Sitting of 19 March 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Conference on Overseas Aid
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will publish a White Paper on the proceedings of the Conference on Overseas Aid which she attended in the United States of America in February, 1970.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on the Conference on Overseas Aid which she recently attended in the United States of America.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): While in the United States, I attended a Conference on International Aid organised by Columbia University, and another by the Overseas Development Council in Washington. It would not be apropriate for me as a participant to publish a separate account of these, but I will place in the Library of the House, when they become available, copies of a summary being prepared of the Washington conference and of papers to be published on the Columbia meeting. I have already placed there a copy of my own speech at the Washington Conference, which opened the proceedings there.
    Mr. Hooley: I thank my right hon. Friend for her helpful reply. Will she tell the House whether, in the course of the conference, there was serious discussion of the use of special drawing rights to provide development aid to poorer
    580
    countries, particularly in connection with the replenishment of the I.D.A.?
    Mrs. Hart: There is, as I think my hon. Friend knows, a later Question on the Order Paper about the replenishment of the I.D.A. In answer to the first part of his supplementary question, there was no such discussion at any sessions at which I was present, but the Columbia University Conference broke up into several separate panels, in one of which, I think, questions about S.D.R.s and trade were discussed.
    Mr. Willey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having read transcripts of the speeches which she made at these conferences in the United States, I am convinced that they merit a wider audience?
    Mrs. Hart: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. The difficulty about our proceedings in the House is that much of what one says is not said to the House.
    Sir E. Boyle: I had the pleasure not only of being at the New York conference but also of hearing the right hon. Lady's speech. Will she consider including in what she puts in the Library the summary made for us in New York of what was discussed at the previous conference at Williamsburg, Virginia?
    Mrs. Hart: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Williamsburg Conference which preceded the one which he and I attended was very interesting. I am not sure which papers will be available for publication, but to the extent that papers are available I will certainly do what I can.

    Recipients of Aid (Discriminatory Practices)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will adjust foreign aid downwards to those countries which carry out discriminatory practices against holders of British passports.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Ben Whitaker): No, Sir. These are quite separate elements in the complex of our overseas relationships and cannot be automatically linked.
    Mr. Lewis: That is an extraordinary reply, since the Home Secretary recently

    581
    said that the Government would have to look at aid to countries which are making difficulties for us by forcing people to come to this country without entry permits, and the British taxpayers—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put a question.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the people of this country are getting fed up with having to pay out aid to countries which are adding to our difficulties?
    Mr. Whitaker: The primary purpose of aid funds is to assist the development of countries overseas. It would be extremely harmful, both to the British suppliers who benefit under such aid programmes and to the British people providing technical assistance in developing countries, if we switched aid on and off like a tap.
    Mr. John Lee: While dissociating myself from the more tendentious aspects of the hon. Gentleman's Question, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the behaviour of some East African countries should not be regarded as enhancing their chance of receiving aid?
    Mr. Whitaker: All relevant considerations are taken into account in deciding aid programmes, but the internal policies of independent countries overseas are matters for them.

    U.N.C.T.A.D.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether her Department will be represented in the British delegation to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development special committee on preferences scheduled to convene on 31st March.
    Mr. Whitaker: No, Sir, but my Department, like others, will be consulted when the delegation's instructions are prepared.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that discussion on the generalised system of non-reciprocal preferences is of fundamental importance in the context of the aid given by rich countries to poorer countries? Is he satisfied that there is adequate consultation between his Department and the Board of Trade, or any other Government Department, on this point?
    Mr. Whitaker: The two Departments work very closely together. I assure my hon. Friend that the importance of trade policy in relation to development is fully accepted and supported by the Government. The Government have always strongly supported the idea of tariff preferences for developing countries.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a number of us feel that preferences for developing countries should not be so generalised as to remove the special first preference which ought to protect developing countries of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Whitaker: That, too, is taken into account.

    Aid (Interest Payments)
    Mr. Peter Mr. Jacksonasked the Minister of Overseas Development why, when her department publishes the net total of foreign aid, such totals exclude interest repayments by receiving countries.
    Mrs. Hart: The international standards of performance laid down at the Second U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference in respect of financial resource flows to developing countries takes no account of interest payments, but details of these have been given to the House.
    Mr. Jackson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, would she not agree that on 22nd January, in reply to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), she failed to take into account, when giving net aid figures, inflows by way of repayment of interest? Will she take to heart the comments of the 1967–68 Estimates Committee that her Department should give more accurate and accessible information as to the true cost of the annual aid programme?
    Mrs. Hart: The difficulty that arises is that the House of Commons asks for one set of information and international conferences ask for another. We have to give the figure in two forms. On a number of occasions in the last few months both I and my predecessors have made quite clear the amount of interest repayment, but in the calculations for U.N.C.T.A.D. we were not asked to do so, and indeed were specifically asked not to do so.

    Ghana
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Overseas Development, whether she is planning further aid to Ghana, in view of the burden of debt inherited by the Ghana Government.
    Mr. Whitaker: When my right hon. Friend met the Prime Minister of Ghana, Dr. Busia, last October, she informed him that our interest-free loan aid in the financial year 1970–71 would be not less than £4·25 million.
    Mr. Tilney: But since Great Britain is the biggest creditor of Ghana, in any discussion on the re-scheduling of Ghana's national debt will Her Majesty's Government be as sympathetic as possible with the new democratic Government of Ghana who are faced with unemployment and other difficulties not of their own creation?
    Mr. Whitaker: We are, of course, acutely aware of the problems of the new Government in Ghana and are considering whether we should have a meeting with other creditor Governments this year to co-ordinate what can be done about their debt problem.

    Pearson and Jackson Reports
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development what specific action she has taken to secure the comments and advice of British experts and administrators in the field on Government policy towards the Pearson and Jackson Reports; and whether she will now publish a Green Paper on the future of the British aid programme.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will publish a Green Paper on the future of the British Aid Programme.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will publish a Green Paper on the Pearson Report and its effect on Government policy.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Overseas Development by what stages and in what form she proposes to announce Government policy on the recommendations contained in the Pearson and Jackson Reports.
    Mrs. Hart: I am considering publishing a White Paper during this Session which will take account of these points, although international discussion on many aspects of both the Pearson and Jackson Reports will continue for some time. In determining our approach on the recommendations of both Reports, there has of course been a wide measure of consultation with our posts overseas, which have been able to reflect views in the field.
    Mr. Judd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many will receive that Answer with great joy since is suggests that in the light of those two Reports we shall now be able to have an intelligent and constructive debate on the future aid programme?
    Mrs. Hart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that it would be wise to set out some of the considerations affecting the aid programme in the light of those Reports for the benefit of the House.
    Mr. Willey: In joining in the tribute to my right hon. Friend, I hope that the interest in these reports that is being shown in my constituency will be matched throughout the country. In preparing her White Paper, does she not agree that the objective of her Department will be assisted if there is a wider knowledge of the problems involved and of what is being done to solve them?
    Mrs. Hart: I am sure that this is so. There has been a great interest in aid, primarily as a result of the efforts of the Church and the aid lobby, but there are still a whole lot of problems which need explanation.
    Mr. Prentice: May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that the White Paper deals specifically with the main recommendations of both the Pearson and Jackson Reports, remembering that those Reports rightly have raised expectations throughout the world about the momentum towards development? If this momentum is to be kept up, could the donors not spell out what changes are to take place in policy to meet the recommendations?
    Mrs. Hart: I hope that in the White Paper we shall be able to cover a number of the main recommendations of Pearson and Jackson. These add up to a

    585
    large number of recommendations, some of which will still be matters for international discussion.
    Mr. Braine: I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Lady for agreeing to give us much more information about aid policy than we have at the moment. Would she not agree, however, that there is something to be said for not rushing into new declarations of aid policy until the Select Committee on Overseas Aid has reported? Is she not aware that the Committee has been taking a great deal of evidence and will be making recommendations in its report?
    Mrs. Hart: Yes, I am very much aware of how intensely the Select Committee is carrying out its work on this matter. Clearly I shall wish to discuss with the Chairman of the Select Committee the timing of that report and of my own White Paper.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the policy of the British Government towards the Pearson target of 1,000 million dollars a year by 1972 for the third replenishment of the International Development Association, which has been accepted by the United States Government and several other countries; and whether this figure has yet been finally agreed.
    Mrs. Hart: At the meeting in London on 9th and 10th March, the British delegation expressed our readiness to meet our share of a replenishment of up to 1,000 million dollars a year for the three years beginning 1st July, 1971. I am glad to say that this initiative of ours was supported by the U.S. and several other delegations. Further international discussions will, however, be taking place and I do not expect either the amount or the manner of the replenishment to be finally settled before the middle of the year.
    Mr. Barnes: I welcome that reply. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give that the Governments involved will speedily ratify the replenishments, so that there will not be the sort of delay that there was in putting the second replenishment into effect, which had such a bad effect on I.D.A. loans in 1968?
    Mrs. Hart: The lesson was learned from that, I believe, and those countries which needed specific legislation have now made provision to carry it through speedily.

    Lesotho
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a further statement on the suspension of aid to Lesotho.
    Mrs. Hart: No payments for budgetary or development aid have been made since 27th January this year and no new commitments are being made at present.
    Mr. Wall: Does the right hon. Lady realise that there will be a discontinuance of major development schemes as from 1st April. Surely all criteria for recognition have by now been considered. Why have the Government followed this strong line, which has been followed by no other Western country?
    Mrs. Hart: We are keeping a thorough watch on the situation in Lesotho and in our judgment the point has not arrived when we regard it as sufficiently clarified.
    Mr. Braine: Is it correct that our High Commissioner in Lesotho has been instructed not to have any form of communication with the Government of that country? If so, is that not entirely without precedent, and is it not incredibly stupid if the object of our policy is to encourage that Government to return to normalcy? How can the suspension of aid to Lesotho be reconciled with the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary a short time ago that aid should not be turned on and off like a tap for political reasons?
    Mrs. Hart: We are concerned here with a problem of recognition following a General Election in Lesotho. The first part of the Question, relating to the High Commissioner, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. But in general terms it is not a question of turning aid on and off like a tap. It is a question of recognition of a Government about which there is a great deal of confusion at the moment.
    Mr. Wall: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the

    587
    Answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Malta
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a further statement on the suspension of aid to Malta.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she has concluded her negotiations on aid with the Government of Malta.
    Mrs. Hart: Negotiations are not yet concluded. I cannot therefore yet make a statement, but I shall do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this means that aid has now been suspended to Malta for more than a year? Is this not unparalleled action to take against a friendly Commonwealth country? Is it not beginning to lead to interference in the internal affairs of Malta?
    Mrs. Hart: I hardly think so. In fact, the development of Malta has not been held up, because it has been financed by short-term borrowing. We hope that we can reach agreement with the Malta Government. We believe that we have made every reasonable endeavour to do so, and I shall make a statement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Fisher: Is this not a great reflection on the competence of Her Majesty's Government? I have been engaged in such negotiations and they have never taken a year to complete on a matter of relatively minor financial importance to the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Lady cannot give the whole of what Malta wants, would she direct her mind to a compromise solution to complete this matter quickly?
    Mrs. Hart: Any fair-minded person would be bound to recognise that we have made the maximum effort over a period to reach agreement with Malta. We have not yet succeeded in doing so. We shall go on trying. Until we do, it is best that I do not go into great detail about the whole matter.
    Mr. Fisher: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I wish
    588
    to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Tanzania
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will now resume aid to Tanzania.
    Mrs. Hart: I am very ready to discuss with the Tanzania Government the resumption of aid.
    Mr. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most welcome reply? Can she give any idea when the full programme of aid will be resumed to a country which is pioneering independence and self-help and is a beacon of independence among so much repression in South Africa.
    Mrs. Hart: I hope soon. I have had one or two informal discussions about this matter. The Tanzanian Government will now wish to consider which part they would like British aid to play in their development plans, and we shall be ready to receive their view when they have arrived at it.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: If it is right to consider resuming aid to Tanzania, where there are terrorist camps and a cruel dictatorship in Zanzibar, why is it right to withhold it from Lesotho and to discriminate against that friendly Commonwealth country on what clearly are political grounds?
    Mrs. Hart: As I have said already, the question affecting Lesotho is one of whether we feel it right at this stage to recognise a Government in a situation which is far from clear. The situation about Tanzania is that we are delighted to be able to get back to aid to that country because, in developmental terms, it is one of the best countries in Africa. For the rest, I must leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own political judgment.
    Mr. Braine: If the situation in Lesotho is far from clear, what sense is there in instructing the High Commissioner to have no formal communication with the Government there?
    Mrs. Hart: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He must surely be aware

    589
    that communications between high commissioners or ambassadors and Governments is linked with the question of the recognition of the Governments with whom they are communicating.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again.

    Venice and Florence
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Overseas Development what consultations she has had with British societies and other institutions to respond to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's request for assistance in preventing Venice from sinking into her lagoon.
    Mr. Whitaker: We shall shortly be bringing the UNESCO documents, which deal also with Florence, to the notice of appropriate British institutions and inviting them to consider whether there is anything they can do to help. Copies of the documents are being placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that example is much more impressive than precept? In view of our improved balance of payments, cannot the Government set an example by making an initial donation of £250,000 to this project with a view to encouraging the others?
    Mr. Whitaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Venice is a wonderful and unique place. One should also bear in mind that Italy is not the poorest country in the world.
    Mr. Hooley: Having no desire to see Venice sink into the Lagoon, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will confirm that, if such a payment were made, it would not fall on the aid programme?
    Mr. Whitaker: At present there is no question of a capital payment being made by the British Government. We should be glad to consider whether we could help with specialist advice or assistance.

    Kenya and Uganda
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Overseas Development how
    590
    much aid is to be given to Kenya and Uganda in 1970.
    Mr. Whitaker: During the calendar year 1970 it is estimated that £7 million of capital loan aid and £3·2 million of technical assistance will be provided for Kenya, and £2·5 million of capital loan aid and £2·3 million of technical assistance for Uganda.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary said the other day that countries such as Kenya and Uganda would do better for aid if they would treat Asians who hold British passports a good deal better? In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman agree to look at this matter on the basis of negotiating with the two countries to see whether we cannot come to some arrangement whereby we are not embarrassed and at the same time pay out these sums of money?
    Mr. Whitaker: The figures for 1970 have already been determined.

    Fiji
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will now announce the result of the review of the allowances payable under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme Agreement with Fiji.
    Mr. Whitaker: I hope to announce this shortly. An officer of my Department visited Fiji two weeks ago to explain the results of the review to staff representatives and to hear their comments. I am glad to say that only one or two points remain to be settled.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, on 13th November, he promised to announce the result shortly. I hope that it will he announced in the near future.
    Mr. Whitaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter, and I hope that he will agree that it was right to have the first-hand reactions of the officers concerned. I assure him that the House will be informed at the earliest opportunity.

    Gilbert and Ellice Islands (Petition)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Overseas Development

    591
    what consideration she has given to the petition dated 23rd December, 1969, submitted to her by the Designated Permanent and Pensionable Officers' Association, Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitaker: The association's letter of 23rd December was considered in connection with the recent review of inducement allowances in this Territory and was discussed on the spot last month between association representatives and an officer from my Department. The association are now aware of the increases I am proposing in inducement allowances. Their representations on one or two secondary matters still require consideration, following which a reply will be sent.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: As this is another matter which is taking a very long time, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will make the award retrospective?
    Mr. Whitaker: Yes. I am glad to say that the new rates will operate with effect from 1st July of last year.

