ask him to be very precise in answering it. I have in my hand Command 2864 which was published not quite three months before the General Election. In Part I, paragraph 1, it says:
"The increase in the number of jobs contemplated by 1970 is of the order of 50,000 or 60,000."
Do the Government still think that they can reach that target; and if not that target, what lesser target?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the forecasts which were made in 1964 were to a certain extent affected by subsequent information which we gathered about the activities of our predecessors. I would, however, point out that the number of unemployed, while remaining at approximately half as much again as the figures for Great Britain as a whole, at least compare favourably with the period of years when, unfortunately, there was twice as much as Great Britain as a whole.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord and ex-Lord Provost confirm that in the nine years to 1964 the net emigration from Scotland fell short of natural increase by 7,000, whereas in the five years since 1964 it exceeded the natural increase by 5,000?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords, not without notice. I would direct your Lordships attention to the fact that during the last two years we have succeeded in reversing considerably a trend which had been rising for a number of years previously.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that my figures are taken from his Answer to a Question of mine a week or two ago? Would he confirm the view widely expressed that net emigration from Scotland has slightly slowed down of late

225
only because of rising unemployment in England?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord give the House some indication as to when rather more up-to-date figures of the numbers of persons in employment in Scotland will be available? After all, he said that his figure was for last March, which was roughly a year ago.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I answered the Question which was asked.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
TRENT AND LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BASINGSTOKE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow
226
for the purpose of enabling the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [H.L.] and the Taxes Management Bill [H.L.] to be taken before the motions standing in the names of the Lord Fulton and the Lord Hawke, and for the said Bills to be taken through their remaining stages.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ESTATES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN ENGLAND
2.46 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET) rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper Reform of Local Government in England (Command 4276). The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I rise to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper. Our debate today follows one in the House of Commons the week before last. One of the most encouraging features of that debate was the wide extent of common ground. The leading speaker for the Opposition said that his Party agreed
"that there is a genuine need for a major reform of local government".
He even said that, in the unlikely event of his Party being returned to power at the next General Election, they
"would wish to proceed with a sensible local government reform in the early period of a new government."
He recognised the real difficulty caused for local authorities by a long waiting period. And the spokesman for the Liberal Party said that he, too, accepted that change was essential.
I feel that in a certain sense the Opposition may be in the same frame of mind as Petitioners against the Municipal Corporations Bill of 1835, of whom Lord Melbourne said, in this House, that: they had claimed that:
"The Corporations should be put upon a more popular ground; that there ought to be an infusion of fresh persons; that they were

227
perfectly sensible of the evils of the existing system, and that it was desirabe to produce a better understanding between the constituents and those they represented. The second Counsel who spoke said that his clients desired reform above all things, but they did not wish to take it from His Majesty's present Ministers."
I hope that that roughly describes the extent of the disagreement on this important matter which exists between us on this side of the House and noble Lords on the other side.
The discussion is not about whether a radical reform of local government is necessary. The question is what form the new structure should take. The Government have given their answer in the White Paper. We have not put our proposals forward in any dogmatic spirit. We do not think that ours is the only possible solution. But after exhaustive study of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and widespread consultations on its proposals we have reached the firm conclusion that the structure in the White Paper is better than any of the alternatives.
I am sure that at this point the whole House would wish me to pay tribute to the noble Lord who was Chairman of the Royal Commission for three arduous years, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who served with him as a member of the Commission during that period. They and their fellow Commissioners undertook the most searching examination of local government that has ever been made. We are indeed grateful to them for the thoroughness of their review and the comprehensiveness of their recommendations. I look forward to hearing their speeches this afternoon, hoping that they will find merit in the White Paper where it follows the Commission's Report, and that they will not blame us too much for having departed from it in a small number of places.
My Lords, we have a formidable array of local government experience in this House. The Presidents of all the local authority associations are at present Members of this House, and I see that no fewer than nine Presidents, Past-Presidents and Vice-Presidents of Associations have put themselves down to speak this afternoon. So we shall not lack for advice based upon experience, and I look forward, also, to their contribution. I shall
228
deal primarily with the new structure of local government. This is what the White Paper has settled. The threat of an uncertain future has hung over local government for years now, especially since the Royal Commission were appointed. That was inevitable while the Commission worked. When the Commission's Report was published last June, the Government made decisions on structure their immediate objective. Many other matters have still to be settled before legislation can be introduced. There will be full consultation on them, and it is right that there should be. But the first step was to reach conclusions on structure so that everyone in local government would know what kind of system would be in force a few years from now. The consultations that we began when the Report was published were confined to structure. Many local authorities commented on detailed boundary issues and other questions, and we have taken note of what they said on them. We made it plain that in the phase of consultation that is now over it was their views on structure that we wanted.
Some people thought that we were taking these consultations too fast. But with the splendid co-operation of local government, and with the help of all others who sent in comments, we were able to lay a White Paper before Parliament at the beginning of February, just under eight months after the Commission's Report appeared. During that period we received and considered comments from over 2,000 sources. The decisions in the White Paper were therefore taken after weighing all bodies of opinion put forward. I think the Government can take some credit for having been not only fair but speedy. I have no doubt that to have taken longer over the consultations on structure would have been harmful to local government. I think it is a service to local government that we should be holding this debate today in your Lordships' House, not at large on the general merits of some theoretical reorganisation, but on the specific proposals in the Government White Paper.
At the operational level, where responsibility for services will be concentrated, we propose to divide the country between unitary and two-tier areas. The Royal Commission decided, after studying all

229
the material available to them, that there should not be one system of local government for the whole country. The facts and problems that local government has to deal with require a different pattern of authorities in different parts of England. Let me digress at this point to remind the House to bear in mind in the debate which is to follow that we are today debating local government in England, and that the proposals for Scotland and Wales are not contained in the White Paper before us this afternoon. There will no doubt be an opportunity to debate those two countries at an appropriate time. The Government agree with the analysis of the Royal Commission about England. There are great advantages in unified local government, with a single authority responsible for all services throughout its area. Not least of the gains is increased public understanding of how local government works. Unless people can grasp the principles of the system, unless they know what local government can do for them and where responsibility lies, local democracy will not flourish as it should.
But despite the benefits which we believe that unitary authorities will bring, we recognise that there are circumstances where a two-tier pattern is right. There are areas, needing to be planned as a whole, which have complex problems and large populations that make them unsuitable for administration by a single authority. In those areas a unitary authority would be unsatisfactory for the management of services, and would not be acceptable as a form of local democratic government.
But it is only in these areas that we consider a two-tier pattern is necessary. We have accepted the Commission's view that there should be a two-tier system around Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. We have decided that there are two other areas which should also be organised in this way—West Yorkshire and South Hampshire. The Commission discussed both areas in their Report. They very frankly set out the considerations, as they saw them, in favour of both unitary and two-tier systems in these parts of the country. They concluded that a unitary system would be preferable, at least for the time being. The Government take a different view, but I
230
hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will agree that the Government's decision is one for which the facts of the situation provide good arguments in both cases, although I do not expect them to agree that they provide the better arguments.
We have also decided that there should be one major change in the allocation of functions proposed by the Royal Commission in metropolitan areas. The Commission thought that education should be administered by the same authority as the personal social services and made the metropolitan districts responsible for both. This recommendation was in harmony with the views of the Seebohm Committee. The Government understood the reasons which led the Royal Commission to suggest that education should be at the lower level in the metropolitan areas. But I think that most people concerned with education would agree that the greater need is for education to be administered by one authority over the whole of each metropolitan area. There is a great deal of movement for educational purposes between the different parts of these areas. Co-ordinated planning is possible only if the metropolitan authority is the education authority. This is especially true for higher and further education. There will also be advantages of scale and resources in making the metropolitan authority responsible for providing expensive, specialised items of equipment—laboratories and computers, and so on. Schools will be built more economically over a metropolitan area if the metropolitan authority is in charge.
There will, of course, have to be close co-operation between the metropolitan authorities and the districts which will remain responsible for the personal social services. This is a point to which we intend to pay particular attention. But under the Commission's proposals there would have been an equal need to co-ordinate the efforts of several different education authorities in each metropolitan area. It is better to get the right solution for education, and then make the necessary arrangements for co-ordination with the social services. This has been a difficult frontier to decide; there is much in favour of settling it either way. We believe that in this difficult choice we have chosen marginally the better course.
My Lords, I should now like to turn to one of the charges that has been levelled against the new structure of local government proposed in the White Paper. It is alleged that the new authorities will be remote from the people whom they exist to serve, and that there should, therefore, be two tiers of local government throughout England. The Government do not share this view, but they recognise the sincerity and experience of those who hold it. Again, it is sometimes argued in favour of the two-tier system that the unitary authorities would be too small for certain purposes—in particular for planning—and should be larger. The Government do not agree that this is so either. But if, in a two-tier system, the upper tier authorities were made larger —and therefore fewer—for planning purposes, the effect would be to make all the services administered by the upper tier authority more remote from the public than they would be under a unitary system. No doubt the answer could be made that under a two-tier system the lower tier would also carry responsibility for services. But almost all two-tier proposals put responsibility for the bulk of the major services at the upper tier, and I think there is considerable agreement that the main local government services cannot be administered over smaller areas than the unitary areas recommended in the White Paper.
I accept that the unitary authorities will have to decentralise their administration. I think that this is a point which has tended to be overlooked in the discussion of the White Paper. I shall dwell a little, if the House will allow me, on the proposals in the White Paper for district committees.
There is an important passage in the Commission's Report, where they discuss decentralisation. It is paragraph 316. The Commission said that:
"… there should be local 'town halls' easily accessible to the citizen, where he can take his questions and complaints about any local government service and either get an answer or be told where he can get one."
Now that was a very interesting suggestion, and the Government have taken it up and, finding it somewhat skeletal, have put flesh on its bones. Responsibility for the provision of services must be concentrated in the unitary authority. This is
232
where policy must be decided, and where the allocation of resources to the different services must be settled. The whole local government staff in a unitary area must be in the employment of the unitary authority. This is essential for the best use of the professional skills which local government needs, and which are at present divided between so many different types of authority. But the day-to-day administration of services need not, and indeed ought not, all to be done at the headquarters of the unitary authority. Nor should all the decisions be taken there. I cannot believe that any of the new authorities would wish to run the whole range of public business for which they were responsible from the central offices in the main town of their area. As so many noble Lords know from personal experience, that would be quite out of keeping with the way that local government works in this country. The people who serve in local government, both as members and as officers, are not going to change their nature when local government is reorganised. The same ideal of service to the community will continue to inspire them in the new system as it does now. Those who say that local government is in danger of turning into a bureaucratic paradise, where faceless officials take decisions affecting the lives of people whom they never see, are doing an injustice to local government, to the Royal Commission and to the White Paper.
The unitary authorities will wish to be closely in touch with the inhabitants of their districts. One way of doing this would be, as the Commission suggested, to have local officers of the main authority with power to decide matters on the spot. The Government are generally in agreement with the view of both the Royal Commission and the earlier Committee on the management of local government (which also was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud) that elected members should concentrate on policy and leave more of the detailed work to officers than they have done in the past. But, in the Government's opinion, to leave the administration of services in the field entirely in the hands of officers would be an enfeeblement of democracy. We think that there should therefore be more delegation of decisions than happens now, but that district committees should bring an essential element of control by elected

233
representatives to the decentralised administration of the main authorities' functions.
The detailed arrangements for district committees will have to be discussed with the local authority associations. But one point is already definite. Local councils —that is, not the unitary councils but the local councils which will continue where they are now, everywhere where people want them—will have a right to appoint members to the district committees to sit alongside the unitary councillors for the district concerned. The concept of local councils without any statutory responsibility for services has provoked some controversy. The Government are in no doubt that local councils are of fundamental importance to the new structure. Service on district committees of the main authority is the way in which members of local councils will be able to participate in the administration of main services. Legislation will make the necessary provision for this.
The Government believe that, in general, local authorities should be free to arrange their own internal organisation in the way they think best. We have therefore no cut-and-dried proposals for the district committees. We shall wish to hear the views of the local authority associations on the various practical ways they could be arranged. But there are a number of services which clearly look as if they would be suitable for local administration by district committees. Examples I have in mind are parts of housing—particularly housing management—and aspects of the social services. The district committees will keep the unitary authorities responsive to local requirements and will prevent the unitary authority from being overburdened with a range of questions with which it ought not to be because it is not so close to the spot.
The idea of putting members of local councils on these district committees will increase their sensitivity to the needs of the local situation. The job of local councils will be to preserve the individuality and special character of their areas. Members of local councils will have an intimate knowledge of the effect that the main authorities' policies, and the way they are applied, are having on local people. All told, I do not think that the charge of remoteness is one that
234
can justifiably be levelled against the proposals in the White Paper. If I think that, it is very largely because of the part the White Paper proposes should be played by district committees.
One point I should make clear is that the staff who serve the district committees will be in the employment of the unitary authority. The district committees will be committees of the unitary authority. They will not be the traditional second tier in another guise. Although executive responsibility will be devolved to them, they will operate within the framework of the main authorities' policies. It is a corollary of this principle that they should be served by the officers of the main authority. Otherwise the professional resources at the disposal of the main authority would be dissipated in the employment of a number of different units, as indeed they are at the present time. The district committee, composed of members of the unitary authority and of local councils, and served by the professional officers of the unitary authority, will thus combine the flexibility of local administration with the broad view and technical expertise of an authority responsible for a wide area.
Allied to the fear that the unitary authorities will be remote is the fear that in the new system the interests of the country will be subordinated to those of the town. This may be a subject on which a number of your Lordships feel a special concern, and perhaps you would like me to enlarge upon it. The Prime Minister has spoken of:
"ending the present division between town and country ".
This does not of course mean ending the geographical division; it means ending the political and administrative one. Indeed, the geographical division can probably only be maintained precisely by ending the political and administrative division. No one who has had to deal with planning issues maintains that the present division between counties and county boroughs should be continued into the new system. The quite arbitrary boundaries that separate them make effective planning almost impossible over much of the country.
Planning, transport and major development can be dealt with properly only by an authority responsible for an area whose parts have to be looked at together

235
before a satisfactory solution can be found to their problems. To draw new boundaries that were little more than county borough extensions would be quite irrelevant to the needs of local government in the decades ahead. The degree of social and economic interdependence between town and country is now vastly greater than it was when the present system of government was brought into force towards the end of the 19th century. This was strikingly demonstrated in the study of the changed relationship between town and country which the Royal Commission published in a volume of research appendices, which your Lordships may be pardoned for not having read in as much detail as you no doubt did the Report itself. Some fascinating maps were published with these research appendices. They vividly show what a great change there has been in the pattern of settlement and travel to work.
Of course, it is not only planning and the services associated with it that require authorities which can administer town and country together. In a joint statement issued in November, the County Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association agreed that in a two-tier system education and the social services should also be the responsibility of the upper tier. They were further of the opinion that the upper tier authorities should have a minimum population of 500,000 whereever possible. My Lords, there are at this moment only five county boroughs in England with a population of over 500,000. The minimum population considered necessary by these three Associations for the administration of planning, transport, education and the personal social services, and other important functions of local government, can be attained only by bringing town and country together under one authority.
Within the unitary areas every parish, village and market town will, if it wishes, have a local council to champion its interests. There will be an obligation on the main authorities to consult local councils on any proposals which affect them. The detailed arrangements for consultation will be discussed with the associations. But the White Paper means what it says: local councils will be consulted,
236
not merely informed about something that is going to happen anyway. I repeat, they will be consulted. The rural areas will not be helplessly engulfed by an urban tide. It is a political impossibility that they should be.
Sometimes it is the metropolitan areas that are criticised for being too extensive. It is said that their boundaries take in too much of the country surrounding conurbations and that they should be drawn more tightly around the builtup areas. The Government are satisfied that the Commission were right in going out as far as they did. The Commission made a convincing case for bringing within the metropolitan boundaries the whole of an area that could be treated as a social, economic and planning unit. One of the virtues of areas as extensive as those proposed by the Commission is that they do not, in effect, determine where development will take place. If the metropolitan boundaries were drawn narrowly around the built-up areas, the pressure for peripheral development would be enormous. There would be quite a risk of urban sprawl right up to the edges of the metropolitan area, simply because this was the only land available. Local government boundaries ought not to exert this kind of influence on planning decisions. It is one of the banes of the present system that we must get rid of. Areas of the size proposed by the Commission and accepted by the Government will give the metropolitan authorities freedom of choice in directing development to where it can do most good and least harm. It is precisely because their boundaries are wide that the danger of an endless urban blight around conurbations can be avoided.
One subject in which I know your Lordships will be interested is the relaxation of central control. It is perhaps a subject which provokes a certain amount of natural scepticism. Successive Governments, often maybe because of the sheer burden of work that they suffer from, have good intentions about leaving more responsibility to local authorities but then find that their performance is less than their promise and they do not even have the time to do the work which they ought to do. It is clear that the reform of local government will be an opportunity that must be taken to reverse the tendency to centralisation. There are