    Former Colonial Officers (Pensions)
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on the future size of the aid programme, in the light of her future policy towards payment of pensions of former colonial officers.
    Mrs. Hart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Judd: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that, while many of us are full of admiration for her success in persuading the Treasury to rationalise its procedure on pensions, we are not convinced by her argument that these payments should come under the present aid ceiling, especially as they will not affect payments across the exchanges and will have a minimal effect on the balance of payments?
    Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend is wrong about the latter point. We shall be paying for the pensions by grants which will materially assist the foreign exchange problems of the countries to whom we are making the grants. I have stressed before that, in my view, the pensioners who will benefit from this are people who,
    592
    in the main, did an essentially developmental job in pre-independence days—[Interruption.] If Mr. Speaker will bear with me, I will give a figure. Between 1946 and 1950, which was a period of rapid expansion of the Colonial Service in pre-independence days, some 90 per cent. of Colonial Service appointments were in education, law, medicine, agriculture, forestry, and other branches. Those were developmental jobs.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Lady recognise that none of us disputes that these civil servants did work towards development in decades gone by? We are concerned that their pensions should not be paid out of the current overseas aid programme.
    Mrs. Hart: There will be no question of a £ for £ adjustment in terms of the aid programme for the countries concerned. However, since aid is concerned with development, past development is a logical consideration to take into account in present aid programmes.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will give an assurance that the Colonial Service pensioners, for whose pensions her Department will shortly take responsibility, will not thereby be worse off by reason of the incidence of income tax, devaluation or any other factor.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will ensure that overseas service pensioners living in countries which did not devalue their currencies when the £ sterling was devalued, and those now living abroad and not subject to British income tax, will not be made worse off by Her Majesty's Government's decision to take over the payment of certain expatriate pensions; and whether widow's pensions will also be covered by her decision.
    Mr. Whitaker: No pensioner would be worse off as a result of the arrangements proposed in my right hon. Friend's statement of 11th March, under which Her Majesty's Government are ready to consider reimbursing overseas governments for the cost of expatriate pensions. Legislation will be necessary before the Government can begin to pay individual pensioners, and I can assure the House that

    593
    we shall have full regard to pensioners' interests. Responsibility for widows' and orphans' pensions is a subject which we would hope to discuss with the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Fortescue: Since the Question contained a double negative and has been answered by a partial affirmative, could the hon. Gentleman be a little more categorical? Can he assure us that, the month after this arrangement comes into force, no pensioner concerned will receive less money than he received the month before?
    Mr. Whitaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave when she made the statement.
    Mr. Tilney: Since this decision is very welcome to many of us on this side who have been pressing the Government for a long time to take this action, will the hon. Gentleman confirm—I am not clear from his reply that he has done so—that the widows, too, will not suffer?
    Mr. Whitaker: That is prefectly correct. It would, of course, be logical for the British Government to assume responsibility for the widows as and when we assume responsibility for the officers' pensions. Some of the schemes are, of course, already funded, and that matter will also have to be looked into.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Overseas Development how many British doctors have volunteered to help in medical relief work in Nigeria; and how many have been accepted by the Nigerian Federal Government, to the latest convenient date.
    Mrs. Hart: My Ministry received 83 offers from British doctors to serve in Nigeria. At the request of the Nigerian authorities, 15 British doctors were sent to Nigeria between 18th and 27th January to assist in relief work. No further requests for this purpose have been received, but the possibility of our providing further British doctors and other medical staff for hospitals outside the East Central State is currently under discussion with the Nigerian authorities.
    Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the relief agen-
    594
    cies, no fewer than 500 British doctors volunteered and only 20 were accepted? I understand that the need is still great. Will she ask General Gowon to utilise more British doctors?
    Mrs. Hart: Throughout the Nigerian relief operation, it has been a matter of our making ourselves ready to respond to whatever request General Gowon made. In considering the need for medical staff in Nigeria, one has to bear in mind that in the last couple of months there has been a dramatic return of Ibo doctors to their medical work in the areas most affected. No doubt that has had a marked effect on the demands from other countries which General Gowon wished to express.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she is satisfied that aid to the war-stricken areas of Nigeria has been received in the most needy areas and what further aid she proposes.
    Mrs. Hart: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that British aid for relief and rehabilitation is being used for these purposes and in the area for which it was intended. Further requests for relief and rehabilitation aid have very recently been received from the Nigerian authorities and are under discussion. I should like to take this opportunity of informing the House that as from the beginning of April, my Ministry will become responsible for relief as well as rehabilitation and reconstruction aid to Nigeria.
    Mr. Allaun: As there are sharply conflicting accounts of the situation, will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to request the Federal Government to remove their ban on independent newspaper journalists in the area?
    Mrs. Hart: This has to be a matter for the Nigerian authorities. I can assure my hon. Friend that all the reports that I have had—and he has probably seen one or two recent reports in The Times and The Guardian from Sir William Pike and the Rev. Hugh Thomas—indicate that the position is a good deal better than some alarmist reports have suggested.
    Mr. Cordle: Is the right hon. Lady aware that those of us who had the privilege of going into the enclave and

    595
    the distressed war areas know that matters are good and well attended to by the Nigerian Red Cross and that there is no cause for alarm or complaint? Is it not about time that we in this House ceased to criticise the Nigerian Government for the aid which they are giving to the distressed areas which, at present, they are doing extremely well?
    Mrs. Hart: I am very glad to hear what the hon. Member says. Anxieties are understandable, of course. I agree that the reliable reports we have are enough to convince us that things are going as well as we should hope.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Overseas Development what studies are being carried out in her Department of the effects of possible British entry into the European Economic Community upon developing countries in the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Whitaker: My staff have this under examination so far as is possible at this stage.
    Mr. Prentice: Will my hon. Friend's Ministry play a major rôle in the preparatory work for the negotiations? Would he bear in mind that this is desirable, in order that the specific interests of developing countries in the Commonwealth are studied in depth in sufficient time to influence the course of negotiations?
    Mr. Whitaker: These considerations, including, in particular, the suitable long-term arrangements for Commonwealth sugar producers, are very much in the forefront of our planning.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Minister or her hon. Friend be in attendance in Brussels with the Chancellor of the Duchy when matters affecting developing members of the Commonwealth are discussed? Who specifically will be responsible for putting the case of the sugar islands of Mauritius, Fiji and the West Indies?
    Mr. Whitaker: All these factors are taken into account by Her Majesty's Government's representatives who will be concerned with the negotiations.
    Mr. Shinwell: If studies are now being carried out, does that not suggest that
    596
    no decision has been reached yet on this very important aspect of the problem? Would my hon. Friend convey the fact that there is no decision yet to his noble Friend, Lord Chalfont, in the other place, who yesterday indulged in a load of rubbish and, by implication, criticised some hon. Members in this House?
    Mr. Whitaker: I regret that I did not hear that debate, but I will read it with considerable care and interest.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that, at the end of Questions, I shall raise a point of order with you on this matter.
    Mr. Braine: Since the lion's share of British aid goes to developing countries in the Commonwealth, who also receive substantial help through the medium of commodity agreements, is there not a strong case for publishing these studies for the benefit of hon. Members?
    Mr. Whitaker: There are, of course, many unquantifiable factors still involved, but the House will already be aware of the assurance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) that we shall be concerned to ensure association under Part Four of the Treaty of Rome for our dependent territories and association under the Yaounde Convention for the Commonwealth developing countries as well.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement about ecological and geological surveys now being made of the Falkland Islands and dependencies.
    Mr. Whitaker: There is not an ecological survey, as such, now being made. The Agricultural Advisory team which went to the Falkland Islands at the end of last year included specialists in both pasture and grasslands, and they have based their research into all aspects of animal nutrition and production on work carried out by the Directorate of Overseas Surveys.
    As regards geological work, my Ministry is financing the production by Birmingham University of a new geological map of the Islands, and Her Majesty's Government have also decided to carry out an investigation of the available information of the oil-bearing potential of the sea areas around the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and take it as an earnest of the Government's intention to carry on administering and developing this British Territory as a British Territory.
    Mr. Whitaker: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has already assured the House on this count.

    Tonga (Hospital)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress has been made with the rebuilding of the hospital in Tonga; and if all the mental patients have been transferred from the prison.
    Mr. Whitaker: The re-building of the main hospital is expected to be completed by September-October this year. The mental patients have not yet been transferred from the prison, but I understand that the Tonga Government intend to build a psychiatric ward at the hospital during the second phase of its development within the next three years.
    Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the fact that it was agreed to help Tonga with this money to rebuild the hospital, and that one of the conditions, I understand, was that the mental patients should be taken out, will the hon. Gentleman insist that that is now done?
    Mr. Whitaker: I recognise the hon. Lady's keen and long-term interest in this problem, which is very welcome. The Tonga Government are, of course, fully responsible for their internal problems, but we shall be glad to give them any expert advice which would be helpful.

    British Honduras (New Capital)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the Minister of Overseas Development how much money her Department is contributing to the new capital for British Honduras; and when this town will be ready to be the major city of that country.
    Mrs. Hart: We are providing £4,932,000 for the first phase of the building of the new capital. The hand-over of the buildings by the contractors to the British Honduras Government is due to begin in May this year.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will the first phase of this town be ready for the independence of this Territory?
    Mrs. Hart: I suppose so. We cannot be quite clear about that, but the important fact is that the first phase is now so near completion, and that is pretty satisfactory.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this might prove a suitable opportunity of speeding up our examination of the sugar agreement upon which British Honduras depends so much, at the same time as the new capital is being prepared?
    Mrs. Hart: It sounds an admirable proposition, but we should need a rather different range of technical advice for the second point as compared with the first.

  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    Caithness and Sutherland (Employment)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the current employment situation in Caithness and Sutherland with particular reference to the age and sex distribution of the unemployed.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): On 9th March, 1970, there was a total of 1,400 persons—1,051 males, 349 females—registered as unemployed at the Thurso and Wick Employment Exchanges, including 131 temporarily stopped, and the unemployment rate was 10·6 per cent. These figures are provisional.
    Details of the age and sex distribution of those registered as wholly unemployed at the Thurso and Wick Employment Exchanges on 12th January, 1970, the latest date for which figures are available, are given in a table which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Maclennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he accept that these are unacceptably high figures

    599
    of unemployment? Would he pay particular attention to the position of school-leavers in' this area and to the need to provide them with work in the manufacturing industries?
    Mr. Dell: I agree with my hon. Friend that these figures are too high. This is the reason, of course, for the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and development area assistance. I will bear in mind his point about school-leavers.
    Following is the information:

    AGE ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBERS REGISTERED AS WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED AT THE THURSO AND WICK EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES ON 12TH JANUARY, 1970

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Under 18

    …

    52

    71

    123

    18 and under 20

    …

    53

    45

    98

    20 and under 25

    …

    112

    75

    187

    25 and under 30

    …

    84

    32

    116

    30 and under 35

    …

    78

    20

    98

    35 and under 40

    …

    114

    22

    136

    40 and under 45

    …

    75

    13

    88

    45 and under 50

    …

    69

    21

    90

    50 and under 55

    …

    73

    18

    91

    55 and under 60

    …

    100

    31

    131

    60 and under 65

    …

    128

    —

    136

    65 and over

    …

    4

    4

    Total

    …

    942

    352

    1,294

    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the numbers of those employed in agriculture, fishing and forestry in Caithness and Sutherland in each of the last 10 years.
    Mr. Dell: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Maclennan: If, as I suspect, those figures show a marked decline in employment in these sectors, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will resist any demands, from the Opposition particularly, to remove the regional employment premium, which is so important in strengthening the manufacturing sector in this area? Would he further assure us that the Government will not remove any of the present investment incentives or grants which are operative in this area? Great uncertainty has been created by the statements of hon. Members opposite about that.
    Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend suspects, the figures show a considerable reduce-
    600
    tion in employment in these areas. It is the Government's intention to maintain investment incentives and development area aid in areas such as this.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, before the days of R.E.P., the position was so much better?
    Mr. Dell: In this area, as in so many others, there has been a fall in employment in a traditional industry. The Opposition have not yet explained what they mean by phasing out the regional employment premium, whether they will abolish it before the date to which it is pledged, or, indeed, what are their development aids generally. The sooner these points are clear the sooner many hon. Members representing development area constituencies will have a clear idea of what to expect should hon. Gentlemen opposite win the election.
    Following is the information:

    Estimated numbers of employees in employment in Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (Order I of the Standard Industrial Classification) in Caithness and Sutherland.

    June, 1959

    …

    …

    …

    1,800

    June, 1960

    …

    …

    …

    1,800

    June, 1961

    …

    …

    …

    1,700

    June, 1962

    …

    …

    …

    1,800

    June, 1963

    …

    …

    …

    1,800

    June, 1964

    …

    …

    …

    1,900

    June, 1965

    …

    …

    …

    1,700

    June, 1966

    …

    …

    …

    1,700

    June, 1967

    …

    …

    …

    1,500

    June, 1968

    …

    …

    …

    1,400

    Estimates for June 1969 for Caithness and Sutherland should become available during the next month or two, probably in May.

    Strikes (Lost Working Days)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many of the strikes and the number of days lost in consequence in 1969 she estimates were attributable to the non-recognition of trade unions by employers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): Analysis by cause of the final figures for stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in 1969 is not yet available, but I will write to my hon. Friend in due course.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry that my hon. Friend cannot give the figures for

    601
    which I asked. Does he agree that it is a terrible reflection upon some employers that in 1970 trade unions still have to strike to get recognition? Is this not justification for my right hon. Friend bringing in as quickly as possible the Industrial Relations Bill?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. R. Carr: Is not the point made by the hon. Gentleman clear proof of the need for the proposal contained in "Fair Deal at Work" that there should be a legal duty on employers to recognise when that is the wish of the majority of their employees?
    Mr. Walker: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is advocating "Fair Deal at Work" as a panacea for curing industrial disputes. If they looked at it as a whole, I believe that the House would reach an opposite conclusion.

    Employment (Northern Region)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will publish a table showing the figures in employment in July 1964 and July 1969 in the coal mining industry, railways, public transport (buses), marine engineering and ship re-

    ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES IN EMPLOYMENT IN MINIMUM LIST HEADINGS OF THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION 1958

    Coal mining

    Railways

    Road passenger transport

    Marine engineering

    (Thousands) Shipbuilding and ship repairing

    (MLH 101)

    (MLH 701)

    (MLH 702)

    (MLH 370.2)

    (MLH 370.1)

    United Kingdom

    June, 1964

    …

    591·3

    392·8

    270·3

    60·0

    155·9

    June, 1966 (a)

    …

    512·7

    330·8

    267·5

    51·7

    162·3

    (b)

    …

    512·7

    330·9

    270·3

    50·8

    162·9

    June, 1968

    …

    427·5

    293·1

    265·8

    41·8

    155·6

    Northern Region

    June, 1964

    …

    119·0

    22·1

    19·4

    10·3

    32·9

    June, 1966 (a)

    …

    100·7

    19·3

    19·0

    8·5

    34·3

    (b)

    …

    100·7

    19·3

    19·0

    8·4

    34·4

    June, 1968

    …

    78·3

    14·5

    18·6

    5·1

    32·5

    Note: Between June, 1966 and June, 1967 the industrial classifications of many establishments were corrected. The estimates for June, 1966 are shown on both bases, that is (a) excluding and (b) including the effects of reclassifications.

    Trade Disputes Act, 1906
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will now introduce legislation to amend the 1906 Trades Disputes Act as recommended by the Donovan Commission.
    pairing, for the United Kingdom and for the Northern Region, respectively.
    Mr. Dell: All the information requested is available for June but only a small part for July in each year. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the information for June, 1964, and June, 1968. Similar information for June, 1969, will be available for the United Kingdom later this month and for the Northern Region probably in April.
    Mr. Fernyhough: As the North-East has suffered more from the contraction of these basic industries than any other part of the country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that announcements such as that made yesterday by the Minister of Technology are made with regularity until we have overcome unemployment problems in the North-East and the development areas in general.
    Mr. Dell: Yes. These figures show that here, too, there has been a decline in employment in traditional industries. However, that has been compensated for to a significant degree by expansion in other industries due to development area assistance.
    Following is the information:
    Mr. Harold Walker: My right hon. Friend intends to introduce legislation on a number of industrial relations matters, including changes in the present laws governing trade unions and trade disputes.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the combined proposals of the

    603
    Donovan Commission for extending the protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act to breaches of commercial contract simultaneously with the withdrawal of immunity from actions instigated by those who have no responsibility was the right combination for preserving and extending commercial and industrial democracy?
    Mr. Walker: No. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It did not make these two matters contingent upon each other.
    On the point about the inducement of breach of commercial contract, my right hon. Friend is now engaged in consultation with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.
    On the other point raised by my hon. Friend, the Government's view has clearly been stated in the White Paper. We do not believe that the protection of Section 3 should be narrowed in the way that the Royal Commission proposed.
    Mr. R. Carr: Did not the Royal Commission make it clear that this immunity should be limited to registered unions? Is not the hon. Gentleman incorrect in saying that these matters were not linked in the Royal Commission's Report?
    Mr. Walker: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again, I suggest that he will see that the two points raised by my hon. Friend were not linked and made to be contingent upon each other.
    Concerning an extension of the immunities in Section 3, the Royal Commission was deeply divided, seven members coming down on one side and five on the other.

    Motor Industry (Collective Bargaining)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will ask the Commission on Industrial Relations to investigate collective bargaining in the motor industry.
    Mr. Harold Walker: My right hon. Friend has already made several references to the C.I.R. concerning companies which manufacture motor-car components. Other possible references relating to industrial relations in the motor industry are under active consideration.
    Mr. Brooks: Can my hon. Friend indicate any industry in which there is a need for more urgent investigation of collective bargaining procedures than the motor industry? Does he agree that there is a major contradiction between the demands for parity and the desire of the Donovan Commission and many others to ensure that there is more plant and workshop bargaining?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly. I am convinced that the C.I.R. can perform a useful rôle in this sphere, and we are taking action to enable it to do so.

    PRIME MINISTER (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the practice when answering Parliamentary Questions of referring hon. Members to policy statements which he has made on television telediphone recordings which do not claim to he totally accurate.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Frequently the answer is given to questions which ask me to place television telediphone recordings in the Library. I do this when appropriate, Sir, though I cannot accept responsibility for their complete accuracy.
    Mr. Marten: As the B.B.C. specifically warns that these recordings are often inaccurate, may I ask whether it is wise for the Prime Minister to quote them when referring to his own policy? For example, does the Prime Minister recall saying on television last year that unofficial strikes simply have to be tackled and dealt with? Was that not an inaccurate recording?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that each of these recordings warn against inaccuracy. That was a completely accurate statement, and it is the view of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. Where we disagree is how they should be dealt with. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative proposals would lead to far more strikes.
    Mr. R. Carr: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the matter has been dealt with and that the industrial unrest which he said must be tackled last

    605
    year is now better rather than worse than it was a year ago?
    The Prime Minister: At the risk of quoting something that I said on television when I was asked this question a little earlier in the year, I pointed out a fact known to all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, that this is a problem affecting all advanced countries and that it affects some of them far worse than ourselves. In facing this new militancy, as we are, a lot of measures are needed, both short and long-term. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be hedging all the time—I am glad to say—on his measures, that his measures would lead to far more strikes. Indeed, Tory policies in operation in America have led to prolonged strikes of many months causing the loss of more man days than we lost in the whole of last year.

    FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
    Mr. Huntasked the Prime Minister what recent public engagements he has fulfilled in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury.
    The Prime Minister: All my official engagements are performed in my capacity as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury.
    Mr. Hunt: Does not the holding of this portfolio present the Prime Minister with a unique opportunity to travel the length and breadth of the land and perhaps even to make another frank and honest television broadcast in which he can explain how he proposes to fulfil and honour the pledge which he gave in 1964 that Labour's policy would be carried though without any general increases in taxation?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, in common with his right hon. and hon. Friends, seems to be studying a lot of matters of that period—[Interruption.] It is a great improvement on the Selsdon Conference, which did not get beyond the 1930s. If the hon. Gentleman would spend a little more time studying these matters he would find that I said in 1964—I think he was referring to 1964—that we should introduce any taxation that might be proved necessary. But that
    606
    was not in the hand-outs from Tory Central Office.
    Mr. John Lee: Does my right hon. Friend's calendar of future engagements include an address to workers in the civil aviation industry, and does he know what kind of reception he will get in view of yesterday's aeronautical Munich?
    The Prime Minister: The engagements do not at present involve that speech, though I have met very many workers in many industries who have been concerned about some of the problems which the country is facing. As for yesterday, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he spoke as clearly as he did on both the questions which seem to perturb my hon. Friend, was speaking with the full support of Her Majesty's Government and of myself. If my hon. Friend does not like it, I am very sorry.