237
many matters with which central Government will not need to concern itself when there is a system of strong local authorities all of which are responsible for substantial populations and coherent areas.
The Government are already preparing for the much freer relationship between central and local Government which will become possible when the new system comes into force. We intend to get rid of the individual loan sanction, one of the most tiresome controls over the activities of local authorities; and the Green Paper on finance, which we have promised, will deal thoroughly with all financial controls. We have already asked the local authority associations to look at the whole range of controls which central Government exerts over them and to tell us which they think should be removed. When we receive that list we will look at it to see how far we can go in that direction and not how short a distance we can go. I cannot at the moment tell the House when the Green Paper on finance will be published, but it will appear in time for the consultations that will take place on it to be complete before the legislation to reform local government is introduced.
Provinces form another topic on which one hears the view expressed in some quarters that we have put the cart before the horse. The argument runs that we should have waited for the Report of the Commission on the Constitution before reaching any conclusions on the new structure of local government. I hope I may say, without disrespect to any noble Lord who holds this view, that I think it is wrong. The Royal Commission were appointed in 1966 with the widest possible terms of reference in order to take a completely fresh look at the structure, areas and functions of local government. Little was then heard of the point that the Royal Commission would be restricted in their inquiries. Indeed, the Government were generally agreed to have taken the right course in appointing a Royal Commission with such a far-ranging remit.
There was nothing to stop the Commission from making recommendations for an organisation at provincial level. And indeed, as your Lordships know, that is precisely what they did. They
238
made some interesting proposals for grouping the new operational authorities into eight provinces, each with an indirectly elected provincial council. The Commission suggested that these provincial councils should form part of local government. In the view of the Commission the primary function of these councils would be strategic planning. The immediately important point, however, is that the Commission did not consider that the provinces were the right areas for the operation of local government services. They had no doubt that operational responsibility should rest with the authorities in the unitary and metropolitan area, and the Government endorsed this analysis.
My Lords, the reform of local government is rather urgent. It can be reformed by concentrating services in the new main authorities and setting up the local councils, without simultaneously taking decisions on provinces. In these circumstances, I do not believe that action should be delayed until the Report of the Commission on the Constitution is to hand. No more comprehensive report on local government will ever be made than has been made by the Royal Commission. The Commission on the Constitution will not cover the same ground. They have different terms of reference, which ask them to pay regard to developments in the organisation of local government when considering the relationships between the regions and central Government—that is all. But, of course, the Commission on the Constitution will be considering such questions as the possible arrangements at what the Royal Commission call the provincial level. So it would have been equally wrong either to postpone all action on the report of the Royal Commission or to reach conclusions on their provincial proposals before the Commission on the Constitution has reported. I should make it clear that on provincial government we have not rejected the proposals of the Royal Commission. We have suspended consideration of them until we can study them again in the light of the Report of the Commission on the Constitution.
I should now like briefly to look forward with you to the next stages in the work of reforming local government. I have mentioned a number of subjects

239
which we shall be discussing with the local authority associations, and I have referred to the review of finance. But what will be of most interest to the individual authorities will be boundaries. We shall be talking to the local authority associations about the procedure for these consultations, but two things are clear. One is that the consultations will be thorough; the other is that the decisions on structure in the White Paper will not be reopened. It will not be possible to propose during these consultations either that any of the five metropolitan areas should be organised on a unitary basis, or that there should be a two-tier pattern outside these five areas. The House will remember what I have said about the district committees. Nor will it be possible to propose that any unitary area should simply be divided in two. That would create areas that were too small and would fragment problems that should be considered as a whole.
Although the Government think that the unitary areas recommended by the Commission are broadly the right shape and size, suggestions for a different pattern of areas will be considered, as well as suggestions for detailed changes in their boundaries.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I understood the noble Lord to say that suggestions for splitting unitary authorities will not be considered. Will the reverse be considered; namely joining the future authorities, as has been recommended?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, what I said was that suggestions for a different pattern of unitary authorities might be considered and suggestions for detailed changes in the boundaries proposed in the Royal Commission map; and I said that the same was true of the metropolitan areas—that is to say, detailed changes in the boundaries of the metropolitan areas may be proposed in the forthcoming consultations.
Making education the responsibility of the metropolitan authorities does not in the opinion of the Government call for a radically different pattern of districts as proposed by the Royal Commission. Effective housing and social service authorities will still need areas of the
240
general size proposed by the Commission, but there will be full opportunity during the consultations to express views on the pattern as well as the boundaries of the metropolitan districts. I ought to add, however, that the consultations will not provide the occasion for suggesting drastic reductions in the extent of the metropolitan areas. So much I think I have already made clear, and it will not surprise your Lordships. But there will of course be ample scope for suggesting changes in the actual line of the metropolitan boundaries.
The discussions which will be of particular interest to the staff will be those on the arrangements for establishing a staff commission to safeguard the interests of those employed on local government to-day. There is such continuing pressure to expand and raise the quality of the services which local government provides that the prospects of the officers who serve it must surely be good. The staff are bound to feel some apprehension about the immediate consequences of reorganisation, and the Government therefore have no doubt that a staff commission should be appointed, broadly on the lines of the one which dealt with similar problems during the London reorganisation.
My Lords, I have nearly done. This will, I think, be an historic debate. Local government cannot be reorganised every few years. In the nature of things, a debate on a Government White Paper to reform it can take place only once or twice in a century. I know from the list of speakers to follow that the discussion will match the occasion, and the Government intend to pay very careful attention to all the constructive points which I am sure will be made. I sometimes have the impression that there is much less between the Government and the Party of noble Lords opposite, even on questions of detail, than may appear in the course of argument. I hope that that is so.
It is one of the pleasures of my lot to speak to foreign visitors about our system of local government and the changes now proposed in it and to listen to what they have to say about local government in the lands from which they come. It is clear to me that the reform on which we are now embarked will provide England with a system able to deal more effectively

241
with the complex problems facing local government than any system in a comparable country. It may well be a model for others to emulate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper, Reform of Local Government in England (Cmnd. 4276).— (Lord Kennet.)
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-two minutes past three o'clock for Peers to hear an address given in the Royal Gallery to Members of both Houses by the Chancellor of the West German Federal Republic, Herr Willy Brandt, and resumed at half past four.]
4.30 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have found a day for this important debate, and that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has been able to explain the Government White Paper with his usual clarity. I trust that he will not think it was through any disrespect to him that we all walked out of the Chamber when his speech was finished. I am bound to say to him that it was not an acceptance by all of us that he had said the last word on the subject.
I want to join with Lord Kennet in paying tribute to the remarkable achievement of the Royal Commission, both to the two distinguished members of the Commission who are Members of your Lordships' House, and whom we look forward to hearing later, and to all the other members of the Commission, and, if I may add this, to its secretariat. They all must have worked together so splendidly that within the space of three years from their appointment they produced a Report distinguished for comprehensiveness, for depth and for readability.
The outstandingly important finding of the Royal Commission was that, in principle, town and country should no longer be separately administered. That proposition has been received with a remarkable degree of support, even from unexpected quarters, and it has been accepted by the Government. This fact alone would justify the appointment and the work of the Royal Commission. In 1958, when last Parliament was discussing local government on a wide scale, such a proposition would have been met
242
with absolutely intractable opposition. That is the reason why the 1958 Act made no provision for the joining of town and country areas, though arrangements were made for special review areas. I suppose that the causes why opinion has changed, and in my view changed for the better in this respect, are the greater mobility of the present day, leading to a wider awareness of interdependence of town and country, and also, in the local government field, sheer weariness of unproductive quarrelling about county borough boundary extensions.
Most people, I believe, will agree that these new large authorities recommended by the Commission should be so shaped as to be strong enough to be education authorities. The Commission speak of a minimum population of 250,000 for a unitary authority. I would have said something rather larger than that—say 300,000. I am not surprised that the Government White Paper should suggest catching up at any rate the two smallest areas in the list on page 312 of the Report into a West Yorkshire metropolitan area. All the areas on that list which are under 300,000, and are likely to remain under 300,000, I suggest deserve further careful thought. Four of these smaller areas are in Lancashire, and like a good many other people I am not happy about the dismemberment of the Lancashire County Council's area as proposed by the Royal Commission and endorsed by the Government. Indeed, the whole of Lancashire and Cheshire seem to me to require further thought. I am not against phasing out traditional loyalties when that is proved absolutely necessary, as for instance I think it was in the case of Middlesex and the inclusion of Middlesex in Greater London. But I am not sure that that is the only sound course in the case of Lancashire and Cheshire.
In any event, the boundaries of some of the new metropolitan areas seem to me too farflung, for all that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in defence of them. One reason for the inclusion in them of so many country villages is no doubt to make it easier to plan sites for overspill developments from the big cities, without compulsion to go to any one spot because that is the only land available, and without intruding upon the area of another powerful authority. I can only say that

243
had we adopted that principle in determining the boundaries of Greater London we should have gone gravely wrong, and we should wilfully have created a hatred of the Greater London Council in country districts outside the perimeter of Greater London, such as, fortunately, was not created and does not exist to-day.
The noble Lord explained that these farflung boundaries were in the interests of the built-up area. That, of course, is exactly what arouses the resentment of the country places, which feel they have an independent interest that should be considered equally. I cannot really believe that the Cheshire rural districts down in the southern parts of the Merseyside and SELNEC metropolitan areas genuinely look to, and live with, Liverpool and Manchester to any greater extent than, let us say, Elstree or Esher look to London. But Elstree and Esher are rightly outside the Greater London area.
Fortunately, there is time to consider boundaries closely. The noble Lord said that in the case of the metropolitan areas the boundary changes for discussion would be relatively small and not sweeping ones. I have made it clear that I would not accept his suggestion that substantial alterations of the metropolitan areas ought not to be considered. I, for my part, hope that we shall nowhere, unnecessarily play ducks and drakes with county boundaries because county loyalties go back a long way and are curiously and, I think, commendably strong. As regards county boundaries, by all means correct minor anomalies. I personally would accept that the village of Cumnor, in Berkshire, looks more naturally to Oxford, which is four miles away, than to Reading, which is much further away. But there does not seem to me to be any compelling reason to lift out a slice of Suffolk and put it into Norfolk, unless it wants to go. I cannot see any case for cutting off a strip of Wiltshire, including the county town of Trowbridge, and making it part of Bristol.
Incidentally, I have a great deal of sympathy with the reservation to the Majority Report by Sir Francis Hill and Mr. Wallis urging that some of the Royal Commission's large authorities are made unnecessarily large. Between 250,000 and 500,000 population is a good size for
244
a local authority with major functions; but beyond about 500,000 the danger of bureaucracy usurping power becomes greater and greater. We need to look carefully and critically at every case where the Commission propose to create by amalgamation a new authority greatly exceeding half a million population, to make sure whether so large a size is unavoidable. Of course the Government may say that it is easier to devolve powers on very large local authorities. But here we are in the difficulty that no one knows yet for certain whether provincial councils on the Maud pattern are or are not likely to come into existence.
The Government really have made it very hard for us to hold fruitful debate at this stage. We are given practically nothing to go on as regards either provincial councils or local government finance. I am not criticising the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The Government have got themselves into a difficulty, and they cannot forecast or prejudge matters which have not yet been decided or have not been reported upon. But talk of Hamlet without the Prince! This is like Macbeth without either Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Beyond any question the next Government will have to keep a reasonably open mind until they can take a new look at the whole local government structure in the light of the Crowther Commission's Report, when that is completed, which I understand will be some time next year. Almost everything one says at this stage, therefore, must be tentative. But certainly if we are going to have provincial or regional councils, I believe that there is more to be said for ending up with rather more of the new authorities, than with rather fewer as the White Paper suggests.
There is one concept which I fear has got submerged in the Royal Commission Report, and another which seems to have got submerged in the Government's White Paper. The first is democracy, and the second is devolution. To my mind Parliament and Whitehall are grossly overloaded. It should be one of the prime objectives of any reconstruction of local government to remove a great deal of power and work from Whitehall level to council level. The Royal Commission could, and did, prepare the way for that; but unwisely, as I think, the Government had excluded from the Commission's

245
terms of reference the whole question of transfer of functions from central to local government. The White Paper is completely vague about that. It speaks about relaxation of Whitehall controls, but not about transfer of functions.
When this Government talk about relaxation of central controls their credibility is low, for is not this the Government who have repeatedly asked Parliament to impose new controls to curb local freedoms? What about curbing the sale of council houses against the will of the electors? What about the Government insisting, against the wishes of the local electors, on local authorities continuing to subsidise the rents of council tenants who are well enough off not to need a subsidy? What about the Government, in a Bill now before another place, stamping on the declared views of the local electors as to the best form of secondary school organisation for the area? The least one can say is that Socialists simply cannot tolerate what is the essence of democratic local government. They cannot grasp that a Labour Government should allow a freely elected Conservative council to do what the local electors have voted it into power for, even if that conflicts with the Government's political ideas; exactly as the Conservative Government should allow a freely elected Labour council to do things which are contrary to Conservative convictions. It is fortunate that the next reconstruction of local government seems likely to be carried through by a Party in Parliament which believes that elected local councils should be the partners of the central Government and not their tools.
My Lords, I have been speaking of devolution; now I want to speak of democracy. To my mind, the democratic relationship between governors and governed should consist of something more than an opportunity to turn out one's governors every few years and elect new ones. There should be a genuine public interest in the work of the elected authority, and a belief that its work is relevant to the affairs of daily life throughout its area and that the authority is sensitive to public feeling. The Royal Commission thought that this was likely to follow if strong all-purpose authorities were created, more powerful and influential than local councils have been seen to be up until now. I am afraid
246
I cannot share this view, which seems to me to be wishful thinking. Even if the authority opens local offices and runs a vastly better information service than most councils have done hitherto, the big authority's decision-making apparatus will still seem as remote as Tibet.
Even if some councils are allowed to have more than 75 members, it will still remain true that each councillor will have about 8,000 people to represent on an all-purpose local authority which, on the Commission's proposals, will be taking all the important decisions affecting the place where they live; planning, roads, schools, houses, family social services—everything. If that councillor attempts to do his job properly, it is going to take him nearly all his time; yet he is to be unpaid, according to the White Paper. There is no escape from it—the web of democracy will wear too thin. Yet one of the Royal Commission's reasons for reorganisation is that this web is too thin already.
The strength of the all-purpose county borough council, which is stressed by the Royal Commission in paragraphs 252 and 253 of their Report, does not prove that it is democratically right for an extensive, less compactly populated area. I am sure that the rural district councils were right in stigmatising the Royal Commission's structure as too remote. Indeed, the Commission themselves must have been aware of this danger, for they devised the proposition of local councils, mandatory in what they called the unitary areas but discretionary in the metropolitan areas. I am not at all against local councils; I welcome them. I believe strongly in the potential of the parish council as it exists to-day But, with respect to the Royal Commission, this local council concept seemed to be the least well worked out of their ideas. I simply cannot see Brighton and Exeter and York—not to speak of Bristol and Nottingham and Sheffield—keenly operating a local council with the same powers as the parish council of a small village. There is an incongruity here which must be resolved: and I suspect that the Royal Commission too, were aware of that.
The Commission were perfectly right in recognising that something must be established in between the level of the ordinary person and the level of the big

247
authority. They tried to lessen the incongruity by suggesting that the larger of the local councils should be able to play some part in some of the main services administered by the unitary authorities. But the Government White Paper, we find, rejects this idea. The Government, instead, propose district committees of the unitary authority, with some representatives of the local councils on them. If I were a representative of a local council I should find this a depressing experience, because the policy would be that laid down by the big authority and there would be no possibility of changing it. Yet so often the point that the local people desperately want to make is that the policy laid down in a big city, miles away, simply cannot be made to fit in with the proper development or preservation of a particular neighbourhood.
In the White Paper the Government laid stress on making it obligatory for the big authority to consult the local councils; but of course there can be no obligation to pay attention to the views that the local councils have expressed. I know how depressing it was, in the days when the old London County Council was under obligation to consult the metropolitan borough councils over planning applications. When repeatedly the London County Council ignored views expressed by the metropolitan borough councils, the enthusiasm of the borough councillors for trying to take an active part in planning necessarily and naturally waned.
It is for reasons like this that I believe we shall come in the end to a two-tier system for England, as seems likely for Scotland and Wales. I am not sufficiently impressed by the Royal Commission's argument that all-purpose unitary authorities will revitalise democratic interest in local government. The old London County Council administered most of the services which the unitary authorities will administer; but—with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Fiske—the L.C.C. was regarded as so remote that popular interest in it between elections was virtually nil, and even at election times not a great deal higher. The idea of having a local council is appropriate to a village or small town, but not to the larger towns or cities outside the metropolitan areas.
248
It also strikes me as anomalous that second-tier authorities are considered necessary for thickly populated areas around Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham—and in the White Paper for two other areas, too—on the ground that one great authority for the conurbation would be too big and remote; the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said it would not be acceptable as a form of democratic local government. Yet second-tier authorities are not thought necessary by the Commission or by the Government in thinly-populated country areas, where distances and the danger of remoteness both of geography and of interest are so much greater.
I would not lay down any standard size or pattern for the second-tier authorities; emphatically not a minimum size of 100,000 population as seems to appeal to some people, because in a country area that would make the authority just as remote to the man in the street or the man in the village as one of the Commission's unitary authorities would be. These second-tier authorities should be tailored to the local population and the social geography. If this was seriously attempted, I believe that a sensible, though not a uniform, pattern could be mapped out within each big authority's area.
Why should local government areas always be tidy and uniform? The pattern of population and of settlement is not that. The right local government pattern should grow out of the population and geography pattern. The structure should not be clamped uniformly on a pattern which is not uniform. I am not advocating—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord just for information? I am following his argument very carefully, but is he saying that we ought not to accept a minimum size like 100,000? Is there any minimum size? Because there is clearly a point below which it would be pointless to have a council. Has the noble Lord any figure in mind?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I would not suggest any particular figure, because I think that the conditions vary so enormously. There are some very sparsely populated areas and there are

249
some compact areas. I am not saying that 100,000 would be too large for a compact urban area. But if one has had to study the map carefully, one realises that there are some parts of the country where, when one takes into account communications and low density of population, a realistic second-tier authority could be quite small relative to the figures of 100,000 and 60,000 that have been mentioned in some quarters.
I was going on to say that I was not advocating that any of the big services should be transferred right away from the main authorities. These second-tier authorities would, in my conception, discharge the functions in Appendix E of the White Paper which are too big and too expensive for ordinary parish councils, and should also play suitably assigned parts in the administration of some of the main services, as indeed the Royal Commission itself recommended that local councils should do. It would really be absurd for every question of housing management in an ordinary town to be settled by a big authority located miles away, or by one of that authority's officers, when it could be handled with much closer knowledge under the appropriate committee of an elected council of that town. And there really must be power to determine policies and take decisions at second-tier level on planning applications which have no general importance and significance outside the particular place. When people are proud of their town, and proud with good cause, sound democracy and common sense alike require that we should afford to the people of that town a responsible role in looking after it, and not make their only means of showing their love for their town either service on a farranging unitary authority, or the mere exercise of parish council powers.
My suggestions are really for a practical modification of the Royal Commission's proposals, breaking loose from the Commission's belief—mistaken belief, I think—that large unitary authorities are the secret of attracting more of the publics' interest and good will to local government; and breaking loose, also, from the fallacious but oftrepeated idea that by creating very large and very powerful councils you will secure the services of abler men and women who would not think local government work worth while
250
otherwise. This is pure theory: I have never come across any practical confirmation of that anywhere.
There is another aspect of all this, and that is the personal aspect. The Government are saying that outside the metropolitan areas they want to see councillors of only two sorts: those who will give fulltime, or nearly fulltime, service unpaid on a unitary authority; and those who will be content to serve on a local council with the powers of a parish council. Who will be found to man the unitary authorities I find it hard to see, other than retired people or leisured people or people whose employers give them ample time off to do so, as employers generally do now to men in their employment who are elected mayors of their boroughs. I would always encourage employers to grant this time off. But the men who are ambitious for promotion and want to get on in their jobs are the men hardest to spare and least likely to take advantage of this opportunity; and yet these are the men we specially want as elected members in local government, and we shall only be able to get them if we do not demand too much of their time.
To set up second-tier authorities will somewhat lessen the otherwise almost intolerable load on elected members of the big authorities, if they are both to take all the policy decisions and to look after all the local interests of the 8,000 people each one will represent. But it will do something else, too. It will preserve an opportunity of public service for a number of those excellent people who are carrying the load of council work now on all sorts of local authorities hot who could not possibly undertake the far more time-demanding duties of membership of a unitary authority. One thing I regretted in the reorganisation of Greater London—necessary as that reorganisation was—was its effect in squeezing out of local government work many of the people who could afford the time to give yeoman service on a metropolitan borough council, but who knew that they could not undertake the much heavier duties entailed in membership of the council of a London borough two or three times the size.
One effect of the Royal Commission's policy of linking together town and

251
country—a policy which almost everyone accepts; I certainly do—will be to extend Party politics in local government over the whole country. Curiously enough, no one seems to have publicly said this yet, but it will follow inevitably. It was the Liberals, or rather the Radicals in the old days, who first introduced Party politics into local government 80 years ago, in the first London County Council ever elected. But the Labour Party have by now extended it through virtually all the county boroughs and towns of any size—and this is a fact of life which must be recognised—and their candidates will succeed unless they are fought by candidates with an equally determined Party organisation behind them. I have experience of this, for I was a member of the last metropolitan borough council which sought to operate on non-Party lines, until that was made impossible.
Party control of a council, in my experience, tends to produce more coherent and tenacious policies. Where the opposition on a council has a Parly basis, it tends to probe and question more insistently; and fewer sleeping dogs are likely to be allowed to lie. The price that generally has to be paid for these undoubted gains is less quality in debate, because members tend to make Party points, whereas the originators of local government, I am sure, took it for granted that local councillors would stick to saying what they really thought, based on their knowledge of the locality, and would not bother about anything else. Frankly, I do not much care for local councils which, in debate, ape the House of Commons, and do it much less well.
What I am leading up to, my Lords, is the question whether we should so lightly abolish aldermen. When all the big authorities are elected on a Party basis—something which I think the Labour Party will rejoice to force—I am not sure whether the three-year paralysis which may result from deadheats or near dead-heats at elections will be a good thing. Hitherto, that sort of paralysis has been avoided by one Party or the other securing a clear majority of aldermen, and therefore a working majority in control of the council. I suffered in that way on the London County Council in 1949. But if aldermen are abolished, we shall be left with the prospect of three
252
years of paralysis or debility, so far as controversial issues are concerned, whenever the two sides are exactly or almost exactly balanced.
The Royal Commission say that:
" the office of alderman blurs the principle of control by the people's elected representatives ".
But the Commission then sabotage their own argument by recommending that the provincial councils should be indirectly elected by the directly elected councils, exactly as aldermen are to-day. I am not a great fan of aldermen; but, speaking personally, with some experience of local government, I believe that the case for retaining a small proportion of aldermen is stronger than is made out.
That, however, is a comparatively minor point. My chief concern to-day is that local government shall not be denuded of its essentially local element. We can all enjoy a laugh against the mayor and corporation, just as we can all enjoy a laugh against the village "bobby"; but the fact remains that both lie very near the heart of British liberties. The Royal Commission scheme and the White Paper scheme both portray efficient methods of administering England, but each of them seems to me to be too far separated from genuine local democracy. I want to see a new structure for local government that will last, and if local democracy is subordinated to large-scale efficiency I do not think it will. I want to see genuine local government. To put it crudely, my Lords, the White Paper seems to me to outline a more efficient system of running English local affairs, but not local democracy. If I express that in crude terms, it is not to undervalue either the Commission's Report or the White Paper, but to underline the point of difference.
If all of us are determined to work hard enough in the next year or two on the first-class material now made available by the Commission, filled out by the forthcoming Crowther Report and by further ideas on finance, I am sure that it should be possible within those next two years to hammer out a really good scheme of reorganisation that will last. It will not please everybody—that will be quite impossible, and we must recognise that—but it should be able to stand up to all responsible criticism. I hope that I have made clear why, in my judgment, neither the Royal Commission

253
scheme nor the White Paper scheme can yet do that. The field to concentrate on is what I call the second-tier problem, which neither the Royal Commission, with their variegated local councils, nor the Government, with their district committees, have wholly solved. Nor, perhaps, has anyone else. Certainly I would not presume to be dogmatic about the solution: I simply want to spur forward further debate.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, this subject is one on which we on these Benches, as in a number of other cases, have a distinct and distinctive point of view, and on which we thought that the other two Parties were haggling over minutiae instead of tackling the real problem. I say "thought", and that was certainly my opinion even after having read a number of speeches by Conservative spokesmen on this subject. But having listened to the wholly illuminating and cogent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I must confess that I think that our views and those of the Conservatives to a very large degree match. My only complaint would be that I do not think that the Conservatives go quite far enough or follow the logic of their thoughts. In fact, there is only one point on which I would actually differ from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and that is on the question of aldermen. This question of two sides being equal in the council chamber is largely luckily solved by the fact that in most councils there are now three sides, and that works quite well, even though, unluckily, it is not so in the Greater London Council yet.
My Lords, as we all know, the local government system in this country has not been overhauled for a very long time, and the patchwork of different forms of local authorities with differing powers and functions is neither logical nor satisfactory. The construction of a new form is a difficult and a cataclysmic task, and I certainly join in all the tributes which have been paid, and I have no doubt will be paid, to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his Commission. In fact, so difficult is it to upheave local government in this country and remodel it that I doubt whether it would be worth while except for one thing, something that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor,
254
has so much emphasised: the need to bring more power and responsibility down to local levels.
Democracy, my Lords, is about giving people the right to make decisions about their own lives, and education is the stimulus which today causes more and more of them to want democratic responsibility. For a long time the situation was as described by Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest, when, it will be remembered, she said:
" Fortunately in England at any rate education produces no effect whatsoever, if it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes and probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square."
We have had the acts of violence in Grosvenor Square, but we have also had plenty of other evidence of a better kind, of people's desire to have more say in the organisation of their society.
Central Government today becomes more technical and involved every year. If we go into the Common Market—and we on these Benches feel that we must— whatever the view that may now be held about the political form of Europe, we are bound in the end to have another centre of political power further removed from the ordinary man and woman in this country. People, particularly young people, feel very frustrated today because they can have no effect upon what happens in Vietnam or in Nigeria. I am afraid that I do not believe that they will ever have much effect on what happens in Vietnam or Nigeria, but I think we can at least give people more power over their own lives at close quarters. My argument is not vitiated, I think, in any way by the continuing low turnout or low poll in local government elections. Like all movements for more freedom and more responsibility, it is led by a growing number of politically conscious people, and it takes time for this to spread; but I do not think that anyone can deny that there is this growing demand for some more say in what goes on. If this is so, the decision to consider and act upon Maud before we have Crowther makes the whole business an exercise in the irrelevant.
The reason we need a revision of local government is almost entirely because we need to devolve from Westminster and Whitehall out into the provinces. Once that occurs, everything else falls into place. We believe in provincial councils

255
which will be directly elected, composed of paid councillors and will be given the great majority of the domestic powers which at the present moment are exercised in Great Britain. At the same time we believe in Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, with provincial organisations below them, if they so wish. Once you have these provincial councils you have a body of exactly the right size for regional planning of industry, transport and other major services. These councils will be both powerful and accountable and entirely different from the regional economic planning councils that we have at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the reorganisation of local government is independent of what may be decided about provincial councils; but I suspect that in saying this he is thinking of a different kind of provincial council from the kind that we are thinking of. Again, he says that the Redcliffe-Maud Commission were not precluded from making recommendations on this matter. This may be so, but when we hear, as we look forward to hearing, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, I should be grateful if he would tell us whether he feels that consideration of a mass devolution of power from central Government to the provinces, accompanied by Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, a halving of the membership of the House of Commons and the turning of your Lordships' House into a regional and national senate—which is what the Liberal Party wishes to see—would be in any way within the terms of his remit.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I can clarify the matter straight away. It was not.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, it is because we are now going through the business of adapting Maud without first dealing with this matter— and, indeed, I suspect with every intention of not doing much about directly elected provincial councils and the delegation of real power from the centre— that we think that the level of local government as proposed in this White Paper is wrong. Once you have a powerful provincial council of the kind I have described you can then have what we in our pamphlet, Power to the Provinces,
256
have called "district councils" with a minimum electorate of 60,000. Possibly, I suggest, even less in the rural areas— but considerably smaller than the unitary authorities of the Government, and able to be a one-tier authority for an area small enough for the people to feel that they are in touch. Such authorities would be, for instance, the city authorities that we have today; the big town authorities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke; the borough councils, as in London, and so on throughout the system.
Underneath that we would welcome neighbourhood councils not unlike the local councils which the Government suggest but over very much smaller areas. In the Government's plan these seem to us to be rather pointless, since they are too vast to be really responsible to the immediate local community need, and they have no real power. But if there are smaller unitary bodies—and these neighbourhood councils are visualised as something much smaller and responsive to the immediate community —I feel that they have a great part to play. They can be responsible for the humanisation of the local community in a way which gets lost in the machinelike ordinary councils of the strong administrative powers. Mr. Peter Walker has said of the present proposals that they would become negative, critical bodies, with no other function but to make merry hell for the second tier. He may be right when they are of the size visualised by the Report; but if they are smaller I think that they will be positive and will equally make merry hell for the second tier. A certain amount of merry hell, and the merrier the better, is not a bad thing in local government.
My Lords, we see a need for a far greater dispersal of power in local government at the lowest level. We believe that at the moment tod much power is accumulated at the centre merely because the machinery at the periphery is not structured in the right way. If I may give an example, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, it is in the field of education. My Party supports the Government in their present Education Bill. This is partly because we believe that freedom from the selection process has something of the nature of a basic human right and should be protected by central Government. But

257
it is also because local government is not so organised as to reflect what people really want to see about education.
It is notorious that councils change political hands as much on what the country thinks of the Prime Minister of the time as on what they think of any other factor. I am not complaining that this is so. With the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I agree that the "politicalising" of councils has been, on balance, a good thing. So many times an independent council is a conservative council, whatever the actual politics of the people who run it; and very often an independent council is run by its permanent officials —and however good they are, that is not something that we should completely want. But the fact remains that selection in education may be enthusiastically pursued by a council against the wishes of parents and teachers of the neighbourhood, secure in the knowledge that the councillors concerned will not be thrown out on the question of the education scheme—they will be thrown out often on the swing in the country.
If local education authorities were run on a basis where they were the elected representatives of teachers, parents, students (and where the local council would control the purse strings), I should be happy to leave the choice of the education system entirely in their hands and not have a central Bill. I believe that a necessary reform of local government, and one to which we must come in the future, is that the health authorities should be more or less separated from the general local government council—as indeed they are—and that this should happen also in education, and perhaps in one or two other fields, and that all these local specialist councils should be elected— which is not so at the moment in the case of the health councils.
To sum up, my Lords, we think that to tackle Maud without first tackling Crowther is to get the priorities wrong and to guarantee a botched answer. We should like to see elected provincial councils with large powers devolved from London, a single tier of district councils, much smaller than the present proposed tier, and underneath a proliferation of voluntary neighbourhood councils, each expressing immediate local democracy as vociferously as each is ready for—which will vary considerably.
258
What is needed is to bring power nearer to the people. The whole effect of the Government's plan is to remove it further away. It was for this reason that my friends in another place, against the wishes of both other Parties, attempted to divide the House against this White Paper, and, failing to do so, owing to the peculiarities of our Parliamentary system, at least managed to defeat the Government on the ensuing procedural point by the overwhelming victory of nine votes to none. We do not attempt in your Lordships' House to do anything nearly as aggressive; but we must make it plain that we do not think that either Party, not even the Conservative Party in what is a development of their policy as explained today, are getting nearly radically enough to the centre of the problem.
5.20 p.m.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennel, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the kind things that they have said about the work of the Royal Commission of which I had the honour to be the Chairman. For a few moments I want, if I may, not so much to enter the debate as to let your Lordships into my thinking as I remember the painful, indeed agonising, but delightful, process that I went through for five and a half solid years, first in the Management Committee on Local Government, which the Conservative Government asked me to chair, about the internal affairs of the authority and how we could perhaps get better people as candidates; and then in the Royal Commission, which this Government asked me to chair, in 1966.
Looking back, I think there were two assumptions that every one of us made in his or her mind when we started work. The first was that the present insulation of the county boroughs and the pockmarking of the face of England, with 45 geographic counties pockmarked by 79 county boroughs, must somehow be ended. The second assumption was that the splitting of main functions between two tiers of elected authority would have to continue in one form or another. I think the question "One tier or two, or three, or four?", is liable to be misleading because, of course, the answer