    WEST OF ENGLAND FARMS (TOUR)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will undertake an official tour of farms in the West of England.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while farm productivity has gone up by 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. a year over the whole period of his office, net farm income in real terms is lower than it was in 1964? Is he aware that if he were to undertake such a tour he would find plenty of nice cheap farms available for his impending retirement?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can forecast the price, or anything else, of these farms at the time he has in mind, which is very many years ahead.
    On the broader supplementary question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday. It was a very fair Price Review which he announced yesterday, though I note that, typically, almost every day—certainly every week and sometimes more than twice a week—the Tories are adding shadow-expenditure commitments which

    607
    make a lot of nonsense of their so-called pledges on taxation.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he made a tour of Scottish farms he would find almost unanimous condemnation of Conservative agricultural policies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to face in Exeter, which is certainly in the West Country, not long ago. In answer to my hon. Friend, I was interested to read Press reports of the reception of the Opposition spokesman on agriculture in Scotland, who was greeted with a piper's lament.
    Mr. Stodart: In view of the unanimous hostility of the farmers to yesterday's Price Review—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—would it come as a surprise to the Prime Minister to know that although I was called many rude things at that Ayrshire by-election, what he and his Ministers were called I would not wish to repeat for fear of bringing a blush to his cheek?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so keen to stay in order. To answer the earlier part of his supplementary question, one would naturally expect the farmers to want more. Of course they would. However, it is the duty of hon. Members who are concerned with expenditure to have some regard also to the total expenditure commitments of the Government and to protect the housewife against the excessive price increases which would have been involved if we had met the farmers' full claims.
    Since the hon. Gentleman referred to his recent experience, I might mention that I saw a report stating that the Kilmarnock contingent brought a piper who, in driving snow, played a lament outside the hall as young farmers chanted, "He is playing our tune".

    CZECHOSLOVAKIA (VISIT)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to make an official visit to Czechoslovakia this year.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember telling the House on 5th February that our general contact with the Russians over the Treaty of Friendship had been much set back by the events in Czechoslovakia 18 months ago? Would he now tell us what sudden access of freedom has occurred in Czechoslovakia to justify his renewing overtures to the Kremlin?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring when he says "overtures to the Kremlin," but he will remember that the House expressed horror over the action in Czechoslovakia in the emergency recall of Parliament in August, 1968.
    Those events led to a very severe cooling off of relations between this and other Western countries and the Eastern bloc. I have given a number of reports to the House on the resumption of certain contacts. That in no way qualifies what we have felt about the Czechoslovak events —I know that that feeling is shared by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—and it does not mean any acceptance by us of the so-called Brezhnev doctrine.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we should resume our contacts with the Russians, while not accepting their policy in Czechoslovakia? Would he indicate to the House that the Government give full support to the efforts of Herr Willy Brandt to improve the situation from the point of view of European security?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that I have made that clear. If there is any doubt about it, I think that it was shown by the great reception which was given by all sections of opinion in the House and in the country to the recent visit of the German Chancellor. Nobody will underrate the supreme importance of the talks which started in East Germany this morning. I discussed these questions and their prospects with the Chancellor. Nobody would expect rapid results, after 20 years of German history, but I know that the good wishes of the whole House go out to Herr Brandt in the talks, in the initiative in which he has shown such great courage and statesmanship.

    RISING PRICES
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with the National Economic Development Council with regard to the effect of rising prices on Great Britain's competitiveness; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom's competitive position is regularly reviewed by the Council and information about this was before the Council at its meeting on 16th March.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House was told last month, in answer to a Question from me, that between the third quarter of 1968 and the third quarter of 1969 average earnings rose four times as fast as the gross domestic product? Can he say what the trend has been since the third quarter of 1969 and how it compares with the position in our main competitor countries?
    The Prime Minister: On the particular period which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the figures which were before the Council on Monday were, in fact, the I.M.F. figures, and they showed that over the period mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the changes in export prices, in terms of dollars, were, for Britain, plus two; for the United States, plus three; for France, plus two; for Germany, plus three; for Italy, plus 7¼—there was a slight difficulty in that case; for Japan, plus three; and for all industrial countries, plus three, showing that during that period we improved, not worsened, our competitive position.
    Since then, there have been no authoritative I.M.F. figures. Certainly wages costs have risen somewhat in this country, as they have in other countries. Hon. Members have no doubt seen recent reports saying, for example, that in Germany, one of the most competitive countries, there has been a 13 per cent. increase in wages in the last quarter of 1969 over the corresponding period of 1968.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend know that the C.B.I. is advising its constituent members not to inform the P.I.B. in advance of any price
    610
    increases? Would he express to the House some disappointment at the fact that the C.B.I. is contracting out of its obligations in respect of price increases? [Interruption.] Would he say whether we are to look forward to a period of non-co-operation from the C.B.I.?
    The Prime Minister: I have read Press reports to that effect. I find them difficult to believe and I am glad to tell the House that, so far, the C.B.I. has made no official representations to the Government in this respect. If it is, in fact, the case that the C.B.I. is organising a strike in these matters, on the question of what it has been doing —
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Really!
    The Prime Minister: —or working to rule, if the hon. Gentleman prefers it, in respect of something which it has considered its national duty for several years, and if it is doing that in order to influence legislation in this House—which is what the Press reports suggest—then I see no difference between its action and the threats of Mr. Clive Jenkins, which were rebuked from this Front Bench yesterday.
    Sir K. Joseph: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the Answer which he gave to my hon. Friend with the National Institute's figures, showing that against a price rise in British manufacturers exports of 7 per cent. since devaluation, West Germany's price index of manufactures exports in the same period has risen by 2 per cent., Italy's not at all and that of the French has fallen? Are we not up against the familiar phenomenon that although wages may rise higher in other countries, their export prices rise less than ours?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously been doing his homework very carefully and so have I. His question related to a different period from that taken by his hon. Friend. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring not to the period between the third quarter of 1968 and the third quarter of 1969, but to the period since devaluation, as I think he is, in giving the National Institute estimates—
    Sir K. Joseph: That is right.
    The Prime Minister:—I quote the N.E.D.C. figures on Monday which

    611
    showed the following: United Kingdom dollar export prices since devaluation, minus 2¾ per cent.; U.S.A., plus 4½ per cent.; France, plus 1 per cent.; Italy, plus 3 per cent.; Japan, plus 4 per cent.; other industrial countries, plus 2 per cent. and Germany—and these are the I.M.F. figures—plus I per cent. against our minus 2¾ per cent.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We all have the good name of Parliament in our keeping. Too much noise does not help anyone.
    Sir K. Joseph: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that since devaluation gave us a differential of 14 per cent. improvement against our rivals, his Answer shows a massive erosion of our competitive position?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's reputation for accuracy in these matters might have been enhanced if he had not risen a second time. The figures which I quoted relating to the N.E.D.C. are those provided by the I.M.F. The right hon. Gentleman can quote the I.M.F. figures if he wants to do so. The figures which I quoted—and I said this twice—related to export prices [HON. MEMBERS: "In dollars."] Exactly. The point is that I was quoting dollar prices.

    EARLY DAY MOTION No. 201
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Last night I tabled an Early Day Motion, which read:
    "That this House, noting that in the 1970 Annual Price Review the Government offer increased income guarantees totalling only £69 million, against acknowledged cost increases of £60·4 million on review commodities, and £80·9 million on all agricultural products, and that no further measures are proposed significantly to augment the income of the industry on non-review commodities, censures the Minister of Agriculture for his disastrous failure to provide conditions"—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: —" wherein the industry"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member could make his point of order, which is a real one, concisely. The Motion referred to is on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The printer has left out the important word "all" so that
    612
    it reads "… £80·9 million on agricultural products …". I ask that it might be reprinted as tabled with the word "all", without which it is not accurate.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a printer's error which will be corrected.

    OFFICIAL REPORT (WRITTEN ANSWER)
    Mr. Sharples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Yesterday I received a Written Answer from the Minister for Overseas Development which was placed on the board in the ordinary way, but I found this mornning that the Answer had not been printed in HANSARD. As the Answer announced a considerable concession which will be of benefit to indigenous pensioners of the civil administration and civil police of the former British Administration in Aden—for which I am grateful—I should be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, if you will arrange for the Answer to appear in today's HANSARD.
    Mr. Speaker: I have had a word with the Editor of HANSARD on this point, just as I have had a word with the Table Office about the other one. Both were printing errors; one will be corrected on the Order Paper and the other in HANSARD. I would be failing in what the House would want me to say if I did not pay tribute to those who prepare and print our Order Papers and HANSARD and note the fact that they so rarely make mistakes of this kind.

DEBATE (REFERENCE TO LORDS DEBATES)
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, after a Question was answered that I would raise a point of order at the end of Questions. I want to be enlightened on what I regard as a constitutional issue. I have always been under the impression that it was regarded as improper, and indeed unparliamentary in the context of this House, to criticise noble Lords in another place. That was my impression and, as I say, we ought not to indulge in offensive remarks about noble Lords even by implication.
I happened today to avail myself of a copy of the Lords OFFICIAL REPORT for

613
the debate yesterday and I found that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had indulged in remarks which some of us would regard as offensive. I do not consider the noble Lord to be of great significance. I recall that he was appointed Minister for Disarmament over a period of years and has not succeeded in disarming anything. He could not disarm a rabbit. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The prologue to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying seems to be ruling his present comments out of order.
Mr. Shinwell: This is the point to which I am directing your attention. As I say, I was always under the impression that we are not permitted to indulge in derogatory remarks, and I think I am on record in the 48 years since I came to this House never once to have said an improper word—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—about the gentlemen in another place. If anyone can challenge me, let him look up the record to see that in writings or speeches I have never said a single word which would be regarded as derogatory. When I availed myself of this document, I discovered that the noble Lord was replying to my noble Friend. Lord Blyton, formerly a Member of this House who was much valued and respected.
It may be that the observation for which Lord Chalfont was responsible may be regarded by my hon. and right hon. Friends as not altogether offensive. They may regard it as cynical or amusing and leave it at that. The noble Lord referred to "anti-Common Marketeers". I am not raising a political issue at this stage. He described them as the "pop group". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have been accused of many things in this House, and I may be accused of much in the future, but I do not know about a pop group; I think the impression of a pop group is that its members are regarded as what are called "dropouts". [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Everyone to his taste. If some of my hon. Friends are associated with that kind of gentry, I do not object, but the remark is in my view offensive when directed to hon. Members of this House because of their stand on a particular issue of policy. [Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Atter-
614
cliffe (Mr. John Hynd) wishes to interrupt, I will willingly give way.
Mr. John Hynd Mr. John Hynd rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) must address the Chair.
Mr. Shinwell: I am merely following the usual gentlemanly procedure of this House in giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, who I thought wished to intervene.
The constitutional issue to which I draw your attention is this: are we to understand that in future we can make derogatory remarks about noble Lords, or is it understood that there is one rule for the House of Commons and another for the House of Lords? In other words, we are the gentlemen, not permitted to indulge in derogatory and offensive remarks about noble Lords, but they can say what they like about us? I should like an answer to that question.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman raises a serious point of order, but he answered his own point of order at the beginning of his remarks. It is not in order for Members of the House of Commons to reflect on members of the House of Lords in commenting on current debates. The right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to criticise the House of Lords or a member of that House, has his remedy. He can put a Motion down on the Order Paper. What the other place does is no business of Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shinwell Mr. Shinwell rose—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker has ruled that this is a serious constitutional issue. I merely want to ask whether I am permitted to put down an Early Day Motion about the other place.
Mr. Speaker: This is what I have said the right hon. Gentleman is permitted to do.
Mr. John Hynd: Further to that point of order. Do I understand that if an hon. Member of this House, in a debate or elsewhere, refers to the "antimarketeers", he is insulting a particular member of the other place?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

RHODESIA (SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION)
Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the decision taken yesterday by the Security Council in regard to Rhodesia.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): Hon. Members will recall that it was at our request that the Security Council was convened to discuss the illegal régime's purported assumption of republican status and the substance of our original resolution was incorporated in the Finnish Resolution which was finally adopted. Earlier disagreements in the Council led to the use of the veto by the Americans and ourselves on an extreme Afro-Asian Resolution condemning the United Kingdom for failure to use force and originally, calling for the extension of sanctions to South Africa and Portugal. However, the final vote is a clear indication that the world is not prepared to condone the rebellion.
It is always a matter for regret to have to cast a veto in the Security Council, but we have consistently made known our opposition to the use of force and to the extension of sanctions to South Africa and Portugal. The final Resolution, however, contains a number of practical and effective measures to increase the pressure on the illegal régime. These include the call to enforce more strictly existing economic sanctions, to sever the remaining consular, trade and other links with the régime, and to increase the powers given to the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee. Her Majesty's Government will, of course, be taking appropriate steps to implement the Resolution where these are required.
With their purported assumption of republican status on 2nd March, Mr. Smith and his colleagues hoped for international recognition. Since then, the closure of 11 of the 13 consular missions still remaining in Southern Rhodesia has been announced and a comprehensive Resolution on Rhodesia has been passed by the Security Council with almost total unanimity. I do not claim that these events will in themselves create the necessary conditions for an honourable settle-
616
ment, but I think they show the determination of the world community to work consistently to that end.
Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask our representative at the United Nations to insist that those who in the name of freedom and racial equality have been clamouring for war against Rhodesia should also have their records examined? How much longer must we tolerate that African Governments which are themselves practising racial discrimination in the most extreme form against their Asian inhabitants and torturing Arab prisoners in Zanzibar, and Russia which has suppressed all liberty in Czechoslovakia, should sit in judgment on Rhodesia and pose as the champions of human rights?
Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues that go rather outside of his original Question. It is perfectly clear, and Her Majesty's Government have made it clear, first, that we could not assent to any resolution requiring the use of force. Secondly, as far as humanly possible in this world, we at any rate have striven to assert the importance of a single standard of humanity and justice—
Mr. Sandys: Double standards.
Mr. Stewart: —in all international questions.
Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Resolution passed by the United Nations is a very good one? Would he not agree that the closing of so many consulates in Salisbury since the so-called republic was proclaimed shows the total isolation of the régime? Is he aware that many of us on this side of the House are sick and tired of the continued support given to the illegal régime by Her Majesty's supposed loyal Opposition?
Mr. Stewart: Over recent weeks, I have had to answer a number of questions from certain hon. Members opposite who sought to show that there were a number of countries still in sympathy with the régime. The closure of the consulates now demonstrates that the rebellion is condoned only by South Africa, Portugal and a handful of hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Hastings: Will the Foreign Secretary, well before the election, explain to

617
the country what precisely is the policy of this Government over Rhodesia, apart from the morass at the United Nations? What is it that they seek to achieve, and when do they expect to achieve it? The country has a right to know.
Mr. Stewart: I do not think there is any doubt. It is the duty of all parties before an election to make clear what their policy is, and I do not think that there is any doubt about the Government's policy. We believe, however long this may take, that we must reject and condemn the illegal régime; that with, as is now clear, the increasing support of the world community, we must maintain sanctions against it. One thing we ought to have clear. As I understand it, it is the policy of the Opposition to try to hold further conversations with Mr. Smith. I do not think that there is a great deal to be said for that anyhow, but it seems that it would be nonsense to say that one would talk to Mr. Smith, and in advance of that to take off sanctions. We ought to know beyond doubt —[Interruption.] I hope we shall know beyond doubt—[Interruption.]—that it is the policy.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help the debate.
Mr. Stewart: It ought to be made clear that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition resolutely to maintain sanctions and to act according to the letter and spirit of the Resolution recently passed by the Security Council.
Mr. Thorpe: Without reverting to the promise given to the East African Asians by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), for the breach of which he voted in the Lobbies with the present Government, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, now that Switzerland has said that she will close her consulate, Portugal and South Africa are the only two nations with a mission in Salisbury? Since neither of those countries recognises the illegal régime, and therefore by implication must accept the authority and sovereignty of the Crown, is there any reason in law why we should not request both those countries now to withdraw their consulates?
Mr. Stewart: We have made it clear all along that we do not consider it desirable that any country should retain
618
consulates in Rhodesia. The steady reduction of the consulates week after week I think shows the way the whole of world opinion and, I trust, opinion on the benches opposite is turning.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I offer warm congratulations to the Government on the adoption of the Resolution without any vote being cast against it in the Security Council? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as many of us hope, the Resolution also made mandatory the ending of all means of transportation between Rhodesia and the outside world?
Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that my noble Friend, Lord Caradon's, explanation of vote on this matter made it clear that in view of a previous Resolution this clearly referred to road and rail transport. We have not taken the view, and I do not think that it would be maintained for a moment, that this Resolution would require a total communications ban between ourselves and Rhodesia, against which there are, as I think hon. Members on both sides know, very serious arguments.
Mr. Michael Foot: When my right hon. Friend says that there are many matters that we shall have to have cleared up in this respect, does not he agree that the best way of doing so is to have a debate so that the House and the country may discover whether there are any members of the Front Bench opposite who have now joined with some on the back benches in giving tacit support to treason against the Crown? Or does he think that it is unfair to ask that the Leader of the Opposition shall state his views on this subject before the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has definitely pronounced on it?
Mr. Stewart: The choice of debates is not for me. I should be very happy to see this question debated. Despite the bluster of the Leader of the Opposition, we are still without an answer. He told us a week ago—and we were all reassured to hear it—that the titular leadership of the Opposition at any rate condemns the rebellion. What we still want to know is whether it accepts the necessity for the resolute maintenance of sanctions. If we had a debate, these and other matters could be made clearer, but

619
that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the Private Notice Question which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is answering appertains to the veto in the United Nations, is it possible to put questions about that and not about a whole range of other issues which have been extraneously brought up? May I put two questions on the issue to the right hon. Gentleman? First, is it not clear that, whatever the pros and cons of this matter, the British delegation at the United Nations has led our country into a position of diplomatic humiliation? Second, is it not the case that Lord Caradon has no business to distinguish between what he describes as his personal view against the veto and his duty as a British Minister on instructions to exercise it? Will the right hon. Gentleman rebuke this Minister for purporting to distinguish between his personal view and his public duty?
Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I shall do nothing so silly. [Interruption.] There are many very natural reasons that would lead any public servant to wish to resign from a Conservative Government. I should have thought that anyone who has regard for the authority of the United Nations and the growth of the concept of international law would regret it if it was ever necessary to use the veto. On this occasion the whole Government, of which Lord Caradon is a member, took the view beyond any doubt that it was right for us to use it, and I think that this is fully understood.
Mr. William Hamilton: Is there any good reason why the Leader of the Opposition should not now say quite specifically whether or not a Government under his alleged control would remove sanctions? What steps are the Government now contemplating to increase and extend the scope of sanctions?
Mr. Stewart: There is very little more Her Majesty's Government need do to comply fully with the Resolution that has recently been passed. So far as it is necessary for us to take any further action, we shall gladly do so. I think that the first part of my hon. Friend's question is important. Since the Private Notice Question referred to the Resolu-
620
tion passed in the Security Council yesterday, I am glad to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will fully comply with that Resolution. We are all entitled to know whether that view is shared by the Opposition.
Mr. Tapsell: Would not it—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have never known being shouted at to affect a Member of Parliament in any way at all.
Mr. Tapsell: Would not it be more statesmanlike for the Foreign Secretary to recognise that the original five principles, first formulated by a Conservative Government, remain, as they have always been, the basic approach of both the great political parties in this country?
Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have always tried to believe that that was so, and that that was the view of the party opposite. Sometimes my faith in that has been shaken by some of the remarks that some of his hon. Friends have made. If we accept that the party opposite believes in the five—or now six—principles, I think that it is important to know whether they take the same view of the Resolution recently passed in the Security Council as Her Majesty's Government do. If they do not, it is a little difficult to believe in the sincerity of their devotion to the six principles.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Business Question—Mr. Heath.
Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. Could you guide us, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not it would be in order to put a Motion on the Order Paper seeking to reduce the salary of the Leader of the Opposition by £10?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I never advise hon. Gentlemen what to put on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman can just try and see what happens.
Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You called the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) to ask the business Question, but is it not customary to call the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) accused my right hon.