259
depends on the scale on which you are speaking and the purposes for which the various tiers are distinguished.
When I say that we started on the assumption that two-tier government must continue, I mean the continuance of the traditional plan which has gone on since 1894; that whereas each county borough is a unitary authority with all the responsibility for meeting all the local government needs of all the people in the hands of the one council, outside the county boroughs the county is split between two tiers, one taking—as it has now come to be in this Year of Grace—all the decisions on the main local government functions except housing; but housing, sewerage, water and various powers that may, by right or by favour, be delegated by the county to the second tier being taken by the county district—the non-county borough, the urban or the rural district. Below that, of course, there are the parish councils which, from this point of view, I did not think of then as a tier. Nor, I think, did my colleagues so regard them.
We thought that some splitting of the main function between two tiers would have to continue, and we were quite clear that, however dedicated the service and however successful the work of local government in many parts of England, it was up to us to suggest something which would provide the local governors with a very much better chance to give the ratepayers and taxpayers value for their money; and which would involve more people than are already involved. May I say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that democracy is not merely voting at elections. But it is some indication of democratic weakness when you do not get half the turnout at local government elections in this country that you get for national elections.
These were the assumptions from which we started, and long before the end of three years—I would say perhaps after the end of two—ten of the eleven of these curious persons that Her Majesty's Government had linked together in the Royal Commission were clear about what they wanted to recommend. "Faceless bureaucrats" some of us may be called in some quarters; though I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—
260
who I hope will intervene in the debate later—could be described as faceless, and of course, she was no longer a bureaucrat.
There was Peter Mursell with a very wide and long experience as Chairman of the West Sussex County Council and a member of rural district and parish councils galore. There was Sir Francis Hill, with his experience of municipal administration. There were people who, frankly, did not know much about local government, but, like Mr. John Bolton, the vice-Chairman, knew about how business worked and how much use could be made of modern methods of managerial control, programme budgeting, computers and the rest.
After about two years ten of the eleven of us were absolutely clear that, basically, we wanted to recommend unanimously a system which did split main local government functions between two tiers in three great metropolitan areas of the country (on lines not unlike those designed by Parliament at the instigation of a Conservative Government, for Greater London, in 1963) and everywhere else concentrated them in 58 single-tier authorities. Perhaps we were wrong about the number, but all over the rest of England we were determined to recommend the non-split of main local government functions and their concentration in the hands of one authority.
What I want to try to explain, if I may, is why we abandoned at least one of the two main assumptions with which we started. I think the first reason (and here I can speak only for myself) was that when we looked at individual functions —education; housing; those functions which the Seebohm Committee was investigating, the personal social services; highways; traffic; planning and the rest —we found that they grouped themselves incontestably into groups. There was an environmental group about which there was very little doubt. You cannot do the planning job unless you have also the transportation job to do, and so on. But I believe, with no less firm conviction of common sense, that the personal services also ought to be grouped; and we were much strengthened in this view when the Seebohm Committee said the same. If you start with education, that at once leads on to child care; child care leads on to the personal services for the abnormal, the mentally handicapped and all the

261
young; and that leads on to the elderly and people handicapped in other ways. So one comes from the personal social services to housing, because so many of the problem families will be kept together only if a roof can be retained over their heads or found for them.
Housing seems in some way to be the real crux of this matter, because it is of course part both of the personal and of the environmental services. Surely the counties have been seriously handicapped in being the planning authority yet having no general housing powers; and so you come to planning, and back to education. We felt quite clear that the environmental services should be in the hands of one main authority, and the personals in the hands of one main authority; and, if possible, that both groups should be in the hands of the same authority.
This brings me to the second basic point that stands out in my memory. After endless examination of the 2,843 bits of written evidence; after all the oral chat we had with the witnesses who were good enough to come and see us; after studying the Reports of those valuable previous Commissions, in particular the Commission (under the late Sir Henry Hancock) on Local Government in England, and after endless discussions among ourselves, we came to the conclusion that a population of somewhere around 250,000 was the minimum that an authority would need to deal effectively, democratically and economically with the personal social services.
I will not bore the House by trying to justify that conclusion because it is based on a great deal of evidence. The evidence came partly from the Department of Education and Science, which was unhappy about it and thought the minimum should be 500,000; partly from the Home Office, with its experience of the Children's Service; partly from the Health Department, and so on. But in the end, in the opinion of ten of the eleven of us, all the evidence pointed to the fact that a minimum of something around 250,000 was needed if a proper job was to be done by those rare, skilled professionals who are now, as we all know, so integral a part of the Child-Care Service and the other services concerned with personal and social health and welfare. If they are to be employed
262
economically they need, as the Seebohm Committee again pointed out, a proper caseload and a team. This means that the job cannot be done effectively, from the point of view of the people concerned, the individuals and their families—and certainly not from the point of view of the staff, or of the ratepayers and taxpayers who are interested in the economic deployment of these rare people—unless the authority has that minimum population.
I know that this is tremendously controversial, and the debate will long continue, but we were convinced of it. That connection, coupled with the interconnection between all services, led us to conclude that where we had an area which, for planning, transportation and other purposes, needed a population of 2 to 3 million, as in the metropolitan areas we described, not only would that be too big an area for one authority to look after but it was big enough to contain within it main authorities with populations somewhere around the minimum of 250,000.
That was why we recommended the splitting of functions and two tiers in the metropolitan areas. But it made us equally clear that in the rest of the country there would be huge advantage in having a single authority. It puzzles me to find that a great national organ such as The Times can seriously be puzzled why, when we proposed two tiers for metropolitan areas, we did not also propose two tiers for the rest of the country. The whole argument is set out in the Report and in the shortened version.
What I would next mention is that in my view—and I know this will be contested in many parts of the House—our plan builds on the best experience we have had in local government over the last 50 years and therefore in the true sense is an evolutionary plan. Mr. Derek Senior, who wrote the Memorandum of Dissent, thought we were wrong to pay so much attention to what is on the ground today. But I am sure that he was wrong in that, as on some other points. We wanted to devise a scheme, and we think we did, which is evolutionary in, this sense.
First of all, it builds on the experience of the county borough, where we have

263
a single tier and all local government in the hands of one council. There are great advantages in this arrangement from the point of view of allocating resources, settling priorities, looking at all the needs of all the people in so far as local government can meet them, filling gaps and avoiding overlaps. We built on that in what we propose should be the 58 unitary areas—the Government White Paper, of course, suggests 51. We built also upon the virtue of the county. Surely some of the counties, we shall all agree, have devised ways in which they can administer a wide area of town and country, with many different communities contained within it, and in some cases a population twice as large as any of the unitary authorities we propose. Through decentralisation, through listening to what local people say and trying to find out where the shoe pinches in different parts of their areas, they have found means of making these main decisions on all the main local government services, except housing, in ways which are not only effective but democratic.
On that experience we build some of our hopes that we shall find, if we have some system such as this, that it does not fit the cap of remoteness and bureaucracy that the rural district councils naturally think it will. I do not for one moment say that I can guarantee that any new system, let alone ours or that in the Government White Paper, will avoid the charge of remoteness and bureaucracy and inefficiency. No one can guarantee this. But, by the same token, no one can say positively that it will be remote or bureaucratic or inefficient.
The other evolutionary aspect of our plan is the parish. I think that everyone in this House will agree that some parishes are about as good a specimen of local government as will be found anywhere in Europe. If the parish were released from the inhibition of the 4d. or 8d. rate, as we propose, and as I am glad to see the Government accept; if they go forward on the lines that many parish councils increasingly have been doing in recent years, then we shall have a foundation of real democracy, from which ideas can well up from below (as well as protests being made), and we shall be able to harmonise and integrate rural
264
communities with the wider community of the main authorities.
That brings me to my next point. I have always thought that we should bring decisions as near as possible to the people affected. If we look at England, we find that there are a multitude of communities, larger and smaller, and many kinds of decisions which in the course of local government someone must take. What the Royal Commission's plan proposes is that the various communities existing in the country should be matched with the sort of decisions that the representatives of these communities are the best people to make. There at the heart of the system we have the operational decisions of the main authorities, taken by representatives of the main authorities, whether two-tier in the metropolitan areas or single-tier elsewhere—and I am convinced myself that those decisions are better taken for an area as big as the area we suggested, with a minimum population of 250,000 and a maximum of not much more than a million.
Below them, and an indispensable part of our plan for single-tier authorities in unitary areas, are the local councils. Do not let this be dismissed in that easy way of dismissing things one does not like by putting in the word "mere" before it. I have even heard your Lordships' House described as "a mere talking shop". Of course it is a talking shop, but to call it, "a mere talking shop" does not discredit it effectively. So with the parish council and the local council in the town. A rejuvenated parish council and a new-style town council—shall we say, for the whole of Bath, expending the money of the citizens of Bath, in so far as the representatives of the inhabitants wish their money spent on arts festivals, on the baths themselves or on attracting people to come to Bath in greater numbers. If I may mention Oxford, for which I was a councillor for six years, there are things which Oxford "new-style" City Council will be able to do, according to its resources and the wishes of its inhabitants as interpreted by the councillors, which frankly would make the job of city councillor much more attractive to me to-day than it was for the six years before the war, when I was a member of a much too big council, with too many and too large committees, with too little delegation to our officers.

265
I claim that the decisionmaking process on operations is given to the representatives of the right size of community. It is nowhere suggested in the Report that the local councils should be merely consultative. It has always been clearly spelt out that they have minor jobs to do themselves, in so far as the local community wants jobs done, and they have another task—that of getting other people to do big jobs for them.
Over these bodies are the provincial councils, which I want to mention only in passing, because I accept the fact that, for reasons which seem to me convincing, the Government have decided not to reject yet not to accept them at this stage. The Government's idea is now to wait for further suggestions from the Crowther Commission. In the light of what the Government have now said they mean to do with the Royal Commission Report, the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, and his colleagues may wish to suggest ways in which the provincial councils we had in mind can be given greater powers and to raise again the question of their constitutions. We thought that they should not be operational, and it would be ludicrous, if I may say so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to have directly elected bodies for the jobs which we suggested as appropriate for provincial councils. Here again we felt that decisions need to be taken for the wider community of the North-East or the South-West by people who, though indirectly elected (and I agree that in a sense it means new-style aldermen), should be at least rooted in local government, with their own staff, and therefore quite different from the present regional economic advisory councils.
Finally, my Lords, I come to what is perhaps the most important aspect of the whole subject. Will this mean more democracy in Britain? The answer to that question, I think, will be decided less by reference to the relationship between the local councils and the main authorities than by the effect that a new scheme of local government may have on the relations between central and local government as a whole. I am sceptical, I admit, about any right honourable gentleman governing this country, either from one great Party or another, finding it easy to resist the temptation, as the years go on, to centralise and to increase
266
the number of decisions which they take and for which they have responsibility.
Judging from the past, right honourable gentlemen of both Parties have been very ready to charge the other side with any failure of achievement in the housing programme; and equally, when so many hundred thousand houses have been built, to take credit for it. But no right honourable gentleman of any Party has ever built a house or been directly responsible for the building of one. For all the houses built within the public sector it is the local authorities that are responsible. No right honourable gentleman has ever built a school or appointed— and only very rarely disappointed—a teacher. Yet when the education programme goes well, who takes the responsibility? And when it goes badly, who charges the other side with malfeasance? These temptations will continue and increase in power as the country shrinks, the telephone system improves and various things happen which make it easier for constituents to contact their Member of Parliament or drop in on a right honourable gentleman.
Let us be clear about this, my Lords. It is not the bureaucrats (call them what you like) in Whitehall who are the determiners of this: it is the Ministers; and no one but the Ministers. My friends in Whitehall would be delighted to shuffle off these silly files with which they do not think they can cope under the next six weeks to the places where they can be better decided—that is to say, locally. But Ministers are the people responsible for this. I do not believe that Ministers, of any Party, will resist the temptation to go on centralising unless there is a series of strong local authorities, with the necessary powers and areas to enable them to shape up to doing the big jobs of unsnarling traffic, getting the right houses in the right place, making room to take the place of declining industries and so on—strong local authorities with a mandate from their constituents, and with time not wasted in squabbling with a second tier.
I have the greatest respect for all the present local authority associations. They have done a marvellous job in commenting so quickly on the Report of the Royal Commission; and they have said relatively less rude things about the Royal Commission than I expected. But they are a symptom of the fragmentation

267
which is the curse of English local government. I want a single association of strong local authorities. They, and they alone, will be able to look Ministers and Whitehall in the face. They alone will make Ministers do what I am sure they want to do, when they are not tempted; that is, trust the people, and make our great democracy a greater one.
5.45 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, this afternoon I think we have been enlightened by the speeches of the three Party leaders, and still further enlightened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who conducted and produced the Report of a very fine Royal Commission. I can rightfully think that it is a very fine Royal Commission Report, because I have operated the first stage in the reform of metropolitan government in London under the Report of a Royal Commission which was indeed very different, and under an Act of Parliament about which there was as much dispute as there will clearly be about the next one. But I think that what has been said so far underlines one thing; that is, that as between political Parties inside and outside this House—and inside and outside this House between authorities of different colours—there will never be agreement. The Government of the day, whichever it be, will have to make up their minds what they want to do, and do it.
On what has been said so far I want to make only one comment on something that I think ought to be put right. I refer to Lord Brooke's comment of not liking politics in local government. That is a remark which I like to hear, because when someone says that there should be no politics in local government it automatically tells me, if I do not know already, to which Party he belongs. In this connection, I should like to give your Lordships an illustration—and I am sorry that I have not brought it with me. Going through some old papers of my mother's only a fortnight ago I came across a scurrilous handbill written by my grandfather, who was a bloodthirsty Whig, and who dared to stand against his landlord, the squire, in a parish council election. Although he says in the pamphlet that he rented his cottage on a quarterly tenancy,
268
he was given a week's notice and he apparently had no alternative but to comply. That is the sort of thing that used to happen—I suppose this was seventy or eighty years ago—when there were no politics in local government. If that is the case, I am glad that now there are politics in local government.
We have also heard a lot to-day about the fact that, whatever happens under the Report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, this will not be local government. I am inclined to agree with that remark, just as much as I think I should have to agree with the remark that a motor car is not a horse. But they are both—if there are not too many of them in any one place at any one timeextremely convenient means to avoid frustration and to get from place to place. Therefore, I think we must admit change in the field of local government, as we have admitted change in so much else in our lives—certainly in the course of my lifetime—as we find we have an enlarging population in a smaller world demanding more and more out of life. To me it is as simple as that.
But the process of the reform of local government throughout (I think that strictly we are talking only about England, but I am not quite sure) seems to me to be this. We have had the Report of a Royal Commission; we have a White Paper, and in due course, from someone or other, we shall have a Bill which will be implemented after consultation. This is where I think we come to the point that has been illustrated by the three Party leaders who have spoken on this issue. Consultation about what? There are no new authorities to consult with. There could clearly never be any agreement on the structure of local government. Somebody has to decide this and inform the authorities concerned that this is what is going to happen.
While that is happening there can be consultation—and with this I would fully agree—on boundaries and in metropolitan authorities on the division of functions, and I shall want to say something later on that. That was roughly the course that the London Government Bill took and, as it was originally drafted it was driven through both Houses of Parliament practically unamended, except in one very important particular. It is interesting to consider that for a

269
moment, because the important particular was the arrangement for education in Inner London, that is to say, the area of the old L.C.C. This was brought about not by consultation between Government and local authority, not by consultation between local authorities themselves, but by a spontaneous revolt of parents and teachers, who said that they were not going to have the old L.C.C. education authority removed without protest. The Government of the day—in my opinion very wisely—bowed to this considerable persistence.
There is a great difference, as I see it, between what was done in London and what is proposed now. In London it was laid down that the primary unit of government was the chief unit of government, and everything possible (and I cannot possibly put this in Parliamentary language) had to be fitted into that framework. It was only those parts which could not be pushed into the framework that were to be left over for the larger authority, the Greater London Council, to deal with. The Redcliffe-Maud Commission have reversed this decision, and put it the other way round—which I am sure is a wise decision—and will make a success of this reform in the other metropolitan areas, where as the previous decision has been the chief stumbling block in the Greater London Area. I think I can bring this home to your Lordships most clearly by giving one or two illustrations. One is from something which happened two or three years ago, and the other has blown up in our newspapers only in the past fortnight; that is, who shall take a decision to redevelop the area from which Covent Garden will move? Shall it be that second-tier authority that has in its area 35 per cent. of the whole, or that second-tier authority that has 65 per cent. of the area in its jurisdiction; or shall it be the authority which is overriding and has 100 per cent. of the area under its control? This remains to be resolved.
May I quote the even more confusing case—and one that I am sure that all your Lordships will know—of Euston Station. Euston Station, being a place where I think more than 2,500 people deposit themselves every day, is a matter for the Greater London Council. As soon as you move outside the station into Euston Square, and the roads outside, it is the responsibility of the local
270
borough of Camden, but only until you get to within 110 feet of the Euston Road, which, because it is the metropolitan road, again becomes the responsibility of the Greater London Council.
Many of your Lordships sit on planning committees. Can you imagine planning and working under a system that has complications of that sort? It makes a burdensome piece of work in precisely the field where the Royal Commission seek to move it: that it, from the members who are constantly brought in on issues of this sort, where clear definition would make it possible for the officers of a council to deal with it.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I may interject a point, if the noble Lord will allow me, does he not agree that this is precisely the sort of nonsense which forces decisions upwards into the laps of Ministers?
LORD FISKE: My Lords, most certainly, and the last resort is the Minister. Therefore, I would plead, above anything else, in any new Act reforming local government for a clear definition of the powers that are given to any authority. A second matter which I should like to bring particularly to your Lordships' notice is the term of three years under which a local government works. There are recommendations in the Report, although they are not conclusive, that this term might be extended to four years. The four-year term is better than the three-year term, especially where there is the possibility of political change, because three years is not long enough for an incoming Party to initiate, carry out and get the reward for the policies that it introduces. Indeed, four years is questionable, but it is better than three. I should therefore like to ask most specifically that the recommendation for a four-year term be very carefully looked at.
The last plea I would make is about something which has been only touched on because everybody is a little frightened of it. That is with regard to the financial arrangements for the members who serve. There is a great prejudice, which I share, against paying salaries to members in local government. But there are other arrangements that could be made. There is the arrangement that was made to deal with your Lordships' House. This is