621
Friend the Leader of the Opposition of extending tacit support for treason against the Crown. That is a monstrous accusation which, I submit, the hon. Gentleman should be required to withdraw forthwith.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that charges may be made from one side of the House against the other side which would not be acceptable if they were made by one hon. or right hon. Gentleman against another individual hon. or right hon. Gentleman. One of the points of argument between the two sides, or between some members of both sides, at the moment is the exact status of the illegal republic of Rhodesia.
Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a question concerning the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. As you will know, the terms of that Act constitute the post of Leader of the Opposition. As I understand it, that presupposes a degree of loyalty to the Constitution. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman has been condoning the near treasonable activities of some of his back-benchers, surely this calls into question his right to be Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have just ruled, he will know that an hon. Member cannot make individual charges of that kind against hon. Members; and it was not even a point of order. The hon. Member will withdraw it.
Mr. John Lee: If you are directing me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, then of course I will do so in deference to your office, but not to others.
Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the phrase "tacit support for treason" is, I believe, no light matter. May I ask you to consider it again?
Mr. Speaker: I have clearly ruled on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. This is a point of bitter difference of opinion between hon. Members of the House. I cannot comment on the differences. Different points of view are very sincerely held in the House as to what Rhodesia is; and there we must leave it.
Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to your Ruling on that, surely this remark was with particular reference to an individual, to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and should not he have your protection?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member does not seem to know that the remark has been withdrawn as far as an individual Member of the House is concerned. I would remind the House that some of us have quite a long night ahead of us and extra points of order take up time.
Mr. Gardner: On a point of order, on an entirely different matter, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, I heard the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. E. Griffiths) referring to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and I believe I heard the remark that the noble Lord was displaying his conscience. Is not it a long-standing tradition of this House that it is not the custom to refer to a distinguished public servant who by the nature of his title and office cannot possibly be here to defend himself?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman ought to know by now that we are in a place where political criticism is fierce and Ministers can be criticised by hon. Members opposite and even by hon. Members of their own party.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD MARCH.—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Debate on a Motion to take note of the Green Paper on the Future Structure of the National Health Service.
Remaining stages of the Export Guarantees and Payments Bill.
Motions on the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order and on the Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order.

623
TUESDAY, 24TH MARCH.—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH MARCH.—Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs Bill.
Motions on the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme, the Fertilisers (Amendment) Scheme, the Hill Land Improvement (Amendment) Schemes and on the Agricultural Investment Order.
THURSDAY, 26TH MARCH.—It will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m. take Questions until 12 noon and Adjourn at 5 o'clock until Monday, 6th April.
In view of representations made to me by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I should like to tell the House as much as I can about the Whit-sun Adjournment. If, because of the progress of business, there is only a week's break, it will be the week beginning Monday, 25th May, the Spring Bank Holiday. If another week is possible, it would most likely be the week previous
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations by a ceremony in Westminster Hall on Friday, 26th June, at 10.30 a.m. Subject to the agreement of the House, the sitting on that day will be postponed by one hour.
Mr. Heath: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that, as far as Tuesday's business is concerned, one day is quite insufficient for the remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill in view of the appalling mess that the Government made of the Bill in Committee and because I understand they are going to try to put back some of the things which were changed.
Mr. Peart: I would only say, let us see how we get on and what progress is made. It may well be that we shall need more time.
Mr. Judd: With reference to my right hon. Friend's statement concerning the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, will he give priority to arranging and facilitating a debate in this House on the record and future of the United Nations to mark this anniversary?
Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for a debate on Early Day Motion No. 205 in the names of a number of his own hon. Friends?
[That this House deplores the Government's decision to withhold approval at the proposed merger between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and British United Airways in order to give advantages to private operators against a publicly-owned carrier, and considers that this action will adversely affect the British civil aviation industry, its customers and its employees.]
Is he aware that this is urgent, because if the Government follow their normal course of surrender to their hon. Friends, less trouble will be caused by doing it quickly than by waiting for two years as the Minister of Housing did last night?
Mr. Peart: I have, of course, seen the Motion. I believe there were opportunities for hon. Members to air their views on this yesterday. I cannot really foresee further time to debate it next week.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we are to have an early debate on Rhodesia in order that the views of all parties in the House may be made plain?
Mr. Peart: I will consider this, but certainly not next week.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer about Rhodesia? Is not it in the tradition of this House that in relation to external matters this House preserves one single face, and as there appears to have been a breach by the Opposition of this position, should there not be an opportunity for the Opposition to make clear that they retain the position that in relation to external matters they support Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate the issue. Time is being asked for debate.
Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I have said to my hon. Friend.
Sir F. Bennett: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 195—
[That this House deplores the practise of Ministerial transfer of Parliamentary Questions after a long exchange of relevant correspondence in which no denial

625
of departmental responsibility has emerged; and urges the Select Committee on Procedure to recommend remedial steps]—
and will he accept, if he was not present, that both sides of the House, and I believe Mr. Speaker himself, accepted that it was a serious point, and can we look forward to him coming to the House shortly and making a statement on these transfers?
Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion, but I do not think any further action is necessary because the matter is within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: On Tuesday last, the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement on the reform of local government in Wales, which was not greeted with universal acclaim on every side or the House. Would it be possible to have a debate on this matter?
Mr. Peart: I would have thought this would have been a very suitable subject for the Welsh Committee.
Mr. Arnold Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Government will give time to debate my Bill on the banning of deer hunting and live hare coursing, which I am sure would be welcome to the great majority of the House and the people of this country?
Mr. Peart: There is considerable pre-sure for Government facilities for a number of Private Member's Bills. I think, however, that the House would welcome an opportunty to deal with live hare coursing, and the Government have, therefore, decided to bring in a Bill on that issue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes soon to give the House further particulars.
Mr. John Page: If the Leader of the House cannot find time to debate the Early Day Motion N. 204 on the chaos on the Bakerloo and Northern lines, will he make sure that, before the House rises for the Easter Recess, a statement is made by one of his right hon. Friends so that steps can be taken to improve the terrible conditions before the House ments again?
[That this House views with concern the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take steps to see that the convenience
626
of travellers on the Bakerloo and Northern lines is not unnecessarily impaired by stoppages on lifts and escalators; deeply regrets the reported deaths of three passengers struggling up the stairs to the surface; and considers it a public scandal that the fire brigade were similarly delayed from speedily reaching a fatal accident on the line.]
Mr. Peart: I know the representations that have been made, and, if necessary, I will inform my right hon. Friend that a statement should be made.
Mr. Lipton: Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government Bill on live hare coursing will apply also to stag hunting?
Mr. Peart: No, it will not.
Mr. Hastings: To clarify the position for those concerned, some of whom are perhaps rather bewildered, may we have a debate before the Easter Recess on the state of the Government's income policy?
Mr. Peart: I have announced the Business for next week.
Mr. Pavitt: My right hon. Friend has said that the Second Reading debate on the Misuse of Drugs Bill will take place next Wednesday. Will he arrange to have made available to hon. Members copies of Green Paper 124, issued by the Department of Health and Social Security?
Mr. Peart: If there is a demand for it, I will do all I can in that direction.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: How can the Leader of the House find time for the Bill on hare coursing when the Government are in such trouble with their Bills in Committee? Is he aware that the Opposition are passing Amendments en masse and that this morning a whole Clause fell from a Bill because hon. Members on the Government side could not be present? Will the Leader of the House bring some of these Bills on to the Floor of the House?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman should not report what has happened in a Committee before that Committee has officially reported.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) is asking a Business question. I understand his point he

627
asked that certain Bills be brought on to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, as I originally brought in the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill, that this Measure will be supported throughout the country, and will he say when it is likely to be brought forward by the Government?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give any indication. I have said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to give the House further particulars later.
Mr. Heath: As the Government have decided to give time for the Bill on hare coursing, will they now consider giving time for the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) which gives pensions to those people over the age of 80 who do not have them?
Mr. Peart: It would be improper for me to get involved in arguments about the merits of this Measure—
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will take business questions quietly.
Mr. Heath: May I make it plain to the Leader of the House that I was not asking him to give time for the Bill next week? He did not promise to give time for the Bill on hare coursing next week. Will he at least give as much time to the people over 80 without pensions as he is giving to hare coursing?
Mr. Peart: The Government believe that the vast majority of people who are in need get supplementary benefits, and that this is the right approach, as has been stated—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue the merits of the proposed debate.
Mr. Ogden: As many of the powers of the Coal Act will lapse during this year, will my right hon. Friend say when we may expect the introduction of a new Coal Bill, and will it be possible to have it on the Statute Book by July?
Mr. Peart: I cannot be specific about this. We must wait and see.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why is it more important for this House to debate the persecution of hares than the persecution of people—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate at business time the merits that will be canvassed if permission is given to bring a Bill or a subject before the House. The hon. Member may ask for time to debate that Bill which he wants.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was in no way debating the merits, Mr. Speaker. I was asking on what basis of priority could the time of this House be allowed to debate hares rather than pensioners?
Mr. Speaker: All the hon. Gentleman can ask for is time.
Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is mounting and understandable anxiety about the working of the Official Secrets Act? Does not he agree that it is difficult for the House to debate this matter rationally in relation to particular cases, but that there is accumulating evidence that the time is coming when the House should review the working of the Act in general?
Mr. Peart: I do not see how I can provide time for a debate on this matter. I note what has been said and I will convey my hon. Friend's view to the Attorney-General and the Minister concerned.
Mr. William Hamilton: When will my right hon. Friend send out the letter which he promised to send to all hon. Members about the use of official envelopes, in view of the evidence which I produced to him that a right hon. Gentleman opposite was using the official envelope for communicating with all young voters and new voters in his constituency?
Mr. Peart: I believe that it was sent out today.
Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend again consider the question of a debate on Rhodesia? If he cannot do anything about it next week, will he give an assurance that we can have a debate during the first week after the House resumes?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give that assurance. I. have already replied to this question and I have noted what has been said.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that I have posted a list of those hon. Members who have won places in the debate and the order in which their names appear. The debate will be topic by topic, and any hon. Member who wishes to speak on any of the topics that form the subject of today's debates must let the Chair know.

THAMES BARRIER
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the question of the possibility of a catastrophic flooding of the Thames which is raised by the recently published Project Study Group Report of the Greater London Council. I wish also to raise the apparent intention of the Government to recommend the siting of a harrier in Woolwich Reach in the Thames, which is in my constituency.
The danger of such a catastrophe is, unfortunately, very real. We seem to be facing a combination of adverse natural phenomena over which we cannot have control. First the sea off the Thames Estuary is rising by one foot per century. Parallel with this, it appears from the report that central London is sinking, as indeed is the south-east of England, by an amount which no layman can possibly judge from reading this highly technical report, but which seems to be of the order of another one foot per century. The flow of fresh water downstream is increasing and, perhaps most important, there is increased danger of what is known as a storm surge, which is described as "modification of the astronomical tide by meteorological forces". Involved in this, it appears, is a long-term trend in wind patterns. It appears that we will have more north winds in the decades ahead. Altogether, it is a
630
most chilling prospect. There seems to be nothing that we can do to prevent these natural phenomena. Not even hon. Members opposite will claim that if a Tory Government are elected they will prevent the North Sea from rising. They do not seem very interested, either, judging from the numbers of them who are present, to hear this important debate, which affects all London M.P.s. Every M.P. down-river is affected by this subject, and it is very striking to see that the benches opposite contain not a single representative of the Opposition.
Mr. Anthony Royle: I do not know whether the hon. Member is implying that there are no representatives of London seats here. I represent a riparian constituency, namely, Richmond, which is greatly affected by flooding. As a result, we are extremely relieved about the barrier which is being erected at Woolwich, so I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do his homework and just check on what constituencies hon. Members represent before he makes these sweeping statements.
Mr. Mayhew: I was, of course, referring to the emptiness, in particular, of the Opposition Front Bench. Judging from his intervention if I may say so in good humour, that is somewhere that the hon. Member is never likely to find himself—
Mr. Royle Mr. Royle rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is in order to raise quite a number of subjects on the Consolidation Fund and the right hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has chosen one: I think it is about the Thames barrier.
Mr. Royle: The right hon. Gentleman made an allegation. I am in fact on the Front Bench and I am returning there now. I only intervened to point out—from the back benches—that I am a riparian Member.
Mr. Mayhew: I am sorry. I confused the hon. Gentleman's political status with his geographical position.
In the area threatened by flooding of this kind, 1,200,000 Londoners live and during the day, after the daily influx, there are 1,500,000. This catastrophe, as the report makes clear, would flood 48 miles of underground track and 70

631
underground stations. It would severely damage many famous buildings. The Tate Gallery houses many great works of art in its cellars which would be flooded. Palace Yard, no doubt, would provide admirable moorings for hon. Member's boats if this happened.
Action is urgently needed. The report lists 50 different designs for various barriers in different sites on the Thames. The House will not want me to go through all 50, discussing their merits, but, in practice, the report concludes by offering us a choice between two alternatives—first, a drop-gate barrier at Woolwich, combined with raising the banks down-stream by a substantial amount, about 6 ft., or, alternatively, a drum-gate barrier at Crayfordness, at Long Reach, with limited bank raising upstream of one to two ft. Without going into all the technical details, those are the two proposals in effect suggested by this plan.
What are the criteria by which we should decide between these two projects? Here is where the report and the Government begin to go wrong. They are right, of course, to say that the overall primary objective is the safety of Londoners. No one can possibly disagree with that, but they go on to say that the second criteria is the cost, and the third is the inconvenience to shipping. In all this report and in the Government's statements, the question of amenity is nowhere mentioned. Of course, the proper criteria on which to judge between these two projects are, first and foremost, safety, second, amenity, third, cost, and fourth, shipping. I want briefly to judge these two proposals by those four criteria.
First of all, on the safety of Londoners, the verdict must go, on the basis of the report, to siting the barrier at Crayfordness. I would draw the Minister's attention particularly to page 58 and to the paragraph in the section "A barrier at Crayfordness" which reads:
"To reduce the number of closures each year to that acceptable it would be necessary to raise banks upstream by one to two feet above their present level. This should be done as a matter of extreme urgency as it would improve the present defences in the shortest time."
That last sentence is of particular importance. It means that, during the six
632
years which would be necessary if the Woolwich site was chosen, there would be no increased defences against the possibility of catastrophic flooding. If the Crayfordness site were chosen, an immediate start could be made, as the report recognises, on remedial action of great importance—namely, bank raising—which would have to be done in any case, and which could be started straight away. Thus, on the criterion of safety, the verdict should go against Woolwich and for Crayfordness.
The second criterion is amenity. I have said that there is no reference in the report to it. This is incredible. One would have thought that, nowadays, even technocrats have heard of the interest of Parliament in questions of natural environment, destroying the countryside, bad town planning and pollution—all the environmental questions which everyone is talking about today. Not so the compilers of this G.L.C. report, judging from their statements, not so the leaders of the G.L.C. or the Ministers concerned in taking this decision.
What is involved in amenity? First, the structure itself. There will be four enormous, colossal, concrete piles, each one almost as high as St. Paul's Cathedral. Where will it be put? Reading the report makes one think that these people must have gone backwards and forwards along the Thames until they found a site which would cause the maximum inconvenience and loss of amenity to the local inhabitants. It is true that they did not actually choose to put this monstrous erection opposite the Royal Naval College at Greenwich—I cannot think how they missed that—but they have taken the second worst site, from the point of view of loss of amenity. That is the last remaining site on the Thames for development—the site of the old Royal Dockyard in my constituency, a site which is the jewel in the eye of the local council, a site where they are proposing to develop so as to preserve the historical features of the site, where they are planning a promenade along 220 yards of the river front, where they are planning to build an attractive group of homes for 650 families, a site for which they have paid £500,000 to the Government for developing it and on which they are now paying £50,000 a year in interest, at the same

633
time. Now what are they supposed to do? A weaker-minded council might say, "Since the Government cannot decide, and may make the monstrous decision to site the barrier here, we will not go ahead with our development". Although I am not politically of its persuasion, I am glad to say that the borough council has decided to defy the Government to take this disgraceful decision.
I might be wrong on this point. I have not yet inspected the amenities at Crayfordness, and it may be that the Minister will tell me that it is a great beauty spot and that there is a bird sanctuary or ancient cathedral on the banks. But let the Minister justify Woolwich, as against Crayfordness, on this amenity ground.
Let us suppose that the barrier has to be at Woolwich, which I am sure is a wrong decision. Why does one have to have it opposite the dockyard site, as all the plans and proposals show? Why not have it a little further up river at the old site at Woolwich of the Associated Electrical Industries factories? There is a strong suspicion in the minds of my constituents that the reason why the dockyard site is chosen and not the A.E.I. site is that, when the survey was taken, the dockyard site was simply a derelict dockyard and the A.E.I. site was one of busy factories. Today, the dockyard site is the scene of an exciting projected new development, and the A.E.I. factories have been closed. If the barrier has to be in Woolwich, why has the dockyard site been chosen instead of the A.E.I. site?
There are other considerations on the amenity question besides that of appearance and the domination of this site by this vast structure. There is the cost and the inconvenience to all the occupiers of the river front downstream—the frontagers as they are called. In Greenwich alone, industry and commerce occupy 24,250 ft. of river bank. The position is the same all the way down the river. Consider what this means to the business men who are involved in this. The report says:
"Increases in the flood protection level of the order of 6 ft"—
and 6 feet is involved in the choice of Woolwich—
634
"cannot be achieved by merely adding material to the top of existing walls and banks as structural failure will result. The realignment and rebuilding necessary to achieve the substantial increase in level needed is likely to disrupt the river front activities. The most obvious disruption would be to wharves serving shipping and lighterage. In addition to the loss of the facility while structural work was carried out, there would be further disruption while facilities such as wharf cranes were modified to serve in the changed conditions."
This is what is involved in placing a barrier at Woolwich instead of at Crayfordness.
Mr. A. Royle: The implication of much of what the hon. Gentleman has said is that the Greater London Council is taking no interest in the amenities of London as a result of the positioning of the barrier. I should not like to argue in favour of Crayfordness as against Woolwich, about which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows more than 1. But he ought to underline the fact that the present Greater London Council, whatever its political views, have taken a great interest in the amenities of the whole capital city. The idea of putting up this barrier at all is to improve the conditions for the whole of the capital city, including my constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and conditions right across the city. Inevitably, some areas in the immediate vicinity of the site of the barrier will have the unattractive view of something which will improve the amenities for all the area.
Mr. H. J. Delargy:
Although I am in complete agreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has said, he is speaking as though the site has already been definitely chosen and as though a decision has been made. Surely this is not so?
Mr. Mayhew: I wish very much that I could agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has been working closely with me. I am sure that he will agree with me that, talking to Ministers and experts on this, we have gained the very strong impression that minds have been made up almost even before the writing of the report. As to the amenities, I hesitate to go into the

635
Greater London Council's dedication to amenities—especially in view of the forthcoming G.L.C. elections—which divide the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) and myself and might lead to continuous and long-drawn-out altercation. But I want to see the barrier at Crayfordness rather than Woolwich on amenity grounds.
I have just made the point that many thousands of business men and commercial interests downriver will be faced with a considerable problem if Woolwich is chosen. Any idea that they will pay £150 a foot for raising their banks by 6 ft. is something about which the Government can think again. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no question of the cost of raising these banks falling on the individual businessmen and others who occupy footage on the river bank?
Having dealt with the safety and amenity points, the third factor is the cost. Here, I need not go into detail. The report shows that Woolwich is cheaper than Crayfordness by the time that one has added together the costs of the structure itself, of the bank raising, of paying compensation and of the delay to shipping. The cost for Woolwich is estimated at £45 million and Crayfordness at £48 million. It is possible that those figures may be challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, because I know that he has made a careful study of them. But on the report's own showing the cost to Crayfordness—
Mr. James Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend will be aware that, when he and I had the honour of meeting the Minister on this matter, our right hon. Friend made it quite clear that no proper investigation of the Crayfordness site had taken place and that therefore it was not possible to put a calculated price on the cost of Crayfordness. This was one of the points on which we both condemned this proposal.
Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. There is also the uncertainty of the siltage factor. The survey of the siltation factors, which are tremendously important, had not been made when this
636
report was published. There is a great question mark on the Woolwich site as regards the siltation factor which still has to be resolved when further tests have been made.
The fourth point is the inconvenience to shipping. It is a highly technical argument, and I shall not weary House with it. The P.L.A., whose interests are at stake, on balance prefers the Crayfordness site to the Woolwich site, though I agree that it is a marginal preference. It is perfectly clear that the tenor of the Government's talk in favour of a site at Woolwich Reach is mistaken. They have under-estimated the urgency of the need for immediate bank raising and not waiting for any barrier. They have also given no consideration to the amenity arguments which all tell against siting the barrier at the Royal Dockyard, Woolwich.
Finally, I am glad to see that legislation will be needed before the Government can proceed, but I must warn the Minister against expecting that his legislation will have an easy passage if he continues to ignore the important factors to which I have drawn attention.
4.39 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for not being present when he began his speech. Unfortunately, I was addressing a constituency meeting and that is why I arrived at the House a little late. I thought it a pity, as I came in, that the hon. Member appeared to be making something of a party issue of the barrier. The fact of the matter, as I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, is that this is not a party issue. I think that he appreciates that.
Mr. Delargy: How can it be a party issue if my hon. Friend is attacking his own Government?
Mr. Worsley: The hon. Gentleman may have missed some of the nuance at the beginning of his hon. Friend's speech. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East knows that a group of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been studying the problem under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Gresham Cooke, the former Member for Twickenham. The issue is not simply a matter for those

637
hon. Members representing downstream constituencies. It is also a matter for hon. Members representing constituencies further up river.
I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into the somewhat internecine discussion which is taking place on the other side of the House about the siting of the barrier. I am concerned with the interests of my constituents, and for two reasons. The first is the danger of flooding. I have always been in two minds about how much one should say on this issue. I cannot imagine any single issue which could cause more alarm if the public mind became seized of it in a way which caused something like panic. On the other hand, I am conscious of my responsibility as an hon. Member representing a constituency almost all of which is at risk from flooding. In my opinion, the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred shows practically the whole of my constituency as being at risk.
This is a matter on which a decision must be taken and on which action must follow rapidly. Under successive Governments, a great deal of time has been occupied in consultation, planning and studies. That must be brought to an end as soon as possible. A decision is needed to allay the doubts and fears of the people of London. In view of that, I seek from the Government as precise as possible a time table of what they hope to see happen. Both as a London priority and as a national priority, I hope that this will be high on the Government's programme from now on.
So much for the safety angle. There is also the amenity angle. In recent years the Greater London Council has taken a great interest in the amenities of the river, as the hon. Gentleman knows, though he paid rather churlish credit to it. It has had a working group discussing the matter. Some months ago, when I took up the case of the very famous houseboats on Chelsea Reach which are threatened because of proposed road changes, I found a great response from the members and officers of the Greater London Council, who have a notable awareness of the amenities of the river and what should be done.
As I say, I am neutral in the disagreement which is occurring on the Labour benches. If one of these two schemes is put forward, it can do more to improve
638
the amenities of the upper stretches of the river than any other single factor. The lowest level of the river could be controlled, and we could get away from the greatest detriment to amenity, which hon. Members can often observe by going on to the Terrace in summer, namely, the presence of the mud flats.
I am anxious to see one of the two schemes go forward, because I want to see the fear of flooding removed. Hon. Members must not forget that, over the decades, the risk of flooding increases steadily. There is a time scale of increase in risk, though I admit that it is slow. For that reason and for the sake of amenity, I want to see rapid action on this matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give very much firmer commitments on behalf of the Government.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on having the initiative to put down this subject for debate and on having the good fortune to be drawn at the head of the list. The issue of a Thames flood barrier is a matter above party politics and one that affects the whole London area which lies on the tidal flood plain.
My hon. Friend referred to the factors which contribute to the flood risk in London: the North Sea surge, the high tides, the downward flow from Teddington weir and the drop in the level of the land, thus increasing the mean tide level. It is a serious risk. There are 65 square miles of the London Metropolis on the flood plain. That is the area under the control of the Greater London Council, and it is all subject to a flood risk. In the 65 square miles about 1¼ million people live in some 350,000 houses. The risk to human beings, families and the property of ordinary people is very serious.
Looking at the situation of London as a whole, we have to bear in mind the considerable number of power stations and telephone exchanges on the London flood plain. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not like to incur your displeasure by widening the debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman is giving me some difficulty

639
already. I do not know to which Estimate his remarks are related. We are discussing Clause I, Vote 6 L.4, which is concerned with surveys. Perhaps he will relate his remarks to it.
Mr. Wellbeloved: They are related to it, because we hope to encourage the Government to make available the necessary finance to provide a London flood barrier under the appropriate Vote.
I was about to say in passing that the part of London on the flood plain is also subject to a serious flood threat to three of the major sewage works which serve the sanitation requirements for a large part of the area.
The areas about which my hon. Friend and I are concerned, Thamesmead and the lower reaches of the Thames which come within the area of the Greater London Council, have been subjected to repetitive flooding over a considerable number of years. I join with the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) in expressing condemnation of all Governments who have held power since 1953—the last occasion of which the Thames flooded—for their lack of positive action to protect London from this danger.
In 1953, a commission was set up. It reported, and two consultants were appointed to carry out a feasibility study. Both of them produced plans for a barrier to protect London at Long Reach, Purfleet. However, I understand that they also destroyed each other's recommendations.
We then come to the period of office of the present Government. They appointed Professor Bondi, an eminent mathematician, to carry out a further survey of the problem. The present Minister has failed to put into operation the recommendations which Professor Bondi made in regard to London's Underground. My hon. Friend reminded us that there are 46 miles of Underground track and 70 Underground stations which today are at risk from flood. In his report, Professor Bondi recommended that there should be a trial evacuation carried out on London's Underground. As far as I have been able to ascertain, that recommendation has never been put into operation. In my judgment, it should have been, because a disaster of immense magnitude would hit us if the London Underground system were flooded. Professor Bondi foresaw this and took the very
640
wise precaution of recommending a trial evacuation so that we might be certain that the emergency arrangements would work. Professor Bondi has clearly said that delay invites disaster and the longer the delay the greater the disaster that could befall London.
The current proposals in the report now before the Government provide for a barrier at Woolwich or Crayfordness. This is matter of immense significance to those who represent riverside constituences. My hon. Friend referred to the amenities at Woolwich and I sympathise with his point of view. I assure him of my full support against the siting of the barrier, with its massive towers, at the Woolwich end. It would be an outrage to desecrate the amenity values of Woolwich in that way.
My hon. Friend also referred to the amenities at Crayfordness. If the proposal for a barrier at Crayfordness should become a reality, the report makes it clear that the type of barrier would not be a tower drop gate barrier but what is delicately known as a drum gate barrier, a barrier that pops up from the river bed. Therefore, my constituents and the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) would not be affected, other than by the inconvenience caused by the construction which would take place over the years. If the barrier was sited at Crayfordness there would be no long-term loss of amenity as would be the case if a massive tower structure were erected at Woolwich.
If the barrier were put up at Woolwich, what would it mean to people who operate businesses and carry out their lawful occupations on the banks below Woolwich? At the moment the river banks in my constituency at Erith and Crayford are somewhere between 17 ft. O.D. Newlyn and 20 ft. O.D.N. The proposals in the report are that if the barrier goes at Woolwich, it will be necessary to put 6 ft. on top of the existing river bank wall right through my constituency. I have already had consultations with a number of industrialists and other riverside users and have met the chambers of commerce. Considerable apprehension is being expressed by the riparian owners because they claim that a further 6 ft. on the bank to bring it up to 24 ft.

641
O.D.N. would in some cases completely destroy the viability of their industrial undertakings.
It is not only a question of bringing the bank up to 24 ft. O.D.N. Because of the nature of the subsoil, which is 30 ft. of peat and silt that has been built up over the years, it will be necessary to pile-drive the river bank walls, or to have a ledge some 60 ft. wide to support the weight of the increased height of the wall from further slippage or sinkage. It is not only a matter of a 6 ft. wall. There is the possibility that the wall would have to be on a ledge 60 ft. in width along the length of the bank below the Woolwich site, if that is the site chosen for the barrier.
The present position is that further reports are being called for on siltation. It is already being suggested that if the barrier were at Woolwich by the entrance to the King George V dock the siltation problems might make that dock difficult to use. It would need a considerable amount of dredging. Therefore, a special report is being prepared.
I also understand from meetings with the Ministry a short while ago that further reports on the cost of the Crayfordness site were also being prepared. Could the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply say a little about the dates of these other reports which have been promised, because it is essential that we should have adequate time to study and discuss these extra reports before any final decision is made. My own local council, the London Borough of Bexley, has already come down strongly and firmly in favour of the barrier being sited at Crayfordness. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East that the London Borough of Greenwich has done likewise.
The Port of London Authority has said that marginally it favours the Crayfordness site. I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will add to that list the voices of his two hon. Friends the Member for Woolwich, East and myself as also favouring the Crayfordness site. This combination of support must have some effect on a consideration of this matter. In our judgment it is vital that the barrier should go downstream, thus affording the maximum protection to the maximum number of Londoners.
642
Finally, I wish to refer to the new town development at Thamesmead. I appeared at the public inquiry of the Thamesmead proposals held in October, 1967. The Greater London Council gave firm and positive evidence to the inspector that it would prefer a Thames flood barrier to be sited downstream of that development. The Ministry's inspector in this report on the inquiry also firmly came down in favour of maximum flood protection provided by a barrier situated downstream from Thamesmead. This is a vitally important matter which must be weighed when a decision is being reached. Here is a site embracing some 60,000 people in an area that is known to be on the tidal flood plain. It is not going there by accident, but because of a deliberate act of planning. Those who have conceived the plan and authorised it have an absolute responsibility to see that those residents are given maximum protection.
I ask my hon. Friend to bear firmly in mind the point that the inspector and the G.L.C. at the inquiry said that maximum protection could be given by a barrier downstream. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having given me the opportunity to join with him in his representations. We await with great anxiety the decision that will be made about the siting of this barrier.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. H. J. Delargy:I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for not being in the House to hear his opening remarks. I intervene in the debate for two reasons. The first is to draw attention to the very large number of people in the riverside authorities who will be affected by this barrier. We have almost 20 miles of the banks of the River Thames within our constituencies and the people who live there are obviously extremely interested in what is going on in their neighbourhood.
The second reason is that if the proposal is accepted for the barrier to go at Crayfordness it will end up in Purfleet, which is in the district of Thurrock. Therefore, we are closely interested in the matter. I agree that no decision can be taken tonight. Legislation will be required, and then we shall be able to speak at greater length.