271
something, it seems to me, that could be usefully extended into the field of local government. I am quite sure that if there are fewer people to carry out larger responsibilities, however they may be devolved, then consideration of their loss of time which will be concentrated more and more in the day time and less in the evening, because of distances involved, is clearly something that must be looked at in the preparation of the Bill.
I should like to say a word about the actual process of merging authorities on the scale that is contemplated here. It really is a large and daunting task which I should have thought at the minimum would last for ten years, and the maximum could easily be fifteen or twenty years. During that time, a new organisation is flexing its muscles, gaining strength all the time, and by the end of that time is doubtless in a position to seize the opportunities that are open to it to serve its own community. But the interval is full of problems, particularly human ones. You can, by having a strong staff commission, with adequate and generous compensatory powers, do much for the staff. But the servants of local government are dedicated people, and monetary compensation is not the entire answer to the interruption of a career in midstream; because the job you have been doing for fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years is no longer there. A reallocation of your activities, whether professional or administrative, or whether you are a more humble employee of the authority, might present really serious problems which cannot be overlooked.
For members it creates quite different problems; problems which are quite different in character. There is a sudden and dramatic cut of anything between 60 and 80 per cent. in the number of people who can serve on local authorities. Thus there is lost, on one election night or at one set of selection conferences (however one likes to put it), perhaps two-thirds to three-quarters of the people who may have put in many years of useful service in the communities where they belong. This, too, as I have seen with my own eyes, can be a human tragedy. It is something to which, again, we must be very sympathetic, although I
272
fail to see what we can do, except to spread the work that is left on a voluntary basis over as wide an area as is humanly possible.
When we move away from that part of it, we gather together a number of people—I think that 75 is the maximum laid down in the Report—who may never have met; who certainly have not been in the habit of working together, and may very well be extremely suspicious of each other. They may even feel in their little groupings that they are going to be kicked around by the biggest bully of the lot. That, again, is something of which I in London, at any rate, was extremely conscious. I felt it was my task as the first Leader of the Greater London Council to lean over backwards to avoid it happening; to weld those people, who came from such different kinds of authorities—from counties that were purely metropolitan, from counties that were quite rural in character, from county boroughs which had formerly exercised every power in the local government scale—and now found that they were only part of a two-tier system, which they did not like because they had lost a lot of authority and they thought they were going to pay twice anyway.
The need is to weld a body of people like this into a team which can be brought to the point of seizing the opportunities which exist. The opportunities that lie before a great organisation with great resources, in terms of manpower, of area of land and of rateable value are indeed immense. But it takes time to do so. It takes a great deal of hard work on the part of the people who are concerned in that first coming together and in getting the new authority off the ground. If that is done, and if we can face up to the immense reorganisation that it involves, then I am quite sure that a reform on the lines recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, will bring wellbeing and great opportunity to all our communities up and down the country.
6.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the first thing I should like to say is that surely we ought to have had a two-day debate on this very important subject, instead of one day and a broken day at that—although, I would hasten to add,

273
broken for a very admirable reason. I would start by saying, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor did, that we shall all wish to pay a sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his colleagues, for the dedication and the thoroughness with which they applied themselves to this formidable task. Whether or not one agrees with all their conclusions, certainly we shall all readily agree that they did not shy away from their fences and that they have presented us with a lucid, a comprehensive and a well reasoned Report. Also, we ought to acknowledge the Memorandum of Dissent by Mr. Senior, which was a remarkable effort on the part of one member of the Commission. The emphasis he put on the concept of what he called "the sociogeographic unit" was one that I personally found it easy to understand.
We have listened to a most eloquent and charming speech from the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud; it was a delight to hear. Lord Redcliffe-Maud is a Pied Piper of the utmost skill— I did not say "a mere Pied Piper", but he is a Pied Piper of outstanding virtuosity. As he spoke I found myself getting dangerously near to tearing up the carefully reasoned notes of criticism which I had prepared and falling in behind him. It might be said of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, as it was said of another:
"And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew."
I have an interest to declare because I have the honour to be the President of the County Councils Association, having in dim past ages served for 15 years as a member of a county council, a job I found of outstanding interest. I know that many of your Lordships have more recent experience, more upto-date experience, and therefore speak with greater first-hand knowledge than I do. So I shall try to confine myself to summarising, as briefly as I can, the views of the members of our Association on the Report of the Royal Commission and the White Paper, and add just one or two observations from my own experience. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that within our Association there are varying views and varying emphases placed on those views.
274
First of all, I think that all of us in our Association and everywhere else recognise the need for major reform in the light of the revolution in economic and social conditions and habits that we have seen take place during our lifetimes. Because there is the need for radical reform we must reject any temptation to adhere to existing patterns for purely sentimental reasons. The principles that the Commission adopted seem to me in general excellent ones, and such criticisms as I have to offer this afternoon are directed to some of the methods by which those principles are, it is proposed, to be implemented.
The case for unitary authorities, made with force and clarity by the Commission, is undoubtedly a strong one. If those authorities could be called "main authorities", instead of unitary, personally I could give them complete support. But the criticisms, I think many of us feel are, to start with, that in some cases the areas proposed are too small for some of the functions, being a good deal smaller than many existing county councils. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor mentioned that point. And many feel that from the vitally important aspect of promoting democratic participation there is insufficient decentralisation of worthwhile responsibilities below the unitary authority. I know that the White Paper proposes a study of what powers could be delegated—and that is good. But we should also favour a study of what statutory functions might be laid on the smaller authorities in their own right. Those will no doubt be difficult to devise, but many of us feel not necessarily impossible.
To turn to the three metropolitan areas proposed by the Commission, the attempt to give effect to the principle of combination of urban and rural areas, which in right conditions is an excellent one, I believe has failed here. The high urban concentrations will overwhelm the rural areas. Therefore we think the boundaries should be looked at again, and probably more tightly drawn. Many of us welcome the proposal contained in the White Paper to include two more metropolitan areas, one in West Yorkshire and the other in Hampshire, but we view with consternation the proposals of the Commission for Lancashire and Cheshire, which the Government appear

275
to have accepted. It seems to me that these cannot be justified on any grounds. Apart from the tragedy of extinguishing in this case authorities of proved progressive efficiency, in the case of Lancashire the proposals seem to be to substitute five separate authorities, four of them for an area with a population of about a million. The case for extending the two-tier principle to the Lancashire and Cheshire area seems to be overwhelmingly strong and I hope that second thoughts may prevail there.
While personally I am not keen, and I think many of my friends in our association are not keen, on an intermediate level of government between the main authorities and the central Government—and here I think we disagree with the Liberal Party, or where the Liberal Party was a few minutes ago!—we welcome the proposals of the Commission that there should be a place for consultative and coordinating bodies at the regional level. One approves and applauds the local councils as an important and integral part of the system but I wish to emphasise what I have mentioned: that they must be given worthwhile responsibilities to carry out. Finally, we deeply regret the decision of the Government to take away the health functions from local authorities and place them under central control.
I wish to add only two observations of my own. First, bigness: I believe bigness to be a danger and not an advantage in itself. It requires builtin compensatory safeguards. Even the technical advantages of size can be—and often are—overstated. It is surely a sound principle of administration that decisions should be taken at the lowest level that they can be taken with reasonable efficiency. I am sure we are forced by modern developments in transportation and the complicated needs of modern society to move further in the direction of bigness; there cannot be any dispute about that. However, do not let us move towards bigness with undiscriminating enthusiasm, because a price has to be paid for it.
My second point is about loyalty and involvement. My experience of life is that most people find it easier to feel loyalty to small groups rather than to large ones, and I am afraid I am not too optimistic that the ordinary citizen will
276
be seized with democratic fervour simply because the units are larger. At heart 1 suppose I am really a two-tier man and I should like to see that principle applied as far as pragmatic considerations permit. But I recognise that on the pragmatic grounds so ably argued by the Commission there is a case for larger units, and provided that they are main rather than completely unitary, I accept that case.
It seems to me that in putting forward the White Paper now the Government are rather rushing their fences and are even guilty of a certain amount of arrogance. The Royal Commission have presented us with a massive and comprehensive Report, full of meat, for a new system of local government that, one hopes, will last for many generations. In those circumstances it must surely be right to give sufficient time for most careful consideration and mutual consultation, and particularly time to receive the considered advice of those thousands of people who have first-hand experience of local public service and who know much more than we here at the centre can know of the practical problems that arise.
My Lords, I would end as I began, by expressing, in spite of the criticism of certain recommendations that I have made, a sense of admiration for the lucidity and the conscientious thoroughness with which the members of the Royal Commission have performed this Herculean task. This great reform of local government will make sense only if the result—and here I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor— is to transfer some responsibilities from central to local government. If that does not happen we shall have failed in our task; and when uniformity conflicts with local responsibility it is local responsibility that must prevail.
6.16 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just sat down I must declare an interest because, also like him, I am the President of one of the associations of local government authorities. In my case the units that form the association are a great deal smaller, but nevertheless much more numerous than his. I am the President of the Parish Councils Association.
My Lords, I entirely and almost unreservedly support the proposals of the

277
Royal Commission, and I very much hope that they will be implemented. In particular perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning that I support the proposals, novel as I think your Lordships will agree they are, for local councils. I need not go into any detail, but in my view if they are properly implemented they will be greatly superior to the time-honoured parish council system. That is the main reason why I very much welcome this Report.
I have, however, one major criticism to make, not of the Royal Commission but of Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships may think me a little out of order, but I plead that I am not really, when I say that my major criticism is that the Government did not appoint one body for England and Wales—and, for that matter, for Scotland as well. It was asking for trouble to appoint two separate, distinct bodies for England and Wales, and another for Scotland; and trouble I think they have got, because the two solutions proposed by these two bodies cannot, in my judgment, both be the best. And I want the best.
My Lords, when the White Paper on Local Government in Wales emerged about two years ago or more I immediately said that in my opinion it was very much better than the status quo. That was not high praise, because in my view nothing much could be worse. Nevertheless, it was a very great improvement. Many of my friends in Wales would be horrified if they heard me say this, because I must add that there is great opposition to it from those who want nothing done, broadly speaking. But, much as I think the White Paper for Wales was very much better than the status quo, I now think, having read the Report of the Royal Commission fairly carefully, that that is much better than the White Paper for Wales. The question arises: will Her Majesty's Government, having settled which they think is the best plan, apply it to the whole of the area for which they are responsible; and, if not, why will they not do so? I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that question. I am grateful to him for staying to hear such an unimportant part of this debate.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not regard it as unimportant in the very least, but it is perhaps a little bit marginal to,
278
or should I say parallel to, discussion of local government reform in England, which is the Motion before us this afternoon.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's rebuke, mild as it was. I do seriously urge Her Majesty's Government to think again; to decide which they think is the best scheme, and to apply it throughout this country. If they do not, I think they will have the worst of both worlds.
Wales has been denied the advantage of a Royal Commission; it did not have one. The proposals emanated from an entirely different source, and they emanated from a body which has been very much criticised—wrongly I think—because it was composed of civil servants. I will never criticise the civil servants, because they have no votes. I will criticise the people who have the votes and who appoint the civil servants, and ask them and tell them what to do. It is quite wrong for the people in Wales, as they do to a very large extent, to criticise the civil servants who drew up that Report. I criticise Her Majesty's Government because they enabled it to be done. That is all that I want to say. But I am very sorry to think that I live in a rural parish in Wales which has a parish council all of its own, which does its best I am quite sure—I was chairman of it for some time—but which will, when the Maud proposals are put into effect, be left standing and will be trailing along behind in the march of progress towards the ideal in local government. So I do, at this late hour, urge Her Majesty's Government to change their minds and to apply the best scheme to the whole country.
6.23 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, like the two previous speakers, I must declare an interest. I was a member of a county council for 11 years and on an urban authority for 21 years, and for four or five years a member of the old Board of Guardians before it was abolished in 1930. Local government was one of my first loves, and throughout the years I have maintained an interest in local government in this country. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has left the Chamber because I should like to make one reference to him. If I interpreted part of his

279
speech correctly, it indicated to me that he was against change as far as the existing structure was concerned. If I have interpreted him wrongly, I would apologise. But, in any case, I would draw his attention to paragraph 5 of the Government White Paper. Because of the time, I do not propose to read it, but it says that the great mass of evidence to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission showed that the overwhelming body of opinion, both inside and outside local government, believed that structural changes were required.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I hesitate to speak for my noble friend, but I can assure the noble Lord that he has misinterpreted him. In fact, 1 heard my noble friend say quite clearly that he is one of those who believes that reform is essential.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I thought the reform he was putting forward (perhaps in his absence we should not pursue this) was not on the question of structure but on the question of numbers. At any rate, we shall see tomorrow morning what actually was said.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I could help my noble friend. I found Lord Brooke's proposals totally unintelligible.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Well, my Lords, that is the opinion of the noble Lord the Leader of the House; I do not think I should go quite so far as that. On the appointment of the Royal Commission nearly four years ago all newspapers commented upon it, but there was an editorial article in the Guardian which impressed me very much. It was most interesting, objective and, I thought, forthright. Thinking about it in retrospect and having read it again since the publication of the Commission's Report, I have come to the conclusion that it was not only forthright and objective but in some respects prophetic as well. I know it is too long to quote, but I should like to refer to it and refresh your Lordships' minds as to what was said, because I believe it to be germane to our debate today.
I put (the points under six heads. This is what the article said: first, that the
280
Royal Commission had been well chosen. From the speech we have heard from the Chairman of the Commission today and from the Report that has been produced by the members of the Commission, there would be no dispute at all about that. Then it went on to say that they had a big job to do and that the local government structure which we have is a mess; it worked well in Victorian Britain but is no longer equal to the burden that it has to carry today. Local authorities would have to become larger and stronger. The task of the Commission was to say what needed to be done about local government, without regard to the susceptibilities of the established interests. Their terms of reference allowed them to range as widely and to be as radical as they wished. The article ended up by saying that it was a tall order, but a chance that must not be missed. In my view the Commissioners have not missed that chance, but have brought forward very objective proposals indeed. The article to which I have referred was written as far back as May 25, 1966, and at the time when I read it it echoed the sentiments I felt. And now both the Commission and the Government's White! Paper have not hesitated to propose farreaching and, one might say, revolutionary proposals in the structure of our local government set-up.
I recall the time when I first became a councillor. My seniors used to say at that time, "Well, my boy you've come into a very fascinating service, full of possibilities, but, you know, what is needed in local government is some reform in its structure"—and that is a fairly long time ago now. I discovered at that time that there was almost complete unanimity on the need for reform; there was scarcely a dissentient voice. But when various ideas were put forward by A, B, C and D as to what the reform should be, immediately there broke out a verbal civil war. There was then, and until very recently there has been, no visible sign that the people in local government have themselves been agreed on what kind of reform was necessary to meet the challenge of the last quarter of this century and even beyond.
The first paragraph of the White Paper indicates how the Government felt about the matter in 1966 and how they decided that local government by common agreement was ready for, and should be the