643
I have the utmost sympathy with what my hon. Friends have said. I support them in reminding the Government that if they think that this first proposal can be pushed down our throats, the Bill will not have as easy a passage as they might be led to expect. However, I will not speak about these matters now.
I have one great grievance—namely, the lack of consultation throughout with the local authorities and with riverside Members. There have been two meetings with the Minister, particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who at all times is extremely well informed and courteous. The first meeting was adjourned so that Members could study the report. When the second meeting was called we still had not seen the report. I am waiting for a third meeting to be called, but I have not yet seen the report. It is very bad, on such an important matter, that hon. Members who represent riverside constituencies have not been kept better informed.
That is all that I want to say at this juncture. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East on having introduced this subject, I am grateful to the House for listening to me, and I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of the debate.
5.2 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tine Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I also join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on introducing this subject, because it gives me an opportunity briefly to review the historical position and to describe the position that we have now reached before the major decisions, to which hon. Members have referred, are taken.
As much stress has been placed on the history of the matter and the time it has taken to reach the present position, perhaps I might briefly review the history.
Flooding of the low-lying areas of London has occurred on a number of occasions in the past and the danger that this has reflected has been met by the building and raising of flood defence banks along the shores of the estuary. The last such raising took place in 1930 after the severe floods of 1928.
644
Nothing like that was repeated until the exceptionally high water of 31st January to 1st February, 1953. On that occasion considerable flooding occurred of low-lying areas to the east of London, and the Departmental Committee on Coastal Flooding, which became known as the Waverley Committee, was appointed to investigate and to report on measures to combat the danger. One of the recommendations was that a barrier structure be investigated for the protection of the London area.
A report on a proposed flood barrier in the centre of Long Reach was produced in 1958 and submitted to the then Minister of Housing and Local Government. This was not implemented, as the navigational difficulties during the construction period were considered unacceptable. Thus, a further report was submitted in 1965, following a change in Administration, putting forward two proposals which, however, raised great technical difficulties and were extremely expensive.
In order to obtain an independent assessment of the problem, Professor Bondi, to whom reference has been made, who was at that time Professor of Mathematics at King's College, was asked to report on the subject, which he did in 1967. He considered the flood risk to be quite unacceptable and suggested investigation of barrier sites in Halfway Reach and Woolwich Reach and a barrage site upstream of the entrance to the West India Docks.
I understand that an exercise in evacuation of the London Underground, which he recommended in his report, has been undertaken by London Transport and found to be satisfactory. I have not got the details with me, but I shall be glad to pursue the point in further detail subsequently if my hon. Friends wish.
Mr. Wellbeloved: When my hon. Friend checks the facts he will find that it was an extremely poor trial evacuation. It was purely an operational headquarters exercise. There were a few phone calls, but no trial evacuation of human beings was carried out as had been recommended by Professor Bondi.
Mr. Freeson: I was about to say that I suspect that on further investigation

645
I should find that it was a feasibility study which was undertaken. As the matter has been raised specifically by my hon. Friend, I will pursue it to see whether I can satisfy him further following this debate.
Soon after the report was received in 1967, the Minister invited the Greater London Council, in January 1968, to undertake urgently an investigation into the construction of a movable barrier at three suggested sites and a fixed barrage at a fourth site. The G.L.C. agreed to undertake the investigation in the light of the Government's determination to reach a decision as quickly as possible, and it reported on 20th January this year.
The report shows that the danger of a tidal flood is real and imminent. A tide of 1953 height today would overtop the existing defences in London. A worse surge than that, which could happen, would be a large-scale disaster involving probable loss of life and about £1,000 million worth of damage. Though one must regard calculations of this kind with some reserve, the best estimate of probabilities now is that in the years 1970–79—in other words—virtually over the next decade—the chances of "bank full" conditions—that is, of waters lying level with the top of the Embankment in London—are one in ten in any one year. The chances of the Embankment being overtopped by six inches are one in 20, and by one foot—which, if it were to last for any length of time, say, an hour or more, would cause a major disaster—one in 34 in any one year. These odds, however, are shortening all the time, because the height of the Thames tides in relation to the level of the land is rising by about 2 feet 8 inches a century. These figures make clear that a surge tide is bound to recur sooner or later, whatever the odds, on or against, the calculations may be in terms of accuracy.
The report concludes that a further detailed investigation should continue into the relative advantages of two types of movable barrier. The first is a "rising" barrier at Crayfordness, to which reference has been made, and the second a "drop—gate"—portcullis or guillotine—type of barrier at a suitable site in Woolwich Reach.
646
The first of these proposals is undesirable for several reasons. It would be very expensive, would take too long to construct, and its closure would involve a great deal more interference with shipping than would a barrier at Woolwich, because the site would be downstream of the Royal Docks. Also, consultants advise—this is very important—that the reliability of a submerged barrier rising from the river bed is open to grave doubt. However, I stress that whatever comments I make on this matter, no final decision has been taken and the Minister has not yet expressed an official view on the direction in which he will move when the various reports are finalised.
The alternative, a "drop gate" barrier, which we understand would be reliable, could not practicably be constructed further downstream than the Woolwich area, because, if it were below the Royal Docks, the shipping using it would require a wider opening than the practicable maximum of 450 feet. In other words, 450 feet would not be wide enough for ocean-going shipping.
On the assumptions that a drop-gate barrier is the right type, as being quickest, cheapest and most reliable, and that it should be sited as far downstream as practicable, the best site would be in Woolwich Reach, just upstream to the entrance of the Royal Docks, with concomitant raising of the banks of the river downstream.
However, the first results of experimental work with a model, by the Hydraulics Research Station—the completion of which is still awaited—suggest that a structure here would produce siltation opposite the entrance to the Royal Docks. It is too early to say whether this objection will prove fatal to the project. Accordingly, a site further upstream in Wolwich Reach is being examined and this looks promising so far. Site borings will be completed during next month and hydraulic investigation during May.
A third possibility is a site in Black-wall Reach, for which hydraulic tests will be complete by the end of this month. A barrier here would have a smaller opening and there are several questions still to be investigated about the strength of the geological foundations and the load that they could practicably bear. A structure here would be cheaper than at Woolwich, but, on the other hand, there would

647
have to be another eight miles of riparian wall-raising over and above that which would be necessary if the downstream Woolwich site were chosen.
All of these various aims, which are directed towards making decisions which will be effective, have followed in quick succession on the receipt of the report for which we had asked urgently and which was effectively carried out by County Hall.
Mr. Mayhew: Would my hon. Friend answer the specific question I asked—why cannot we urgently start on bank raising? He said that it would be 10–1 in respect of bank-full conditions every year for the next 10 years and 20–1 against six inches above the bank. The advantage of the Crayfordness scheme is that it would involve immediate bank raising of one to two feet throughout, and that would be of great benefit from the point of view of the safety of Londoners.
Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend will recall that he and others put that point in the consultations with my right hon. Friend and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I understand that in the course of those discussions it was pointed out that it would be rather expensive and not very adequate to do this sort of operation in a piecemeal fashion—that is, separately from the major project being put in hand.
We asked the G.L.C. earlier this month to investigate this matter further and we are awaiting its report to see whether some work can be put in hand in respect of bank raising, ahead of the major project, whatever decision is reached, to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend which has been widely stressed. It am not in a position to say what the conclusions will be and no doubt we shall receive that report as soon as the G.L.C. has prepared it.
I come to the question of the effect on amenity. A drop-gate barrier at Woolwich would have twin towers 175 ft. high, with a main sluice-gate between them 450 ft. long and 55 ft. deep. There is no doubt that this would be a prominent feature and, as has been indicated today, that some people would not like it.
Mr. Mayhew: Nobody would like it.
Mr. Freeson: It is a little early to suggest that nobody would like it. Some might.
Mr. Delargy: People downstream would not.
Mr. Freeson: It is not possible at this stage to come to a conclusion about general public opinion on the point, at least not for the purposes of this debate. I accept that there would be objections—indeed, there are, as the debate has shown—but it would be wrong to come to a categorical view at this stage that it would be ill-received by everybody. Indeed, I suggest that it might be wrong to come to a categorical view that even those who, understandably, are anxious about it now, would stick to their view of such a scheme as it evolved, wherever it was sited.
If shipping movements decline and further investigations show that there are no prohibitive problems of ground-water, siltation or upsteam water-pollution, it later may prove possible to use the barrier for half-tide control, with resultant benefit to the appearance of the river upstream, because the mud-banks now exposed at low-tide, which are quite unsightly, would be permanently covered. The barrier would be closed at half-ebb as a routine and reopened at half-flood.
This would not only be of advantage to amenity but would mean that closure would not be dependent on a surge warning, so that all risk of error would be eliminated. The idea may turn out to be impracticable—it has yet to have conclusions drawn on it—but, in any case, it is in the nature of an "optional extra" which need not be decided yet and does not affect the immediate questions of type and siting of a barrier.
It is fair to say that adjacent works need not necessarily be unsightly. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy)—speaking from the estuarial point of view—may know that this visualises a good deal of grass banking and not what some have referred to as unsightly concrete masses which would add nothing to amenity. At this stage, when the argument on amenity is by no means conclusive, it is possible that people will reach the conclusion that the design of such a project, wherever it is sited,

649
would be a striking attraction and that the works associated with it would be attractive to the amenity of the neighbourhoods concerned.
Reference has been made to costs. A barrier in Woolwich Reach, though larger than any similar structure so far built anywhere in the world, would not represent an unreasonable extension of civil engineering practice, so that the estimates of cost are reasonably reliable.
A drop-gate barrier would cost approximately £30 million. To raise the river walls downstream to the G.L.C. boundary wall would cost about £20 million. In addition, it would be necessary to raise the river walls in Kent and Essex, even though these were raised after the 1953 tide.
A good deal more work is necessary before accurate estimates can be made of the cost of the extra protection for Kent and Essex or of its timing, but the ultimate cost might be about £35 million. This is based on the assumption that there would be a general raising of walls by six feet; that is, three feet to ensure safety under present conditions and three feet to ensure safety for about 100 years following the completion of the project.
In addition to the capital costs, there would be costs imposed on shipping by delays when the barrier was closed. If the pattern of shipping in the river remained as it is at present, the capitalised value of these delays would amount to about £5 million. It would be less if, as seems probable, the use of docks up-steam of the Royal Docks declines.
Mr. Mayhew: On the question of the cost of the banks, are not the figures which my hon. Friend has given greatly in excess of those in the report? Would he say what the cost of the Woolwich scheme, of raising the banks downstream, would he and, therefore, what would be the total cost of the project?
Mr. Freeson: I thought that I had done that by referring to the cost of the works. This is, perhaps, where uncertainty has crept into my hon. Friend's mind. I included the cost of the works beyond the G.L.C. boundary—the report with which we have been dealing so far.
Mr. Mayhew: I see the point.
Mr. Freeson: On the question of timing—stress has been placed on the urgency of the matter—even with the utmost speed, it will, from the time when authority is given by the Government, take about two more years to complete the studies, to design the barrier and to obtain powers for its construction, including the legislative proposals which will be involved. If construction began in 1972, the barrier would not be in effective operation before 1977. It is a major operation, the largest of its kind that has been seen anywhere in the world so far.
I should stress in referring to the timing that this is not said in any way to suggest that the Government are not determined to get ahead with implementing policy in this matter as rapidly as they can. We are determined that we should do so and that London and the lower Thames-side should be defended against tidal floods. Several meetings have taken place with my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I take very much the point about the need for further consultation. I am disturbed to hear that there has still been a failure in the supply of copies of the report. I shall certainly take note of that and investigate it when I get back to my Department. I agree that in a matter of this kind there is the utmost need for consultation, not only with riparian hon. Members but with any other persons who have special interests in the future of the City, concerning the river-side.
I have tried in my review to deal with all the points with which I could deal this afternoon. I realise that there is bound to be continuing anxiety about this matter until the final decisions are taken. I am glad to hear that the local authority most immediately concerned has decided to proceed with the major part of the scheme on the river-side which might be affected by the Government's decision.
I understand—this was confirmed when I discussed the matter personally with representatives, elected members and officers of the authority when discussing housing matters a little time ago—that, were the scheme to go ahead at Woolwich, it would affect only a relatively small site. This has led them to make the decision to proceed nevertheless with

651
the development proposals which they have in mind. This is what was put to them by me and others from the Department when we met them a little time ago to discuss housing matters. I am glad to hear what has since transpired.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about costs and timing, may I say that what he told me this afternoon increases my fears and anxieties that the decision has already been taken to use the Woolwich site. Can he tell us what further investigations are to be carried out on the Crayfordness site? Can he assure us that this is not a "kid stakes" but that genuine serious investigations are taking place and will be laid in report form before a decision is taken?
Mr. Freeson: Of course I can give that assurance. I am sorry that I did not specifically state it when I was referring to the Blackwall proposal and various alternative choices. Two examinations are going on and are being costed, as far as it is possible to cost these things at this stage, on a feasibility basis. In the course of this, clear conclusions will be reached by the Government through the various Departments concerned and eventually, when all these reports have been completed, a recommendation and proposals will be submitted to the House and will be announced so that all interested persons may be informed. It is not possible for me to say that there will be an individual report for the House about the Crayfordness site, but there will be conclusions on the basis of studies which are being genuinely undertaken on the various alternative suggestions. I hope that that assurance, even if it does not allay anxieties as to what and when the decision will be about Woolwich, will satisfy my hon. Friend to some extent.
I recognise the anxieties. We are pressing ahead as rapidly as we can. The important point in the end is to take account of the needs of London as a whole. On the three main points emerging from the Report which is before the Government from the G.L.C., I hope that it will be accepted that while the report itself may not have referred specifically to amenity, as a major criterion we have that aspect very much in mind.

GRIMSTEAD REVISITED
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Before I call the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) I remind the House that it is out of order to raise on a Supplementary Estimate the whole question of policy involved on an original Estimate unless the increase in new money is substantial. Nor can savings be discussed. The subject the hon. Member is to raise is covered in Class VI, D.4, which shows a decrease of £84,000.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: We are proud to have in my constituency, Stonehenge. It is unique and the most visited ancient monument in Britain. Its origins are shrouded in mystery.
I do not know where the Minister is and whether he intends coming to reply to this debate. This Government have now succeeded in creating a second monument within the constituency. This also is quite unique and its origins are equally shrouded in mystery. Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I have your help before continuing by asking that the Minister in charge of the Department should be present?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The hon. Member should be aware of the facts. In fact I am from the Department concerned.
Mr. Hamilton: I offer the Parliamentary Secretary my apologies. I was expecting the Minister who has been handling this matter to attend.
Mr. Freeson: To get the matter clear on the record, I should explain that my hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary would normally be handling these matters of planning but he has been ill and has been away from the Department for a little time, and still is.
Mr. Hamilton: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up a misunderstanding.
An old friend of mine was visiting the area in Wiltshire recently. We saw the cathedral and we lunched together at the Red Lion. Afterwards we drove out to enjoy the view from the top of Dean Hill.

653
He pointed out some work in progress beneath us and asked what it was. I said, "That is chalk quarrying." He said, "But why on earth have a chalk quarry here? Do you not have any planning in Wiltshire?" I said, "Yes, indeed. We have a very good planning authority, but this was the Minister's decision." He asked, "But why should chalk be quarried here?" I told him that it was very special chalk and that he was standing on holy ground, that more than 200 alternative sites had been considered previously and that the sooner my friend learned that there was all the difference in the world between chalk and chalk the better.
"But what is so special about this particular chalk?" he asked me. I told him that I did not know the answer, that I had asked the Minister, that the Minister knows but the Minister is not prepared to tell me. I told him that the excavating company had offered to tell me but that its offer was conditional and that therefore if I had accepted I should not have been able to tell my friend anyway.
"This is very curious," said my friend. "Is there no one who can tell us?" "Well," I said, "There are over 100,000 people living in this constituency. There are two men both of them known to me, good friends, who work in Salisbury and who know the entire story." "Then let us go and see them at once," said my friend.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but the Chair is in a difficult position. This is not the normal Consolidated Fund Bill. This is a Consolidated Fund Bill dealing with the Supplementary Estimates and hon. Gentlemen must relate his remarks to the increased expenditure. On this Estimate which the hon. Gentleman is discussing there is a decrease. He is obliged under the rules of the House to show that there is an offsetting increase in the Estimates so that he may be in order in debating the subject. I find it difficult to relate his remarks to the rules of order.
Mr. Hamilton: What I am primarily concerned with is the preservation of the countryside. I am happy to take note of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you will find as I continue with my speech that we will come closer to
654
the point that I am illustrating, namely a most astonishing question of the preservation of the countryside within my constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have already indicated in my previous Ruling, on a Supplementary Estimate we cannot discuss the policy contained in the original Estimates. We can only discuss on the Consolidated Fund Bill now before the House the reasons for the increases in the Estimates. We cannot discuss the general policy. If the hon. Gentleman can relate his remarks more to the specific Estimate perhaps we can proceed.
Mr. Hamilton: I welcome your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The last thing that I wish to do is to detain the House in any way. If I can put forward to your satisfaction the need for increased expenditure to preserve the countryside would you be satisfied?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, the Chair is in a difficulty in applying the rules of the House. It is necessary, under this Consolidated Fund Bill, to indicate that there is an offsetting increase arising from the decrease in the Estimate before the House. In page 191, in the Supplementary Estimate D.4 headed "Grants for Preserving and Improving the Countryside", the hon. Gentleman will observe that there is a decrease in the Estimate of £84,000, which is before the House. I must again emphasise that an hon. Member is not allowed under the rules of procedure to discuss a decrease in the Estimates unless he can show that there is an offsetting increase.
Mr. Christopher Chataway: Further to that point of order. The eighth subject for discussion tonight, which has been withdrawn, but which was allowed by the Chair, specifically referred to the decrease in these Estimates. I understand that it has been withdrawn because the hon. Gentleman who tabled it has been satisfied that the decrease has a perfectly honourable explanation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could assist the hon. Gentleman. The fact that a subject has been placed on the list does not in itself signify that the matter is in order for discussion.
Mr. Hamilton: I am exceedingly anxious to remain within the rules of order. Do you wish me to demonstrate,

655
in what I am saying, that more money should be spent on preserving the countryside or that less money should be spent?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Chair to suggest to the hon. Gentleman what his speech should contain. I am in as much difficulty as the hon. Gentleman. I can only apply the rules of the House. I repeat that he is required under the rules of procedure to indicate, as a result of the decrease which has taken place with this Estimate, that there is an offsetting increase in another sub-head of the same Estimate.
Mr. Chataway: Does it have to be an increase within the current year or would it be open to my hon. Friend to argue, as he might do, that to make this decrease now means that there will be increases in future, resulting from activities in his constituency?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It can only apply to the Estimates ending on 31st March this year.
Mr. Hamilton: Would it not be best to proceed and if you have any unease, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will not hesitate to pull me up again. We will see if we can clarify matters in that way.
I was explaining that my friend and I were looking over the valley and my friend was puzzled. He said, "Let us go and see these men at once. You surely cannot sit here and do nothing while the valley is destroyed". I explained that these two men would happily have a drink with us, but that both are sworn to secrecy on oath, that they are men of honour and that for the rest of their mortal lives they are bound by this Government to secrecy. "This becomes curiouser and curiouser," said my friend. "You ought to raise the matter in the House of Commons".
I told him that I had already done so but that the Government were perfectly content with things as they stood. "But what sort of pantomime is this?" he asked me. "This is still a democracy, we have not reached 1984 yet. Your job here is to know about local problems and to safeguard your constituents at Westminster. You will have to let the Prime Minister know about this". Again
656
I explained that I had told the Prime Minister about it, but that he was perfectly content with things as they are. "But this cannot be true," said my friend. "A giant company with its machines comes over 100 miles into Wiltshire and you do not even know why this valley was selected. Ministers of the Crown are a party to a conspiracy of silence. Surely this sort of thing does not happen in 1970? What about Mr. Heath or that new Ombudsman?"
Here again I explained that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was Leader of the Opposition and that no doubt the day would come when he would be in a position to iron out many of our difficulties. I explained that this case was unique in that no planning inquiry had ever before been held in secret, that there were no precedents, no guide lines and no rules and that the Ombudsman's main function is to intervene when rules have been broken. Thus my friend returned to London a very puzzled man.
I make no apology for returning today to the problems of Grimstead. On the only previous occasion when I raised this matter in the House the Minister was very sympathetic and tolerant and was good enough to welcome the possibility of a further exchange of views at a later date. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. We have entered European Conservation Year. Moreover the Government, maybe in a mood of contrition, have published a splendid document headed "Participation in Planning"—I rather liked that! There have been a number of developments.
Lest anyone should imagine that the Grimstead affair is some storm in a provincial teacup, perhaps by way of introduction I could remind the House that, in the Minister's words,
"… the workings will have inevitably some effect upon the landscape and the life of the community.";
that excavation is permitted to go down 160 feet; that the company now own an area in this valley a good deal larger than Hyde Park and finally that the Council for the Protection of Rural England believes:
"… that the beauty of this lovely stretch of rolling countryside will be largely destroyed—no matter how thoroughly the restoration after chalk working may be—if most of the area were to be excavated and left as a depression."

657
English China Clays Ltd. is one of Britain's great companies. It is of the highest standing; it earns valuable foreign currency; it employs more than 11,000 people. It has been established 50 years. That much is accepted, and needs no repetition.
After the exchange in the House last July the chairman of the company saw fit to write to his shareholders—some 20,000 of them. He did not send me a copy, and there was no cause for him to do so. He began by referring to my speech and continued with the phrase,
"I should like to know the facts."
I did not resent the implication. To the contrary, I mention the matter now because I welcome the fullest information being given to shareholders about a company's activities. Admittedly, it struck me at the time that a verbatim report of my brief speech and the Minister's very clear reply might have been included with his letter so that the owners of the company might more easily form an independent judgment. However, the great point is that the shareholders have been told of the company's arrival in Wiltshire.
I lay no claim to being a professional businessman. But I was fortunate in first becoming a director of a public company as long ago as 1947. That company has now been established 100 years, and I am associated with another which has been established for 250 years. It has always been my experience that shareholders welcome information and that their interest ranges far more widely than merely over the size of the forthcoming dividend. I should be very interested to know one day how far the proprietors of this great enterprise are happy with what is being done in their name—the securing of Britain's first planning inquiry in secret, the objection raised by their company to the presence of the only expert witness, and so on. Perhaps one day I shall send out a questionnaire such as the Minister and I and other hon. Members often receive. It is possible, I suppose, that those who attach great importance to good will would prefer a policy which saw chalk worked in a less lovely setting and Wiltshire's green valleys left in peace. Be that as it may, I am delighted that the shareholders should learn about Wiltshire, and my quarrel today is not with the company.
658
There is widespread unease on the question of the authority under which the hearing was held in camera. The Minister took legal advice, but lawyers are fallible, like the rest of us. I suggest that the advice was not correct. We are told that in law there is no bar to such proceedings. I accept that, but the Minister would agree that it is a peculiarly weak defence. There is no bar to a great many things, yet I can think of many actions not specifically debarred by law to which the Minister, like me, would react most sharply if any Government were to carry them out. Could he elaborate a little more on this point? It is not mere chance that through the years such action has never been contemplated or sanctioned before. The Minister will have seen that in another context my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), a former Solicitor-General, said on Tuesday of this week that he found it wholly objectionable that the Government should give the Commercial Court powers to sit in private. In yesterday's Press a leading article said:
"This should be beyond argument. It is fundamental to the British concept of justice: that it should not only be done, but be seen—and heard—to be done."
There has been a rather painful misunderstanding about the visit to the Ministry before the inquiry was held. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that this afternoon, because the explanations to date are not satisfactory. Confusion arises because the Minister is on record as stating that the company was not told at that meeting that it could have in camera proceedings, and that such a decision must depend entirely on the discretion of the inspector at the time. But the Prime Minister is on record as saying:
"Because of the secret nature of the process, they"
the company—
"sought the Minister's agreement to holding part of the inquiry in camera and it was decided that in all the circumstances it would be right to deal with their inquiry in this way."
He also referred to
"the undertaking about the in camera proceedings which was given to the company before the inquiry."
This confusion has given rise to considerable feeling, and it is best disposed of quickly. Either the Minister is wrong or

659
the Prime Minister is wrong. An explanation from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon would help a great deal.
My third point is that Lord Brooke of Cumnor—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is with some reluctance that I again intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have given him a considerable degree of latitude. His speech would be more in accordance with a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on the original Estimates but certainly not on these Supplementary Estimates. Perhaps he can bring his speech to a rapid conclusion unless he can make a specific reference to the Estimates before the House.
Mr. Chataway: Might it be the case that the chain of events which my hon. Friend is unfolding would, in his view, require expenditure to improve the countryside before 31st March this year? My hon. Friend obviously takes a very serious view of what has been done to the countryside in his constituency. Therefore, I believe that he would probably argue that additional expenditure is required in the current year to offset decreases referred to in the Estimates.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps in that context the hon. Gentleman may continue.
Mr. Hamilton: I am most grateful both to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). The most grievous damage is being done to my constituency, and urgent attention is needed to put it right.
There is no more respected former Member of this House than Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He asked in October whether
"… there was any opportunity at all for the objectors to bring geological evidence to rebut the evidence which was given on behalf of the company in secret? If there was not, there must be something wrong with the procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th October, 1969; Vol. 304, c. 1208.]
Here again there is confusion. Was there such opportunity, or was the procedure wrong? It must be one or the other. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help us by removing this confusion.
Fourth, why did the Minister, having alerted his inspector to the fact that
660
application was to be made for in camera procedures, take no steps to alert the other parties? He had four weeks in which to do so and yet no formal notice whatsoever was given. The company—all credit to it—did take some action here although it was not its responsibility. It put through a telephone call to the clerk of the local council; but the Minister did nothing.
I cannot help feeling that warnings should have been given beforehand In order that a defence might be prepared. The Minister must, after all, have appreciated that such procedures have never taken place before in planning history and if he made a mistake then I am sure h.! would be the first to admit it. If he did not make a mistake then, I ask myself whether it is worth hon. Members of this House travelling to their constituencies to attend planning inquiries with no certainty before they start their journey whether, when they get there, they will be admitted. Here, again, there is a degree of confusion, as I believe the Minister will agree, and I should welcome a comment on it.
Perhaps I may here pay tribute to the Council of Tribunals. It would have been spared great trouble had this case never arisen. It is currently holding discussions with the Ministry to ensure that guide lines are established and that confusion this scale is never repeated. The Council has my blessing. I believe that its task is well nigh impossible. It is like trying to unscramble an omelette. I also pay tribute to the Parliamentary Commissioner. His patience and industry are unlimited and I acknowledge it; and as a back-bench Member, I am grateful to him.
The House will remember that when the Minister made his decision to allow quarrying he withheld from publication the confidential section of the inspector's report. I suggested to the Parliamentary Commissioner only recently that details of the secret process for which proceedings, in camera, had been sought, were no longer secret when the Minister made his decision. I considered that the Minister had failed to satisfy himself, before giving his decision, that the confidential information to which he was a party had not already been published. A week or two ago the Parliamentary Commissioner

661
replied. I summarise his reply, I hope fairly; and if not, the Minister must correct me. The Parliamentary Commissioner said:
"I have examined copies of the patents taken out by the company in several continental countries. … From my inquiries it appears that information about the Belgian and Dutch patents did indeed become available in Belgium and the Netherlands before the Minister's decision was published on 6th September 1968. Copies of the Dutch patents … were received in the National Reference Library in this country a few days before that decision was published."
He goes on—I wish to give a balanced summary—to say:
"I am not prepared to criticise the Minister for not further deferring his decision while inquiries were made into the possibility of foreign publication at the stage when, many months after public inquiry, the Minister was satisfied as the result of the prolonged examination of the planning and technical aspects that he should allow the company's appeal."
Finally, he adds:
"I note, moreover, that one piece of information made available to the inspector and the Minister which concerns the application of the process rather than the process itself is not referred to in the continental patents which I have examined. This information is stated in the Ministry's file to be of crucial importance."
What is the significance of all of that? Here again, perhaps, the Minister will help us. At least a hint of daylight seems to filter in here. I note with interest that the Parliamentary Commissioner is qualified and competent to examine and to comment upon an immensely complex and technical document. Indeed, it seems that the secret process about which we heard so much is not secret after all.
I have been helped by the Parliamentary Commissioner to identify it. Perhaps I should have tumbled to it earlier. If I read the facts aright, details of the process lay on the table for the world to read before the Minister made his decision to allow quarrying to proceed. It is the application of the process which remains secret but I sense, nevertheless, that a certain additional ray of light has been allowed to enter. I am afraid I sense, too, that the situation becomes more and more farcical. The Minister will agree with me that it is only a question of time before finally, the secrets are leaked; it may be this year, it may be next year.
I ask myself, what happens then, when these secrets leak? Will there be an op-
662
portunity to challenge the evidence, and if so, might we not get on with it now? But if not, have we entered an age in which a Minister's decision, right or wrong, sound or unsound, may never be challenged? Supposing the Minister were to make a decision based on evidence which was subsequently found to be unsound. Do we live with that decision or are we allowed a chance to rebut the evidence? I should welcome a little help on this point, too.
I come to a point of more fundamental administrative importance. It is neither right nor proper that I should comment here on the merits of applications now pending. The fact remains that applications are expected which will modify or extend the present situation; and here is my point: who is to consider and to pronounce upon such applications? If a local planning committee is to do so, is it competent when its members are as much in the dark as I am? If this had happened to the Minister in his constituency, if some installations or mining operation had been allowed there and local people had not been allowed to know why, surely in their state of half-knowledge it would be a flagrant injustice to expect them to decide what changes should be permitted to the installation.
The essence of planning should be that all the relevant facts are known. Not one member of any local authority in Wiltshire was present at the secret proceedings. They were, all of them, shown the door; and it therefore follows that once a Minister has become a party to secrets he must live with them; and in that knowledge only he can decide on a further application. Once Whitehall crosses this bridge, as it has done at Grimstead, it must be Whitehall and only Whitehall which can decide on future modifications. The man from Whitehall knows best. Nobody else is allowed to know anything. This is a new and inescapable principle. Will the Minister confirm that I am correct.
I am approaching the end of the story, but there are other points that worry me. The Minister will agree that Governments come and Governments go. Let us suppose that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley were to move to Downing Street. Must Whitehall continue to administer the Dean Valley? Will the

663
Minister confirm that the file which contains these secrets is to be burned by senior civil servants and, if so, would an inquiry need to be set up to rediscover them, or is the file to be handed on to an incoming Administration? Is that new Administration bound to observe the same vows of secrecy? I am puzzled, and would appreciate help about what happens to these secrets. It is as if a D-notice had been imposed upon the Dean Valley. Where does this tragi-comic farce lead us? How unwise can a Minister be in plunging into such uncharted waters?
There is to be a cement factory in Parliament Square—hush, no questions may be asked; the soil has special qualities. There is to be opencast mining in St. James's Park—hush, no questions may be asked; it is in the national interest. There are to be steel mills by the Serpentine—hush, no questions may be asked; this is the technological age, and our balance of payments depends on it. This is not fantasy; this is reality; an exact parallel. There are moments when I nearly despair, but at least one does what one can, and hopes that gradually the ripples will spread and that the enormity of the injustice done to my constituency will be remedied.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Chataway: I do not wish to intervene for more than a few moments. The whole House will have a sense of unease about the story that has been unfolded by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton). On the face of it, it is extraordinary to hold a public inquiry that is in whole or in part not public; it would seem to be a contradiction in terms. I know that this is not the first occasion on which the House has considered this matter. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with the specific questions that were put to him by my hon. Friend, and will perhaps look at the whole case with a fresh eye.
First, the House can still not feel satisfied that it is right to have a public inquiry that is in part held in camera. This is a disturbing innovation. Secondly, is my hon. Friend right in suggesting that there is still confusion as to exactly what was said to the Government before the inquiry opened? Was an
664
undertaking given to the company that part of the evidence would be heard in camera, or was it not? Thirdly, my hon. Friend has today produced evidence that the secret process was, apparently, no longer secret at the time when the Minister's decision was made public. If this is in fact so, it would seem reasonable to argue, as my hon. Friend has argued, that the evidence that was submitted in camera should now be available for cross-examination. There must come a time when the process is no longer secret and when the public should be able to judge the weight of the evidence that was put forward.
I think the whole House will admire the tenacity with which my hon. Friend has sought to safeguard his constituents' interests in this matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will also say something about the broad background against which my hon. Friend has raised this matter. As you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the grants for the improvement of the countryside show a decrease this year. The decrease arguably may result in an increase of expenditure in another direction, since these grants are designed to improve and to safeguard the countryside.
We all understand that the workings of the Countryside Act were bound to be slow in getting off the mark. Local authorities have to set up new machinery, to produce rolling programmes of forward work, and have to be able to see continuity of work before appointing staff. None the less, there is a shortfall of £80,000 in the commission's expenditure which the House is considering today. The work of the Countryside Commission has got off to a much slower start than had been expected and hoped for. In the view of the Parliamentary Secretary, is there a prospect of more rapid progress now being made?
Mr. Freeson: I understand that the subject to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, and which I should be happy to debate with him on a more appropriate occasion, is one that was placed on the Order Paper for later debate and subsequently withdrawn. I have been called to the Despatch Box today to speak on a particular issue with which I am concerned, and the hon. Gentleman is digressing from the issues that were placed

665
before me by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was about to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) because he was again transgressing the rules of order inasmuch as he was discussing a reduction in expenditure. It is clearly laid down in Erskine May that in a Consolidated Fund debate covering Supplementary Estimates it is not in order to discuss a decrease in the Estimates. That is absolutely clear.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: May I be allowed to point out that, as the Minister will be able to confirm, I have been in touch with the Countryside Commission on the specific case to which the Minister has referred, and there are letters from me on the file.
Mr. Chataway: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have no sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary. When a subject appears on the Order Paper as "Grants for the Improvement of the Countryside", I assume that he will come to the House with views about grants for the improvement of the countryside, and that he will not be surprised if these matters are raised.
There is concern, whether or not it is shared by the Minister, about the workings of the Countryside Commission and about the schemes that are supposed to be getting off the ground for country parks, tree planting and parking areas. In view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will content myself by asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is an early prospect of the Countryside Commission being given the resources which it was apparently agreed in 1967 should be made available to it for carrying out an agreed programme of work. The Chairman of the Countryside Commission made it clear in January of this year that in 1967 the agreement—
Mr. Freeson: Are we debating the issue which has been withdrawn, or the issues raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury, which I am waiting to deal with?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating the subject raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury, and no doubt the hon.
666
Member for Chichester will restrict his remarks to that particular subject.
Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject, as you have made clear, and as the House knows, is "Grimstead revisited—Grants for preserving the countryside". On an occasion when the House has an opportunity, though in a limited way, of referring to the matter of grants for preserving the countryside, I am anxious to know whether or not we may expect that the progress that was originally envisaged will shortly be attained.
6.10 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): May I content myself by saying that I meant it when I said that if I were called to the Dispatch Box—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask for the leave of the House.
Mr. Freeson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if called upon to do so, I should be glad to debate the issues which have been introduced by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), particularly bearing in mind that the record of this Government in the last few years far surpasses that of any previous Government in regard to town planning, the preservation of amenities in the countryside and similar matters. However, this is not the occasion to cover those matters, and I propose to confine my remarks to the issues put to me by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton). To go further than that would be to risk taking up the time of hon. Members who wish to take up other subjects in this series of debates. I find it regrettable that these other matters should have been raised by the hon. Member for Chichester—
Mr. Chataway: On a point of order. I should like to ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been kind enough to suggest to me and my hon. Friends the means by which we could have brought wider matters into the discussion simply by showing that the reductions here have resulted in increases elsewhere, and it would not have been beyond my capacity to do that. I hope that I may be safeguarded against the

667
kinds of attack in which the Parliamentary Secretary is now indulging.
Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that subject, and I welcome his interest, may I suggest that he has had the opportunity, like every other hon. Member, to put his name down for the Ballot and, if successful, to choose a subject for discussion.
To turn to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury, I should like to say at the outset that I know the district he represents very well. It is some time since I was in Salisbury, but I have a great love for Salisbury and the whole of the surrounding area. I have many fond memories of the area, and I hope in the not too distant future to go back to see it again. I have spent many hours walking over the Plain and visiting some of the ancient monuments in the district. Indeed, I remember to my surprise uncovering a Roman road that was not marked on the map. That is the sort of conceit in which one indulges when one knows a piece of countryside quite well. Therefore, with my love of the area I respect the hon. Gentleman's tenacity on this issue, even though I do not accept the rather bogey-like language he used in his criticisms, implied or specific, of the Minister's involvement in this matter.
The position briefly is that there was a discretion on the part of the inspector holding this inquiry to take part of the evidence in camera. It is not a decision by the Minister. The only advice given by the Ministry was that there was no legal bar to this procedure and that the inspector was free to make the decision within his discretion. The inspector used that discretion.
I realise that there was some misunderstanding over subsequent correspondence—it was somewhat telescoped in phraseology—which passed between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister on this matter.
The main point at issue is the decision which was taken on the planning appeal made by English China Clays Limited against a refusal of permission for the winning and working of chalk from a site about half a mile to the south of East Grimstead, near Salisbury. I know that area personally.
668
The appeal went to local inquiry in June, 1967. Earlier, a representative of the appellant company had called at the Department to seek procedural advice about the possibility of certain evidence of a commercially confidential nature being heard in camera. The only advice he was given was that there was no bar to part of the inquiry proceedings being heard in camera if the inspector conducting the inquiry should so decide in the exercise of his statutory discretion. I have the Statutory Instrument with me in case there is specific reference to it.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: I am grateful for all the Minister has said, and I appreciate it. On the point about this being in camera, those present at the proceedings were sworn to secrecy about the information they had heard, and they had very little alternative but to accept the situation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would accept this.
Mr. Freeson: If proceedings are held in camera, it is implicit that confidentiality should be preserved. This ties in with further observations I wish to make later in regard to the Minister's position and about the report that was made, including that part of the report based on the passages heard in camera of the evidence.
Following the inquiry and the receipt of the inspector's report, which included a separate report in confidence on the in camera proceedings, a long and exhaustive test was carried out of the company's confidential claims under the instruction of my colleague the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who would have been present today had he not been sick. This test was undertaken in consultation with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and the Director of the Institute of Geological Science. Samples of chalk taken by the Department's geologists from several sites in southern England were tested in the company's laboratory under the supervision of technical officers from the Government Chemist's Laboratory, the Stationery Office and the Department.
The investigations supported the company's claim that the quality of the chalk in the appeal site was crucial for the company's purposes and that similar material had not been found to be available in adequate quantities elsewhere.