281
subject of, a fundamental review. So the Commission was appointed, and after three years of painstaking, hard work, many meetings and (as we have heard to-day from the noble Lord, the Chairman of the Commission) an unprecedented volume of written and oral evidence, they came to their conclusions and made their recommendations, albeit recommendations with which not every-body agreed. Even members of the Commission themselves had reservations on some points about which I will say a word or two later on. But, in spite of that, it is my view that the people in the country should be grateful to, and appreciative of, the Commission for the thorough investigation that they have made.
May I now refer to one of the paragraphs from the Report? It was the view of the Commission themselves that this was the first attempt that has ever been made to examine the government of our towns and countryside from top to bottom and to plan a radical new start. I doubt whether there is anyone, even inside local government, who would disagree with the thorough diagnosis of the situation that the Commission have made regarding the number of authorities and the administrative responsibilities at different levels. Those matters are of very relevant importance, but to go into the details would take too much of your Lordships' time; and if it is the case, as we all know it is, that there is a large measure of agreement so far as change is concerned, there is neither point nor purpose in going into too much detail. This fact is also recorded in the important Report that they have produced.
Regarding the diagnosis of the situation made by the Commission, I would say that diagnosis is one thing, but it is only the first step. Of course the first step is an important one, but the main thing is finding the best known remedy. In this regard perhaps I may use a medical metaphor: it may mean surgery. That is never pleasant and is often painful; but if surgery is to be remedial it has to be faced or there will be other serious consequences. On the Report and the White Paper on the fundamental structural changes required in local government there is almost 100 per cent, agreement. As one would expect, there are differences on a few matters. Those matters are important; but this situation
282
in no way detracts from the unanimity on the need for fundamental structural changes in our existing local government set-up.
Now as we all know, there are some existing units known as boroughs whose charters are very old, some of them centuries old. The county councils and the urban district councils and rural district councils are 82 and 75 years old respectively. But they were created at a time when English society and industry was so different from the pattern that we have today. May I give an example. In 1888, when the county councils were established, and seven years later when the urban and rural district councils were set up, a few miles was a day's journey, and communications were very poor compared with modern standards. The best example that I can think of is this. When I was a boy, the City of Nottingham, which is the county town in my native shire, was only 20 miles away from my home; but to me it was "somewhere South", beyond the Annesley hills that Byron himself: used to write about. It was no more than that.
To-day, the situation is so different. In that period of time fundamental changes in communications and other circumstances have taken place and, as I see it, parish boundaries are no longer sacrosanct, as they used to be. I am sure that we should all agree that movement is more expensive, that society is more sophisticated, and that the pooling of resources covering a wide area can be a decided advantage so far as efficient local government administration is concerned. I think it is with these changes in mind that the Commission and, through their White Paper, the Government, have arrived at their respective conclusions and proposals as to what should be the future setup of local government in England.
I should like now briefly to make a few observations on some of the proposals that have been made by the Commission. I take first the Provinces. On this point, I must say that the Government have for the moment suspended judgment until the Commission on the Constitution have reported. The point I want to make in relation to the Commission's proposal respecting the eight Provinces in England is that they suggest that 20 to 25 per cent, of the members should be coopted. In talking about democracy (about which so much has

283
been said by your Lordships in this debate) I would ask: is this principle of co-option necessary even so far as the provincial councils are concerned? My own view is that it would certainly be of psychological value if the whole membership of the provincial councils was chosen by the unitary authorities, for the reason that the membership of the unitary authorities will be directly elected by the people. I have read very carefully paragraph 441 of the Report which deals with this question, but I think— and I put this forward as a suggestion to the Government—that in the unitary authorities there will be people whose experience. ability, talent, and knowledge, will enable them to face the problems so far as the provincial councils are concerned. In view of the suspended judgment of the Government it may be premature to ask this question, but if co-option is accepted so far as the provincial councils are concerned, who will be responsible for making the choice? Will it be the Minister? Will it be the unitary authority? Perhaps we can have some indication from the Minister who is to reply.
On the question of the metropolitan authorities and the metropolitan district council, I would only make this observation. I wish that it was possible to have the all-purpose authority for all areas. But from reading paragraphs 289 to 294 of the Report it appears that the Commission were convinced that this was not practicable in the three areas mentioned —which has now been extended to five in the White Paper. It is one of the circumstances of our country that in some areas there are more heads than acres, and in other areas there are more acres than heads, and I assume that perhaps that was one of the difficulties that the Commission had to face.
May I say one or two words about the unitary authorities? Personally I am of the view that this is the right road to take, and if I may I should like to make a reference to a pamphlet written almost forty years ago by the National Association of Local Government Officers. They put forward this view as long ago as that. The advantages of the all-purpose authority, in my view, outweigh any disadvantages that there might be. Again, paragraphs 252 and 253 of the
284
Commission Report contain a sound and, I believe, convincing case for the proposal of the all-purpose authority. I quote only from the last two sentences:
"There is no doubt where responsibility lies …"
so far as the unitary authority is concerned. There is,
"no confusion over which authority does what. This is local government in its simplest, most understandable and potentially most efficient form."
My reservation so far as the report on this unitary authority idea is concerned is the proposed maximum size of 1 million. I think it is a bit too big, and I share the view of two members of the Commission, Sir Francis Hill and Mr. Reg Wallis, who wrote a note of reservation on this particular topic. It is to be found at page 148 of the Report. They make particular reference to the area from which I come, the counties of Notts and Derby. The Commission, so far as these two counties are concerned, proposed two unitary authorities; Sir Francis Hill and Mr. Wallis proposed four. May I remind your Lordships that in these two counties now there are nearly 2 million people, and by 1981, another decade, they estimate that the figure will be much higher. However, having drawn your Lordships' attention to that note of reservation on the size of unitary authorities, I would not sacrifice the principle of the all-purpose authority on numerical grounds because 1 think it is sound, but I suggest that there is a case for the reservation note of Sir Francis Hill and Mr. Wallis to be studied further.
In conclusion, may I make a brief reference to the local councils. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that the Commission, after deciding that the principle of the all-purpose authority was the correct one, found that this question of the local councils was the most difficult they had to deal with in order to maintain democracy in the parishes, even though they will be advisory and consultative bodies only, with powers to levy a rate for what is described as amenity and convenience purposes of the parish. But it appears to me that the working of the councils in the initial stages will produce different reactions—and we have heard some of them today during the debate. My own view is that the less remote the unitary authority is the better, and that in the

285
densely populated areas the ceiling, which is proposed as 1 million, should be less. If that were so, there would be a better chance, in my view, of the proposals respecting local councils being acceptable and it would bring local government right to the doorstone.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will look at this question of local councils with the idea of continuing with local government on the doorstone— democracy at the smallest point so far as the parishes are concerned—and then I think we shall have a scheme with which we can go forward and look forward to with pleasure that it will be a success.
6.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am glad to feel that 1 have at least one bond in common with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, in that we were both in long past, prehistoric, days, members of boards of guardians. Probably, according to the age limit set by my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud, we ought not to be taking part in this discussion at all. I suppose that one of the difficulties in talking about local government if you are actually engaged in it is that you cannot help being, as it were, local. I have been entrusted by my own county council with various tasks which bring me in contact with neighbouring authorities; and as a member of the London Standing Conference, I know something about events and happenings in the South-East. But I have no first-hand knowledge of the North or the Midlands, where conditions are probably very different.
I must confess, speaking with this limited outlook, that this White Paper fills me, not so much with hostility as with a certain measure of alarm. I am alarmed on two points: first, that it is apparently proposed to conduct this great upheaval as one single operation, with results which make me feel that the transitional period may be nearly, if not entirely, chaotic; and, secondly, that all this should be based on presumptions and hypotheses which may not be well founded. If they are not well founded, then I do not believe that the standard of local government will be improved, and it may not even be as good as we have to-day.
286
We are really being asked to speculate on the likely behaviour of various classes of people, such as the Ministers and the people we hope will volunteer for service in local government to carry out the various duties which we assign to them. Then there is also the public. Will the public accept what has been described by the Government as "this great upheaval", with the displacement of many of the features which they have known so well? We can all have views on this, and I do not think anybody can be dogmatic. We cannot be dogmatic about the course of action which any of these classes of people will take, any more than we can be dogmatic about the action to be taken by a particular horse in the next Grand National. It is because of this that 1 should much prefer that this reform, or any reform of equal size, were conducted by a series of stages or steps, giving us some opportunity of seeing how things in fact turn out before we proceed to the next step. I shall come back to that point, but for the moment I ask that Parliament should consider these hypotheses, because this is not a matter for expert opinion: it is a matter for political experience, judgment and common sense.
The Commission came to a certain conclusion which I think will command almost universal support; that is, that there are far too many small local authorities. Indeed, from my own observation —and I think that many of the smaller authorities would agree—there has been a great change in the last five years, which is perhaps entirely due to the impact of the Report. But then there is a hypothesis which I find much more questionable; that is, that if we had fewer, stronger authorities, Ministers would be prepared to hand over much more power and discretion to them; if these large authorities had more discretion, service in local government would become much more interesting, and a new and abler type of councillor would volunteer for service. Following on from that, if we had fewer and abler authorities, local government would be so much revitalised that the Government of the day would no longer wish to detach services from them and hand them over to nominated boards.
From this point of view, it is rather unfortunate that at the time when the White Paper is being presented we have

287
a Green Paper which advocates taking away various medical powers from local authorities, and a Bill which will certainly limit the discretion of local education authorities. That shows how wrong one can be if one starts prophesying; and it bears out how difficult it is to prophesy five or ten years ahead.
I should like to revert for one moment to the question of Ministers and their powers. Perhaps they will hand them over. I am aware that there is an inter-departmental committee which is now sitting on this matter, but I am also aware that we have been told all this before. When the Local Government Bill was introduced in 1958, one of the attractions offered was much greater liberty as a result of substituting block grants for percentage grants. In fact, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, said in terms that no longer should we have any Whitehall interference except on matters of national importance; and Lord Hailsham (as he then was) backed him up. But, of course, that has not happened. So little has happened, indeed, that ten years after the promises were given the Maud Commission found that all local initiative has been strangled by White-hall's controls.
I personally believe that this strangulation argument has been considerably overstated. Of course these controls are a nuisance and they are time-wasting. A great many of them could be dropped now, and I do not know why they are not. But as for frustration, all I can say is that I have had far more frustration in my career in local government through not being able to discover what Government policy was in a number of different and important directions than I have ever had from having Government policy thrust down my throat. But that is by the way. The important point is that the Commission attach very great importance to freedom from control; it is one of their main planks. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said on this very point, and if he had not said it I was going to ask him what were his real views. He does not seem any too certain about it. But I agree with him that there must be constant vigilance.
We have not had any explanation of why the promises to which I have referred
288
were not adhered to, but I imagine that one reason is that for the last ten years we have been living under varying degrees of financial stringency, if not crisis, and that that has led to the Treasury's rationing the Departments, and the Departments' rationing us. We are all very glad to hear of the much more cheering figures for the balance of payments and so on, but that news has not yet in practice filtered down to us in local government. In fact, I have never known such rigid instructions as accompanied the latest issue of the general grant. That covers not only the current year, but next year as well. Moreover, of course, we are still borrowing money at unprecedentedly high rates of interest.
The Government say that they cannot bring out their Green Paper on finance for some months, and that in itself adds another element of uncertainty. But I imagine that, whatever new sources of income we have, they will all be governed by the overall necessity to check all capital payments while the financial stringency remains. Finance is not, of course, the only weapon that the Government of the day might use against us. We have seen that the Greater London Council, with its enormous size—it is the biggest authority in England—has still been considerably controlled by the Government in the matter of council rents and the selling of council houses.
Another point which was touched on by various speakers is the sort of people we look forward to having in local government. It is pleasant to think that we shall get a new, abler type of person into local government; and of course we may. But I do not think we can necessarily presume that we shall. I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Brooke said of his experience in this matter. I imagine that the only organs of public opinion large enough to find and support candidates will be the main Party organisations, and this means that the independents will tend to be squeezed out. I heard what Lord Fiske said about the dictum, which I know is current in the Labour Party, that anybody who is not a Labour man is a Conservative or a Liberal, but I did not quite follow where that argument was going to take him, because I think that in local government we have more than double the number of self-confessed Conservatives compared to

289
the number of Labour councillors, and if all the independents are, as it were, crypto-Conservatives, then the Conservative Party must be a good deal more powerful than even I thought it was. But perhaps that is a minor point.
I just cannot believe, my Lords, that we can expect these younger, abler people —everybody is so busy; we find this very much in local government now—to give three or four years of their lives to service in local government and to work in local government, because they will have to do a lot of work. I simply do not believe in this comforting theory that they will be able to delegate all the details to officials. We do that now up to a point, but if anything goes wrong nobody can shelter behind the officials—unless, of course, we want the officials to take a leading part in controversy themselves, which I do not think would be a very good thing. Furthermore, I am certain that the Press would not let them do so, because in my experience what interests the electors is detail. There are people who are interested in voluntary service and there are people who are interested in something like the Seebohm Report; but for every one such person there are fifty whose views on local government turn very much on the impact that it makes on them personally.
The fact is, my Lords, that so much depends on the reactions of the public. Will they accept this White Paper as being sufficiently democratic? We have had some mention of democracy. I do not know what the definition of "democracy" is. I have no doubt that some pundit will give it—probably at considerable length; but I imagine that somewhere in democracy it is necessary for those who are being governed to feel that they are being democratically governed and that people are paying attention to their views. I do not know whether they are going to feel that. I do not know whether they are going to feel that this participation, about which there is a great deal of talk nowadays, is going to be like George Orwell's equality: that we are all going to participate but some people are going to participate a good deal more than others. What will they make of these local councils? Who can tell? What are we going to make of them? What are the powers of these councils going to be? Who is going to
290
prepare their agendas? Under what rules of procedure are they going to work? All these things remain to be thought out. Yet we are supposed to pass judgment on it to-day.
I suppose one could be cynical about the public. I have heard experienced people say that the public will accept anything provided that they get their services. I do not entirely agree. After all, we have traditions of local government which go back to Saxon times. In my county we have a phrase, a proverb, which says, "We won't be druv". And I do not think we shall be, either. I believe that if the public find that these so-called proper channels are simply a thin facade for bureaucratic administration we shall have trouble—and I think I know what sort of trouble we shall have. A few weeks ago we had a debate on student demonstrations, and I remember a most remarkable speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in which he, without exactly defending the students, more or less excused them on the ground that the proper channels for dealing with their complaints were too remote, too computerised and too incomprehensible.
I do not think that this demonstration habit is going to be confined to students, to farmers, to nurses or to teachers. I personally belong to what I can claim to be one of the most respectable parts of England. With a few exceptions, which shall be nameless, we are simply brimming over with bourgeois virtues. Yet I have seen perfectly respectable housewives squatting in the street, doing everything they can to interfere with the traffic, over some unpopular road scheme. I have seen some very respectable commuters in their bowler hats marching up and down in London over some rate question; and it is quite common, when I go to a quarterly meeting of the town council, to find some form of small demonstration going on. So far it has all been quite orderly, and rather a joke, but it could easily turn into something much more serious. My Lords, it is recorded that in the last century, at the Congress of Vienna, a Russian diplomatist explained to a French historian that their political system in Russia was "absolutism moderated by assassination." I do not think we shall have that in this country, but I certainly feel there is a danger—and this, I know, is what the

291
Commission tried to avoid—of our having "bureaucracy moderated by demonstration". I hope that this will not happen. I hope that Parliament will see that the so-called proper channels are proper channels.
My Lords, I am not trying to give a general smear to this Report. On the contrary, I agree that there is a great deal that ought to be done, and this Report is exceedingly valuable. But I am trying most definitely to argue that we are now being asked to pronounce judgment on a scheme, many important features of which remain to be worked out, and which is based on assumptions, many of which remain to be proved. So I revert to my plea that we should proceed by stages. I do not suppose anybody will pay attention to what I am saying, but I will suggest how it should be done because I believe that one ought to be constructive.
First, I think we should "cash in" on the one conclusion that has general support—namely, that there are far too many small local authorities; and I think we should start by amalgamating them. We could go so far without any new legislation at all. I think we should amalgamate them into second-tier authorities, and they should vary very much from, say, 50,000 to 200,000. I suggest that the divisions of power should be similar to those already suggested for the conurbations, or in the Wheatley Report, or any form of division which could be agreed between the associations and approved by the Minister. I want to get more responsible people into local government.
I know that the Government have set their face against this two-tier solution, or, rather, have partially set their face against it, because 42 per cent, of the population will still be under two-tier government. I know that Lord Redcliffe-Maud does not agree that this has any significance; but with Wales and Scotland, if that is the ultimate solution, it will be a pretty patchy picture. I am glad to know that my noble friends, who feel they may perhaps have a sporting chance to carry out the legislation, seem a little more openminded on this matter. It may take perhaps three years before all the details have been thought out, including possibly the extended role of the parish councils.
292
I would suggest that all the existing second-tier authorities—by which I mean the boroughs and, now, the small county boroughs—should at the end of the third year hand over their powers to the new second-tier authorities. The other major authorities would go on exactly as they are. I think that the whole of this operation could be entrusted to the existing county councils, plus Government assessors. We should start with the second tier, because I feel that if we start with the first tier, with brandnew officials and then, when they are hardly in the saddle, ask them to undertake another big operation, the division of territory into smaller units, it will be too much. I feel that at the end of the fifth year the present county councils and county boroughs should hand over to the new first tier, or, if appropriate, to the second tier, according to the prearranged programme of devolution of power.
At the end of the sixth year we should then have gone a long way towards achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, would like to see. I hope that it will be done in a more orderly way than that which I foresee. At some stage during this period we shall have the Crowther Report, and further discussions and legislation on the provincial councils. I believe that the development of these may well be a most important part of local government reform. I think that the necessity for a provincial policy in the South-East has been shown by the fact that two Governments have had a shot at producing a provincial policy. Both have failed. It has now been handed over to the London Standing Conference and Dr. Wilfred Burns who may or may not report some time this year.
Much valuable advice has been given on this matter by Ministries and leading civil servants. They have made certain observations on local councils and councillors, some more complimentary than others. I think, therefore, that it might be an admirable principle to regard this as a mutual system. I should like to say that in my view our senior civil servants are wonderfully dedicated people, and probably the best civil servants in the world. But, so far as structure is concerned, I have often wondered whether the Civil Service was based on the Athanasian Creed. They are like a lot of (I hope I am not being

293
blasphemous) a lot of "Almighties" who may be connected by some mystical union which is not very apparent to us in the lower ranks of the machine. I feel that there is too much apparent discrepancy between ministerial decisions. There may be advice from one Ministry to have more development, and another Ministry, say the Ministry of Transport, may come along and say that one area cannot have the vital roads which the development requires for another ten or twenty years. There are two towns in my area— Ashford, in Kent, and Hastings -which are being expanded, but the railway between them is being discontinued. I have no doubt that there are perfectly good reasons for doing this; but it certainly seems rather odd.
I can testify to the fact that it is not easy to get an explanation of ministerial policy. Ministers have these enormous powers, but it is not easy to discover how they intend to use them. I think we should know more about certain matters—for example, policy on the location of industry and offices—so that we shall be able to find out more than we can at present. Perhaps one day these provincial councils will manage to give us this sort of direction by a combination of ministerial and local authority effort. This would be a very big step forward.
My Lords, that is all that I have to say. 1 realise that I am speaking a long way above my proper station in life— in fact, I am amazed at my own presumption. Nevertheless, I assure your Lordships that my intentions are strictly honourable. I am only hoping that something will come out of all this.
7.16 p.m.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, I cannot make any claim, as most of your Lordships can, to speak with knowledge and authority on this most important matter. The only grounds I have which embolden me to speak are the fact that I have some experience in the agricultural field, which I think is important, and also that I am in the county of Cheshire which is one of the counties which is involved in the metropolitan area. On the agricultural aspect, I would make the point that there is very great concern at the proposal to abolish the local councils over the country generally and
294
that there is a considerable feeling of worry that it is going to be very much more difficult for the rural point of view to be effectively represented.
In the Report of the Commission there is reference—as there is also, I think, in the White Paper, or at least in the Statement which the Prime Minister made on June 11—to the anachronism of a division between town and country. This is not, in some aspects at any rate, an anachronism at all—.if that means that it is something which is belonging to the past and is no longer a reality. It is a very great reality. There is a very great difference between the life and work in the countrsyide and that in our great cities. There is a difference between "a division of activity and interests" and "hostility" and I think that perhaps the two are being confused. In Cheshire we have no hostility towards our neighbours in Liverpool and Manchester; bat we have a great difference of interests and activities; our life and work are of a very different nature.
I hope, therefore, that in the working out of the administrative reforms that will follow—and here I would pay tribute to the great work that has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and his colleagues, for this is a truly remarkable Report—there will be attention paid to the points that have been made of the need for people to feel that their interests are adequately represented and safeguarded. I should scarcely go along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who made the positive point that one of the advantages—and this came out more clearly and explicitly than in the Report or in the White Paper—of creating these metropolitan areas was a planning advantage so that the big city areas could more easily acquire their land for housing and other non-agricultural development. I do not think that it is necessarily a virtue to facilitate this process of land acquisition in a country where land is such a scarce commodity. I do not think it is right to make it unduly or unnecessarily difficult; but I think it is right that there should be a well-proven case before these acquisitions take place.
My Lords, I would seriously ask the Government to keep an open mind about the metropolitan areas. From what has been said in another place and what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in

295
opening the debate, I think that the Government have come to a rather firm conclusion on this matter. In Cheshire we do not accept that conclusion as being well-founded, because if one talks about mutuality of interest and the integration of the communities there is no natural adherence. Liverpool is not a natural centre for Cheshire; nor is Manchester, except perhaps for small areas round the hinterland of those two great cities. Still less, I think, is Stoke-on-Trent for the southern part. Surgery has been referred to, but I think that here surgery of an unnecessarily drastic nature has been proposed and we are very opposed to it. I ask the Government to show more flexibility than has been indicated so far in their statements regarding their willingness to look at these boundaries.
We are not saying that the present pattern is immutable. We are saying— and I say this without hesitation—that the county council of Cheshire is a first-class local authority with a first-class record in any respect that one cares to look at, be it roads, education or recreation for the people of these big conurbations. We were the first county to set up a Countryside Commission; the first county to have accepted for grant a proposal under the Countryside Commission, in the Wirral Walk. This authority is for the people of Merseyside and it is a forward-looking authority. It does not justify being carved up, having its base cut off and allocated to Stoke; having its right part truncated and handed over to Manchester in Selnec and its left part handed over to Liverpool in the Merseyside metropolitan area.
These things do not make sense from an economic or development point of view. I have looked very carefully at these things before making this statement and I am satisfied that the contentions of Cheshire County Council are well-founded. I ask that there be a fresh look at this. I know perfectly well, and accept, that the Commission could not go into detail in every part of the country, or go and hear the view of all the constituent parts. But I say without any equivocation that I regard it as the duty of Government to go deeply into this before making such fundamental changes. These are changes of a deep and long-term
296
nature and they should not just be galloped through. The amount of time allowed for consultation was extremely brief. Consultation in detail on the boundaries has been promised and we have not had consultation to anything like the extent which is needed. I do not propose to take up more of your Lordships' time. I know that there are many speakers to follow and that the time is getting late, but I sincerely ask that the Government look at this objectively and fairly and do not seek to bulldoze something through which will be very strongly resisted by the people in those areas.
7.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with the basic principles of the Royal Commission and the White Paper. The reasons for them have been set out by the noble Lord who introduced the debate and by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them. There have been a number of objections, mainly from this side of the House, which I must confess I find it difficult to understand. The common factor in them seems to be the classical reason for not liking Dr. Fell:
"I do not like thee Dr. Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell.
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell."
That is the only common factor that I have been able to see.
We are told that democracy is going to suffer; that the unitary authority is going to be too remote. Those are statements which those of us who can remember the passing of the Local Government Act 1929 will look upon with some cynicism. We can remember exactly the same things being said when the old boards of guardians and a great many local councils were abolished. The powers of the guardians and some powers of local authorities were transferred to the county councils, and we were told then that the county councils were too remote; that democracy would suffer and that the people would not stand for it. In point of fact, the people did not care tuppence. The wind of change blew through the Poor Law; the transferred services were infinitely better administered, and democracy continued to flourish. The present changes, of

297
course, are larger, as indeed they need to be. I can recollect that when the 1929 Act was passed there were people who were still coming to district council meetings in horsedrawn carts. Many people feared (and I must confess that when I first looked at it I felt the same) that the constituencies would be so large that the representatives would lose touch with their constituents. But I think the fundamental definition of a democratic system of local government is that the man who is elected to carry out certain functions is able to get in touch and keep in touch, with the people who elected him.
My Lords, if I may now get down to "parish pump" stuff, keeping in touch is not just a matter of sitting still and waiting for the grumblers to write to you. It means actively trying to seek out the patient people who do not grumble, finding abuses and putting them right. That can be time-consuming, as every Member of Parliament, and I suppose every good county councillor, knows. It means encouraging the members of rural district councils or parish councils to invite you to their meetings. What is more, it brings you into touch with the people who elected you and not with people elected for some other purpose. It means going to mothers' union meetings and women's institute meetings, parish meetings and the like. If too much time is spent on committees, that work, which I regard as fundamental for a councillor, can become time-consuming. But if councillors can confine themselves, as Maud recently suggested, to laying down policy and leave it to the officers to implement the policy, then there should be time enough.
I must confess that I was surprised at one of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He suggested that people would have to go so many times a week to the unitary authority that they would not be able to do all these other jobs. If I were organising a unitary authority of 60 or 70 members, and governing a population of between, say, half a million and a million people, and if I could not so arrange that the average member did not have to attend more than once a week, I should be fit only to go back and play tiddleywinks with my grandchildren.
298
Again, I would join issue with my noble friend Lord Brooke when he says that if we had that sort of authority, only the retired, or the man receiving compensation for loss of office, who could spend the whole day in committees would be able to do the work. The fundamental difficulty is that retired people—perhaps the "Backwoods" Peers, and people getting compensation for loss of officewant to spend the whole of their time in these committees, and it is very difficult to organise them so that they go less frequently and spend less time on this work. I believe that if there were only unitary authorities, if they were properly managed and organised the members would have ample time to keep themselves in touch with the people who elected them, and we should get every bit as good service as we need.
On the other hand, I agree with the White Paper that some form of decentralisation to area committees in those areas where the Royal Commission recommended there should be administrative decentralisation would be welcome. That would be a two-tier system, but a two-tier system administratively and not geographically, as we have at the moment, which causes so much inefficiency. Where I disagree with the White Paper is on its suggestion that the second administrative tier should no: be elected. I believe that what should happen at that level is that there should be an elected council which would act as agents for the unitary authority. This, I admit, would introduce a new concept into our system of local government: the election of people to serve on an elected body which acts as agent for another elected body. But I believe that that would be infinitely better than the proposal in the White Paper that it should be partly nominated by the unitary authority and partly by the local council.
The White Paper itself points out that the whole future of the local councils is in the melting pot. It says that these new areas for local councils should be worked out as soon as possible. It does not seem to me to be sensible that the existing local councils, whose boundaries, powers and functions are so shortly to be reviewed, should appoint members to district committees when we do not know what their future is to be. I therefore ask the Government to consider seriously whether they could not introduce a

299
system of election at this district level instead of nomination, because we should then get at that level the member elected ad hoc, responsible to his constituents, instead of the nominated member responsible not to the constituents who elected him for that purpose but to constituents who elected him for another.
I should like to see these elected district committees given limited concurrent powers whereby they could supplement the provision made by the unitary authority, provided always that they did not involve that authority in additional annual expenditure. We have already accepted the principle under the Transport Act 1948 that a local authority, either by capital or by income, can pay for keeping open a railway station if they think tit, and pay for it out of rates. I suggest that this is a principle which might well be extended to other services, even to the Health Service, with which of course we are not dealing to-day. If local people like their cottage hospital; and if they want to keep it going when the hospital board wish to get rid of it, I can see no reason why the local people should not be allowed to retain it and pay at least part of the cost out of the local rates. Again I would venture to suggest that this is a point into which the Government might look.
The boundaries, functions and powers of local councils are going to be reviewed. One thing we want them to be is councils of living communities. A parish council is a council of a living community, as is the council of a small town; and as is, perhaps, the council of a middle sized town. But when we get to the large town, it is probable that its living communities will be districts within the town. In some small towns, we often find some voluntary body that has more impact on the local people than the statutory one—maybe a community council, a sports club, the society running the local museum or a society which tries to improve the amenities of the district. I think it would be worth looking into the possibility of having the local councils partly elected and partly nominated by voluntary bodies. It is in the tradition of mediæval government in this country. I can see no reason why it should not come back again in the twentieth century. Subject to these two
300
points, one large and one small, I feel that the Government are working on the right lines here. But I should like to see elected district councils, instead of district committees, and a thoroughgoing investigation of the future of the local councils.
7.37 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to suggest to your Lordships, after consultation with the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that we may consider breaking this debate at a convenient moment and continuing it on Monday. We have taken the opinions, I think, of all noble Lords in the House and the majority are in favour of this step. The condition would be that those noble Lords who are unable to be present on Monday (like the noble Lords, Lord Clitheroe and Lord Rhodes, both no doubt representing Lancashire in this debate) may take the opportunity of speaking tonight and the rest of us would postpone our speeches till Monday. It would mean that the next speaker would be the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and on Monday we would start off with the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I should like to ask whether, in the opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, this step is acceptable.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. On personal grounds, it is very acceptable. The next best thing to not making a speech at all is postponing a speech, and from that point of view I would go along with the suggestion. It is, of course, unconventional, but we are always free to make our own rules and set our own programme. Provided that it will not cause grave inconvenience to those who have been expecting to speak this evening, it seems to me that the suggestion made by the noble Lord gets round any possible inconvenience. I myself would be quite happy to fall in with this suggestion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think we have been able to ask the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who is at the moment the "tail-end Charlie" of the list. I think that he would welcome

301
it as much as anybody, if he were willing to come down from the North. In that case, we can proceed with the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. We could then move to adjourn the debate and some of us might even have time to get dinner.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I add a postscript to my noble Leader's suggestion? He suggested that as I am next on the list I might open the debate on Monday, but on Monday at 11 o'clock I have a university meeting at Colchester over which I have to preside. I should find great difficulty in getting to the House before, say, 3 o'clock or 3.30. Could my noble friend put me lower down on the list of speakers?
LORD SHACKLETON: If the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is forgoing his right to speak now, we can be accommodating in that respect. It is an unfortunate thing that my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy was inadvertently left off the list, and we shall be able to restore him. We shall have a fairly full list of speakers on Monday, and I only hope that other noble Lords will not take this opportunity of putting down their names to speak.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I might be thought not to be an interested parly, having spoken already, but I am deeply interested in the debale. While I entirely concur with the good sense of the suggestion that has been made, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord the Leader of the House if owing to previous engagements later on Monday evening I am not able to be present to hear his winding-up speech.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I seem now to be prolonging the debate. I accept the apology from the noble Lord. We were rather thrown out of gear. On the one hand, there were comparatively few names down to speak last week, and it did not seem to justify a Monday; and when it did, it was too late. Then there was the important visit that we had to-day, which perhaps we should have taken into account. I apologise for not having foreseen this, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Beswick feels the same. This suggestion seems acceptable, and in another place Mr. Speaker would now be calling on the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I do not wish to be awkward, but would it be convenient if we could be told at what time the House will meet on Monday?
LORD SHACKLETON: At the usual time, 2.30 p.m.
7.42 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I propose to detain the House for only a few minutes. Before I begin, I should like to say haw disappointed I am that I shall not be able to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp; but I shall read it with great interest. I want to deal with one point only; that is, the effect which the White Paper will have on Lancashire. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, has already told us about Cheshire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has mentioned it in his speech. I am fully in agreement with the view that there must be a change in local government, and I should like to express my regret to my noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who is a most respected colleague of mine in another sphere, and who made such a fascinating speech earlier to-day, for the fact that I feel bound to make criticism both of his Report and of the White Paper on this specific point.
The Lancashire County Council is a highly developed organisation which has been built up over eighty years, and it has a very fine record. Except for London, it has the largest rateable value in the country, and it is an organisation which has great experience. I want to tell your Lordships that the Lancashire County Council has received this White Paper with dismay, because it is felt by them that effective local government will not be provided for in Lancashire, out-side the two conurbations centred on Liverpool and Manchester.
The proposal is, as the noble Viscount Lord Amory, has said, that in place or the Lancashire County Council there should be five unitary authorities or, as I call them, minicounties. The areas of these mini-counties in Central Lancashire where I live, and have lived all my life, have many common problems, and it seems to me that what the Government have proposed in the White Paper for West Yorkshire, namely, a two-tier system, would be right for us, too. I find

303
it hard to see why this has not been proposed by the Government, especially as the two-tier system is thought to be suitable for nearly half the population, as well as for the whole of Scotland and Wales.
I have had long experience of the great services of this authority which it is proposed to condemn to death. I believe that this decision is wrong, and I beg the Government with all the force that I can command to think again, and to avoid what one Lancashire Labour Member of Parliament called an "unprecedented disaster". Have the merits of this really been considered? The Royal Commission, if I may say so, never even saw this great authority. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are here to respond to this.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I am sure he appreciates that the Royal Commission propose to divide all four counties in the North-West of England.
LORD CLITHEROE: I have looked at the map, and I am as equally horrified as the noble Lord. I want to know whether the merits of this have been really considered; and I alluded to the point that the Royal Commission never even saw this great authority. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke of the loyalties of people, and this is something that we must all remember. Lancashire is a great county. It is a county with a great tradition, and it is very proud. It is a County Palatine, and it is a Royal Duchy. I beg your Lordships to think about this, and I beg the Government to give this matter further consideration.
7.48 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the Commission on their Report. I am only sorry that events have made it impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, to be here, because I wanted to say to him that his words were very illchosen when he referred to the county boroughs as "pock marks on a map". I personally think the county boroughs of Lancashire have done a wonderful job. The people who have been elected on to those county boroughs will not think much of the description of "pock marks". I have
304
got that off my chest, my Lords, and that is about all I have against the noble Lord. If I had not spoken to-night I should not have dared to go home, because I live in a district on the Lancashire side of the Pennines, just in Yorkshire. It is said that the Maud Commission are going to make me personally respectable, because it is proposed to put it into Lancashire. But will there be a Lancashire after Maud, once this carving up has taken place? I thought that the drawing of lines on a map and the arbitrary carrying out of decisions finished with the Conference of Berlin in 1884, when lines were drawn across Africa and divisions made which even now have not been caught up on.
I want to make a plea on the basis of paragraph 91 in the White Paper, which says that further consultation will take place. This small district of Saddleworth is a very closely knit community. It does things for itself; it always has done; it is independent, and has character. I have mentioned in this House before some of the things that it does. Imagine our consternation when the Report came out and we saw that our community is to be divided into two. One part is proposed to go to the metropolitan district of Oldham, and the other to the metropolitan district of Hyde and Ashtonunder-Lyne. The district as a whole does not really mind going into Lancashire; it knows that it gets all its services, apart from some aspects of education, from the Lancashire side.
The feeling was epitomised in the remarks of an old friend of mine, "Old Joe", when he was going down the steps after a meeting I had chaired, where the young people of the district had put up two resolutions: one, that we object to the district being divided and, two, that our future lies with SELNEC. The first resolution was received with acclamation. The second resolution was turned down by one vote. I asked Old Joe, "How did you vote?", and he said, "How does thou think?" I said, "Against", to which he replied: "If they had asked us whether we wanted to go into Manchester, or whether we wanted to go into Lancashire, I would have voted with them, but I'll be damned if I'll vote for a lot of bloody initials". There is a moral to this, my Lords. Those who want to draw a line and make everything tidy, and to divide people who have pride of

305
place and of associations, can make a serious mistake.
I usually travel 400 miles a week in the county of Lancashire. I see many local authorities. I have been in Liverpool and Manchester 68 times in the past 18 months, and I see a good deal of what is going on elsewhere. I am searching all the time for the enthusiastic focus which makes a village, town or city tick. Every place has something that makes it tick, even if the beat is sometimes weak. Sometimes it can be a very queer thing; sometimes it can be a Rugby League club that they are proud of, but it holds the people together, and there is a unity. Sometimes it can be a junior chamber of commerce. In my opinion this country can save itself by building on enthusiasms and pride—pride of place where they live; pride of county where they live, and pride of the country that has borne them. Any effort made in the course of streamlining which destroys these loyalties is undoing something that years of loyalty have built up. The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe made this point in his speech which was a good one.
The biggest compliment paid to the county councils this afternoon has been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, himself. If anybody will take the trouble to look to-morrow to see his remarks on the county councils, he will see that the noble Lord even outdoes the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, in praise of the county councils. I know that Lancashire County Council are no exception to this rule. They have done a wonderful job of work. To think that they are to be decimated hurts me very deeply. I should like to make my first request now. Will the Minister see our local authority to talk over this really silly and foolish decision to cut our community in two? I hope the House will excuse my going back to request this.
My second request is that they should have another look at this area, which the Lancashire County Council have had under their wing for so long. I know that revision and reform are necessary. I know that this will have to be done on a basis that has never been attempted before, because of the times we live in, and because of the necessity to change the type of industry in which we are engaged, and also the type of international trade which demands so much
306
of our output. Where we have gone wrong in the national plans to improve the structure of our industry is that we have been short of a real basis, of a properly constructed local government. I believe that the ability of manufacturers to sell their goods abroad, the ability of localities to provide good locations for growth industries, are all part of the same question. Questions are asked in the country to-day about the political implications of our entry into the Common Market, and the likely association with EFTA countries, and the Commonwealth. These are important questions, and they are being asked everywhere. People are asking how the taxation system will be altered if this new structure of local government goes through.
In Lancashire, too, they are asking about the Government's policy towards the importation of cheap textiles from abroad. They are asking whether the central Lancashire city which is being proposed can be the dynamic industrial complex which can be developed with Government assistance, and really be the part of Lancashire that will infuse some new life into the North-East Lancashire cotton towns. We must have change in local government, but it must be economically viable. It is necessary that it should be streamlined. But pride should take its place in what we do.
If we have the two metropolitan areas why cannot we retain the Lancashire County Council for some time to carry on what it is good at? Surely the economic development that would take place, especially starting at the Liverpool end, coming through St. Helens and Widnes and Runcorn and the New Town of Warrington, through to Manchester, would need all the attention and all the help that Government can give.
I will not keep the House more than another minute or two. We have a metropolitan area which the Government have decided for the foreseeable future should be of development area status. The other metropolitan area has no such status at all; and yet if there is a place in Lancashire which needs that status it, too, will be the other Manchester metropolitan area. We have had two major industries decline in a generation—cotton and coal. Manchester built on cotton and coal, sending its goods all over the world, with its services built up in Manchester

307
to make it possible for the industry to carry on—the merchants, the entrepreneurs, the converters, the exporters and the rest of them. In a generation we have had a drop in terms of volume which is something that no other part of the country has ever experienced— unless it may be the coal and the shipbuilding up in the North-East.
But this is a very difficult problem to solve. We cannot solve it by drawing lines on a map. We can solve it by getting into it, having a look at it and talking with the people concerned, week in and week out, month after month. Only then you can realise that the variation in the enthusiasms between one local authority and another varies as much as the difference between one pole and another. Some have it and some have not. I could take your Lordships to places where the will to exist has nearly gone; and I could take you to places where they are cock-a-hoop and absolutely on top of the world, where they are going to make the grade.
It is a tragedy that this debate has turned out as it has; it should have been a two-day debate from the start, instead of all this hurry at the end. Local government reform must be on the basis of a realistic view about the economic situation in the component parts of it. If this is not taken seriously into consideration, we shall lose out; and the Government must give a little more consideration to what they are doing with regard to places that have been mentioned to-day. We are nearly agreed, and I hope that when this reorganisation takes place the differences will have been ironed out.
8.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I apologise for rising to make what may be the last speech tonight in this debate, and I am glad to hear that the people who will speak after me will have full time to do so next week. I should like first to declare my interest as Chairman of a county council and a somewhat obsolescent alderman. I think that what we should look at quickly (and I hope to be as brief as possible) are the three main principles on which the Maud Report was based. The first was that a major reform was needed; and everybody who has spoken here, or in another
308
place or in the country, seems to have agreed on this fact: a major reform is in fact needed.
Why do we agree on this? I suggest that it is because people think that local government is inefficient. But it is not local government which is inefficient; it is the system under which it has been operating which is inefficient. I believe that this is not the fault of local government itself, but the fault of central Government, who over a very long period indeed have failed completely to grasp the nettle of local government reform. Meanwhile, local government has been able to go on with the job, working under a system which is, as we all agree, out of date.
If I may give one example of the procrastination which has happened I would choose my own area, Tyneside. Local government reform was first talked about in 1934 under the Wallace Report. This was followed in 1937 by a Royal Commission which reported, and about which nothing happened at all. There was then the 1945–49 Local Government Boundary Commission. On their Report, again, nothing happened. This was followed by the Local Government Commission under the 1958 Act, and nothing happened again. We finally had a proposal from Mr. Crossman in 1966 for the reorganisation of Tyneside, and this was abandoned in 1967 by his successor, when the Maud Royal Commission was set up. So in 36 years we have had nearly 36 solutions to one problem, and absolutely nothing has been done about it. I think that those who work in local government often are apt to look at another place and perhaps to cry "Physician, heal thyself!"
The root cause of this decline, in my view, is the total lack of freedom from central Government which local councils have. People who are considering whether they should stand for election only too often ask, "If I am successful, what can I do for my neighbours? What can I do to influence events?" Too often the answer is, "Nothing". Local government's essential freedom, which in my view it lacks, and always has lacked, is perhaps, put as quickly as possible, freedom to make mistakes. I do not think that this Government in the White Paper have done more than pay lip-service to freedom of this kind.

309
I give your Lordships one example. The Local Authority Social Services Bill now before Parliament, and the Green Paper on the Health Service, both illustrate only too aptly this local failure of central Government to trust local government and to delegate any of its powers whatever to a lower level. Beyond this, I think we need much wider recognition that the time has come to look closely at the various functions and roles of local government; and something more than just pious hopes must be expressed if we are to make local government more powerful.
In his Report the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, went on to say that the next matter which was essential was the reduction of the number of units of local government; and this again was generally agreed. I will give a simple example of a place I know, where a county borough has expanded beyond its boundaries into a rural district and where it has built houses. The people inhabiting that housing estate have four councils to deal with: the county borough council which owns the houses, the county council which provides some of the amenities, the rural district council and, in this case, an active parish council. People talk about "the council", and they are totally confused because they do not know which council they are talking about. It is undoubtedly a fact that we have not reduced the number of councils. I do not think that anybody has ever denied that this is the case. In fact I would say that many urban and rural councils would long ago have amalgamated voluntarily, and have even discussed doing so twenty or thirty years ago. Some have even had plans ready.
The problem of reducing the number of units is as simple as this: how far can we go? We can, of course, go so far as to reduce them to five or six local government units, which is not local government. The essential dilemma, naturally—and I think it is one that everyone will recognise—is that local government is in fact, and always will be, a compromise or a conflict between democracy and efficiency. The danger of remoteness has been mentioned many times in this House to-day.
The third principle in the Redcliffe-Maud Report is that the anachronistic division between town and country must be ended. Again I think this is generally
310
agreed, and there will be no dissent over this—even if, I may add, it has been conspicuously ignored when the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, carved up my part of the country. I believe that the best solution for overcoming this distinction between town and country is to be found in the provincial councils suggested by the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and although one realises the reasons for abandoning this proposal I think it is a great pity that it has been postponed. The regional economic planning council provides no sort of alternative.
All these principles are right, and I think everybody agrees that they are right: there is no question that they would be acceptable to most people. But if we accept this, then I think we ought to go back a little further in history and look at what happened to England after the Norman Conquest. William the Conqueror (and I intend no comparison between him and the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud) divided England into counties, and each division has stood the test of time for nearly a thousand years. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that William the Conqueror will be remembered long after the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has been forgotten.
LORD KENNET: Shame!
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, the point is that people say, "I am a Yorkshireman"—or a Lancashire man, or a Man of Kent. But nobody will go about in future saying, "I am a citizen of unitary area No. 29". It will not mean anything. Therefore, before we throw out the system of William the Conquerorthe Norman division of the country, which was a natural thing with the county town and the countryside all round it, forming a boundary which people recognised and understood—I think we should look very carefully to see that we are putting in its place something which is better.
Naturally, in a thousand years a great deal has happened, and I freely admit that it makes quite a different solution necessary for these parts now that we have the large conurbations. This has been clearly recognised by the noble Lord. Lord Redcliffe-Maud. But for the rest of the country we are faced with what is called the "unitary principle". I hope, my Lords, that somebody will think up a better word than "unitary". If there

311
is a word which is ugly and unacceptable, and difficult to pronounce, it is "unitary". Perhaps we might hope that a new Royal Commission will be set up to find some better method of describing it. But, better than that, I hope that we can do away with the principle altogether.
The most ironic thing is that under the solution proposed for England, 42 per cent. of England, including the metropolitan areas, most of which were county boroughs and did not want a two-tier system, are now going to get one, possibly against their wishes. I do not know, but certainly in some cases it will be against their wishes. The other 58 per cent. of England is going to get a one-tier unitary system that it did not want, whereas it did want a two-tier system. So it seems to me that we are putting the cart before the horse. I do not know that it is at all fashionable to suggest this, but in my view what people want is something that ought to be considered before these things are decided.
People will say that it is only the vested interests of aged aldermen and councillors who wish to preserve some form of the status quo, but I do not think that is so. I have found recently that the unitary principle, as applied at least in rural areas, is enormously unpopular, and there is a very strong feeling that an effective second tier is needed throughout England. The cold logic of the Redcliffe-Maud Report—and we have heard the noble Lord himself expound it with great skill this afternoon—argues the unitary case very strongly. As regards the almost universal dislike of the idea of the local council which has been expounded in the White Paper and in the Report, I strongly believe that many leading societies and pressure groups are an extremely important part of our life. In fact it is true to say that nothing creates a sense of unity in a community so much as a proposal—an unwise proposal perhaps—by central or local government which will affect people's lives. The word "Stansted" has passed into the English language for this very reason.
LORD CONESFORD: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, one hopes that these societies will always continue to exist in a free society, but I
312
think the idea of electing them for that purpose alone is absolutely ridiculous. It will mean that the loudest mouth will get the seat at an election, and that the councils so formed will have nothing else to do but to scream, protest and generally argue, apart from the occasional diversion of building a new public convenience from time to time. It is an insult to call this local government.
I do not think that the district committee idea, although worthy of very serious thought, which is propounded in the White Paper is a proper solution at all. I can see nothing but friction and frustration, from the point of view of the district committees who are to be overruled by these new unitary authorities. I do not think this is democratic and it is likely to be very inefficient. Therefore, my Lords, I say that there must be an effective second tier ail over England. Why should the Scots and the Welsh have it and not the poor old English?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, it sometimes seems to me that we lean over too far backwards to help our minorities. When we are talking to-day about England we have just as much right to a two-tier government as any other part of the United Kingdom.
The second tier, of course, must have functions as of right, but this is not the moment to go into that, and I certainly do not propose to do so. The point is that it may mean a division of responsibility between services, and there may be —in fact there are—things which are far better done by local councils at district levels. Everyone will have his own example, but I will only say that in my own county we have operated extremely successfully a system of delegating certain detailed matters of planning control. It can be done; it does not mean delegating major planning functions, only that those people who know the ground intimately should deal with the smaller matters. I think this is important partly because planning affects people's lives more than any other service provided by local government, and because people are much more concerned from day to day with what happens in the planning field. It is here that they want at least some say, however small, in the policymaking process.

313
If the need for a second tier has been accepted by the Government, as I think it has been accepted by almost everybody else, then most of the objections to the Redcliffe-Maud Report would fall down to one of detail: details and discussions about boundaries; and, of course, any boundary, wherever drawn, is always wrong because somebody is left on the wrong side of it. But I think it could be left to local government, which knows a great deal more about these problems than Whitehall ever will, to settle a great many of these boundaries themselves. It may be said that a metropolitan solution would find favour throughout the whole of the country. But in my view this is not the answer. I think it would be wrong to have any further metropolitan areas as suggested, parlly because the metropolitan districts as proposed are in themselves so large as to be remote, and would not provide the second tier which we need in the case of the rural 58 per cent. about which we are speaking.
I want to add one other thing. The question of the size of these district councils is something on which people will never agree. I put forward the suggestion that the right size is roughly the size of a Parliamentary constituency. This (assuming that the Government get round to revising them) is from 60,000 to 80,000 electors, which would provide a reasonable unit, with a reasonable sense of coherence; and within a top-tier nonunitary authority there would be something of the order of from 5 to 10—perhaps a little more—constituencies. I believe that we should seriously consider that each constituency should be formed as a second tier with give-and-take about certain detailed boundaries, and this would be an ideal solution to the right scale for the second tier. I do not feel that enough thought has been given to the work of the councillor who would be asked to work in a unitary authority. I think he would find himself as hard pressed, with absolutely no pay, on his spare-time resources as an M.P. does. I do not think we could expect to get the best people by asking them to be on unitary councils on this scale.
Finally, on the question of aldermen, we have no trade union and therefore little has been said about the system, whether it is to be retained or not. I
314
believe that, before we reject something which has proved its worth, we ought to look more carefully. Many people have given up their time to be aldermen and many of them have not the time or the inclination, or even the funds, to stand for election, because it is expensive. But they are prepared to give their experience to local government, and they have done so satisfactorily for a long time. I know that the system is open to abuse by manipulation of numbers, but I have discovered that the system of co-opted membership is just as open to political manipulatoin, unless you insist on a certain technician, and there are technicians in both political Parties. If we are not to pay councillors anything—and I believe we should—I think we must not throw the aldermen out of the window at the same time. I believe that in trying to stop this political manipulation we are in danger of burning down the house to cook the pig. I conclude by saying that I think we want fifty or so counties in England, each of which is divided approximately into Parliamentary constituences, and that a second tier of government is needed throughout England.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until Monday next.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until Monday next.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.

FILMS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PORT OF LONDON BILL [HI]
Reported, with Amendments.
BRIDGE STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, BANBURY BILL [H.L.]
  HAMBROS BANK BILL [H.L.]
    NATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]
    Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Order applicable has been complied with; ordered to lie on the Table, and Bills committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE BENEFIT RATES
  NATIONAL INSURANCE BENEFIT RATES
  DEPOSITS ON FERTILISER IMPORTS
  DEPOSITS ON FERTILISER IMPORTS
  CUPAR BEET SUGAR FACTORY
  CUPAR BEET SUGAR FACTORY
  DECIMAL CURRENCY COINAGE
  DECIMAL CURRENCY COINAGE
  ABORTIONS
  ABORTIONS