669
The Minister then decided to allow the appeal in respect of part only of the site. about 10 acres, and his decision was given on 6th September 1968, limited to a period of five years.
The hon. Gentleman subsequently made representations to the Minister and to the Prime Minister on behalf of his constituents in respect of this appeal in several letters from 1st May, 1967, and a statement of his views on the company's proposals was at his request read at the opening of the local inquiry into the appeal. He later asked the Minister to make available to him the record of proceedings heard in camera so that he should have the opportunity to commission his own independent examination of the technical evidence submitted to the appellant company. The request could not be acceded to because the in camera evidence was given to the Minister's inspector in confidence and the company was and is, entitled to expect that confidence to be respected on the terms in which it was accepted.
There may be arguments about whether there should be such a discretion. I am not making arguments one way or another. Hard cases make for ill-feeling in this kind of situation. Given the discretion which was in the hands of the inspector to allow in camera proceedings which implicitly means confidentiality, it would he wrong in practice, in principle and in morality for the Minister then to proceed to release the information which had been given in camera to his own inspector, acting independently on his behalf.
With the greatest respect to the anxiety and the hard feelings that the hon. Gentleman has had about this case, some of the language that he used and his conjuring up of terrifying visions of the Minister stepping into the whole of planning and taking rights away from people was gravely unfair, however strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about this case. I know that the Minister, like me and my colleague who handles planning matters specifically, has considerable interest in countryside, planning and amenity matters as well as statutory responsibility.
It was for this reason that the request could not be acceded to. The hon. Gentleman pursued his objections with the Parliamentary Commissioner and the
670
Council on Tribunals, neither of which found against my Department administratively in its handling of the case. The hon. Gentleman referred in passing to the Adjournment debate in July of last year when he raised the matter. Since that debate, he has continued to express his views and misgivings about in camera proceedings in correspondence with the national Press and in Questions to the Prime Minister in which he requested the setting up of an inquiry into the whole matter. That request was not acceded to.
The general question of admission of in camera proceedings at future local inquiries into planning appeals is being currently discussed between the Department and the Council on Tribunals. This in itself reflects the recognition of the seriousness of the matter in principle and in practice. It may be that it could have been pursued at an earlier date, but this was the first case of its kind in which an inspector used his discretion in this way. I am in no way being critical of the inspector, because he made the best judgment that he could. It is the anxiety that was expressed which has resulted in these discussions being pursued.
I recall that the hon. Gentleman referred to other matters which are now coming to light over the future of developments of this kind in the valley concerned. I confirm that there have been two further planning applications by a subsidiary company of English China Clay Limited to the local planning authority. The Minister proposes shortly to call these in for his own decisions. Although it is not for me to say what those decisions are likely to be, I hope that this decision will at least meet with satisfaction.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: When the Minister calls in a planning application, does it automatically follow that there is a public inquiry, or does an inquiry depend on the number of objections and upon other factor?
Mr. Freeson: It does not follow automatically. It depends on the nature of the case. I will take further advice on that. If the hon. Gentleman has not already received a formal notification of this in correspondence, there is one on the way to him. If he wishes to pursue the matter further to establish the procedure, we shall be glad to deal with it on a departmental level with him.

671
One of the applications concerns the provision of a railway siding adjoining the chalk site at East Grimstead, and the other is in connection with a proposed processing plant at Quidhampton, near Salisbury, which would draw supplies of raw materials in part from the East Grimstead site. As both proposals are sub judice, I cannot be expected to comment on them—
Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to curtail the Minister but my predecessor curtailed other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I understand that the Estimates he has chosen show a decrease. We cannot have debate on a decrease. We are debating on the Consolidated Fund to provide extra money in the Supplementary Estimates.
Mr. Freeson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am replying as best I can to a case which was argued at some length, and I shall do my best to conclude as quickly as I can. I am trying to confine myself to the basic points put to me rather than going wide of them.
Coming back to the particular case which gave rise to the debate, stringent conditions were attached to the 10-acre site for which planning permission was granted, and it is important that I should place them on record in view of the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The conditions included provision for the necessary reclamation and after-treatment of the site. The enforcement of these conditions is not for the Minister but for the local planning authority. There have been suggestions from time to time that restoration funds and the like should be introduced. I believe that this has been pursued by the hon. Gentleman, and he touched on it during this debate. These suggestions have been examined, but the kind of comparisons with other workings which have been treated in this way are not in line with the kind of case with which we are concerned.
While much detail has been gone into about the case, we ended up with some general observations. I shall not go into the observations about St. James's Park, the riverside embankment or what might happen in Parliament Square. These are bogeys, and they might have been better raised by the hon. Gentleman with a smile on his face than in all seriousness.
672
Planning conditions generally should cover restoration of the site after working, with responsibility resting with the firm or individual to whom permission has been granted. In practice, fill may not be available to restore land to its original level. It may be necessary to require that only a quarry floor should be left tidy or that a wet pit should be suitably landscaped. Local planning authorities can take enforcement action to ensure compliance with conditions. For some time, the local authority association have been representing that enforcement action is difficult for local authorities, and they have been invited to provide evidence of any general difficulties. Any evidence produced will be carefully considered. We are concerned with the preservation of the countryside, even in such hard cases as have been raised today.
Where land has been abandoned after mineral working and it is not possible to require restoration, there is the possibility of reclamation with a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant under Section 9 of the Local Government Act, 1966. More generous grants, up to 85 per cent., are available for land in development areas, and 75 per cent. in the case of land in national parks. The National Coal Board, in areas where it is appropriate and where it has been operating, is responsible for the restoration of land where it has undertaken opencast coal operations. There is no doubt that in recent years, whatever criticisms there were earlier, it has been doing a first-class job Once again there is the distinction that only one body is concerned, and restoration in this case does not raise the problems associated with other minerals.
The point that I have been making is that we are concerned not only with the sort of individual hard case which has been raised today, but with the issues which the hon. Member for Chichester sought to raise, as a result, I imagine, of not being able to do so later in the course of today's proceedings.
I hope that I have indicated that, if nothing else, we are concerned about cases of this kind. We are not the bogeymen which the remarks of the hon. Member for Salisbury may have suggested. We make the best use possible of planing procedures to meet the needs of areas of this kind.

FAMILY PLANNING
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that if an hon. Member wishes to join in a debate on any topic, he must let the Chair know.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. John Fraser: It has been said that there was an old woman who lived in a shoe and had so many children that neither she nor anyone else who wanted to help her knew what to do. That is no longer the case. Certainly it cannot be said of those who wish to assist families who are in need of family planning. However, it remains true that many women today risk unwanted pregnancies as a result of ignorance.
It would be sterile to discuss the effect of the use of family planning devices. I intend to confine myself to those parts of the Supplementary Estimates which deal with increased expenditure on family planning services and the extent to which money will be used as a result of the increased interest which the Government have shown in this policy by providing funds for private individuals, voluntary bodies, local authorities, hospitals and others who offer family planning services to those who need them and who attempt to overcome the resistance to or non-use of family planning services by reason of ignorance or misunderstanding or financial or social circumstances.
In this kind of debate, I am not sure how correct it is to discuss the fnancial priority to be given to this kind of work within the National Health Service and its associated services—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can talk about the finance so far as it concerns the Supplementary Estimate which makes provision for what he is discussing.
Mr. Fraser: Perhaps I might put it this way. I believe that the extra money being provided as a result of the increased interest in the use of family planning services by the National Health Service is well justified. It deserves additional priority, and extra money is merited.
Expenditure on family planning services is not a waste of money. In the long run it is not even an additional expenditure. For example, there are
674
those local authorities which work with the Government under the provisions of the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, 1967, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). There are others which so far have failed to introduce family planning services on the ground that they are short of money or, as is hinted in the annual report of the Department of Health and Social Security, because of financial stringency. People who think that they are saving this money are as foolish as the man who says that he cannot afford to pay an insurance premium because he is already spending his money paying up accident damage. In the long run there is a great deal to be saved by means of extra expenditure on family planning.
To give one example of the sort of saving which can be made, my own borough spends £17,000 on family planning in a year, yet it probably spends over £100,000 a year to deal with children who are in care and the other social consequences of unplanned families and unwanted children.
To give another example, perhaps I might quote from an article in Local Government Finance by Mr. Caspar Brook. It ends:
"Even if we ignore the special costs of coping with delinquents, criminals and other misfits, the bill paid by tax and rate payers for unwanted children now amounts to £100 million a year. This is certainly a gross under-estimate; even so it is no less than four times greater than the £25 million a year it would cost to give protection to all those women who do not want babies in that year. The long-term saving in terms of money must now be irrefutable. Each pound of public money invested in family planning saves at least four for other purposes. What better investment can councillors and others who can take the decisions to provide family planning services make on behalf of the rate payers they represent."
Of course, this is done in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Security.
I am glad that there has been some increase in expenditure, and I hope that my hon. Friend will assure us that financial reasons will not be advanced for not going even further with the policy which has been pursued so far.
There are a number of points which I want to put to my hon. Friend. To show where the money goes, perhaps I

675
ought to describe the present family planning arrangements. They can be local health authority family planning services. So far, I understand that about 44 authorities out of over 200 operate unrestricted family planning services. Many of them do it by delegating their duties and employing the Family Planning Association or another agency to shoulder the work for them. Then there are the Family Planning Association and the other voluntary services, all of them run in conjunction with hospitals. At King's College Hospital, in my constituency, members of the Family Planning Association interview women and provide them with pamphlets on birth control so that they can talk to their husbands about it. That is sometimes important. They follow up with domiciliary visits. Generally, they find that co-operation with the hospitals is good and that the knowledge of birth control is spread effectively to far more people than could have been dreamed of before.
The real heart of the problem is borne out by a recent article in the supplement to The Sunday Times which published a number of league tables. They showed that 57 per cent. of married people use birth control. Of those who do not, something like 40 per cent. are in what are known as the lower social classes, where there is some difficulty about getting birth control to those in need of it. From figures supplied by the Family Planning Association, only a small percentage of those using the association's facilities come in what might be called the lower social classes. That means that family planning techniques and advice are not getting through to those who really need them. As is so often true in life, those who are least equipped to deal with difficutl social problems are often those with the most difficult problems.
I am strongly in favour of the provision of these services to people who need them so badly, but I want to ask a number of questions about the way in which the money is used. To what extent is the money going by way of additional grant to local authorities for making use of their powers under the 1967 Act? To what extent is that increased expenditure by local author-ties being used to provide domiciliary services?
676
Will any part of the expenditure be used to educate not only those who need birth control but the councillors who have to put schemes into effect? It is not so much a matter of teaching councillor the facts of life; it is a matter of teaching them the facts of other people's lives. Has the Minister in mind the holding of educational conferences for councillors and others concerned with the implementation of birth control advice with a view to educating them to the advantages which can be gained from it?
Perhaps my hon. Friend might take as a text a statement from the pamphlet issued by the Health Education Council. Dealing with health education generally, it says:
"The Council does not accept the widely held assumption that if people are informed by pamphlets, posters, press articles, broadcast programmes, etc., of the dangers to their health of doing this or of not doing that, they will automatically respond and take the necessary … action."
Mr. David Steel: If the hon. Member is encouraging the Minister to hold such meetings, would he also recommend to him that among the invitees should be the Secretary of State for Scotland. who so far has not implemented the legislation at all north of the Border?
Mr. Fraser: Yes. I said it might go beyond councillors, and certainly there is a vote here for increase in support in Scotland. I was hoping there would be an announcement that some part of that money would be used to provide those facilities in Scotland which are at present available and can be provided in England.
I hope that part of this increased expenditure will be spent on educating those who are bringing it into effect—not only councillors but the medical profession, midwifery and other services—and who have direct contact with those who are in need of family planning advice.
I ask next to what extent the increased expenditure will be disbursed. Regarding advertisements, despite what the Health Education Council said, one has to have the advertisement, the information, and the follow-up. To what extent will the increased expenditure be spent on posters—one of which is well known and

677
appeared in the newspapers recently, the pregnant man? Is any part of the money for increased expenditure to be spent upon television advertising of birth control? I do not mean advertising in the commercial sense, but responsible public announcement-type of advertisements which can bring home to people the facilities which are available for them and which are being expanded by the Department of Health and Social Security.
Recently there was a very successful and well produced programme by the B.B.C. on domiciliary birth control services, something which would have been of immense interest to people who need family planning advice, and which would have opened the eyes of a good many people. It showed that someone could visit a very difficult case, perhaps a woman who has several children and cannot find her way to the family planning clinic. Unfortunately, that programme was after midnight. I hope it is not trite to suggest that birth control programmes after midnight may be too late. What I am therefore suggesting is that the sort of response and sympathetic approach that was pursued in that programme by the B.B.C. should be adopted and should be distilled and used in public service-type announcements. Perhaps "advertisement" is the wrong word here; it gives the wrong impression. Is any part of the increased expenditure to be used for this purpose?
I want to ask whether, under the increased administration expenses for health executive councils and for hospitals, money will be devoted directly by way of grant to the Family Planning Association. At the moment, out of their income of £3 million, about 12 per cent. comes from local authority contributions, and a very small percentage comes for pure training facilities for people working in National Health Service hospitals. How much additional expenditure will go into, for instance, reimbursing those who attend hospital for the Family Planning Association and pass pamphlets and literature on to the patients, who follow up with home visits, and having families of their own, talk to them like people? They also talk to people of like mind in the same neighbourhood, and are able to put their minds at rest and answer queries which they might have about
678
family planning. Are direct grants to be paid to those people? They need only be modest; perhaps only to reimburse them for their expense, or the cost of having their own children looked after during the morning while they do this work at the hospital. Is any part of the money to be paid to them by way of direct grant or individual payments to Family Planning Association workers?
I want to ask next whether any part of the administrative increase in the National Health Service will be for the production of pamphlets and literature which can be made available for G.P.s. The general practitioner has a very important part to play in the provision of family planning advice. But anybody who spends any time at all in the surgery of a National Health Service doctor will realise that he is over-burdened and he has not always got the time, not only to talk to the woman who may come for help and advice, but to talk to her husband as well. Is money to be made available for the production of literature and pamphlets and other work on family planning for doctors? Also, does any part of the increased expenditure on drugs anticipate the fact that the Minister will now allow doctors to prescribe, both in medical and non-medical cases, birth control advice and drugs for women who go to their family doctor?
As I understand the position, until recently it could only be prescribed on medical grounds. That is an artificial distinction. It is very difficult; one would need to go into somebody's house, if they are in poor housing conditions, and make a very thorough investigation indeed, to distinguish whether ultimately it was a medical, a social or a purely nonmedical need. I am wondering whether the increase has been caused by the fact that doctors will be allowed a much wider discretion to prescribe in non-medical cases.
I want to ask also whether any part of the increased expenditure is in anticipation of the proposals in the Green Paper on the reorganisation of the National Health Service, where it is proposed that area health authorities should take over the functions now performed by local authorities—or now not performed by local authorities—in providing family planning advice and services. Only a little over 40 of 204 local health authorities provide unrestricted facilities, and

679
perhaps the Minister has it in mind that in those areas where the services are not provided by local authorities the National Health Service, in anticipation of decisions on the Green Paper, would take over the job directly, and institute the facilities or arrange them in conjunction with the Family Planning Association.
I suppose that in asking for these things to be done one is pushing at an open door. It is very pleasant to be able to say that. There is no hint or word of criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister, nor of the Secretary of State for Social Services, who, in a recent address to a Select Committee—I have forgotten which one for the moment—advocated free contraception on the National Health Service. Not everybody wants free contraceptive advice. If one looks at the people in the higher social classes—again I hate that expression—who now use birth control and can afford to pay for it—and in my opinion will continue to pay—and one takes that into account, the expenditure is probably very much less than the figures put forward by the Secretary of State for Social Services or by members of the Family Planning Association. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on the things I have asked.
In conclusion, there is a great deal of misunderstanding when one reads statements by the Minister in support of increased expenditure, and articles in newspapers and journals by members of the Family Planning Association, and other advocates of the use of family planning. There is a misunderstanding that one is trying to prevent people having children at all. It is none of our business, none of the business of the Ministry, local authorities, or anybody else, to tell people that they must use family planning. All the Ministry and anybody else is advocating is that the free choice should be made available and knowledge about the free choice should be provided. After that, it is up to the people to choose.
It is often a question not of getting rid of unwanted children but, as the phrase denotes, of planning properly and preventing the kind of situation which I come across so often as a constituency Member, of people moving into a small flat which is adequate for a married couple, slightly inadequate when they have one
680
child and grossly inadequate when they have three children. Such people can fall below the threshold of hope of obtaining better accommodation. It is a question not of getting rid of unwanted children but of deferring the time when the children can properly come, so that they have a happy and full upbringing.
Therefore, I hope that this misunderstanding will not persist, and that the Minister will not only be able to assure us on the things I have asked about but also give us some information about his plans for expanding family planning services and the encouragement of statutory and voluntary services.
6.51 p.m.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) is to be congratulated first on taking the initiative in raising this matter and secondly on the able way in which he has spoken. He said so many of the things that I wanted to say that I have a certain reluctance to speak. Nevertheless, I should like to reinforce some of his points.
I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the laggardly and disgraceful attitude of local authorities, so many of which have refused to exercise the powers which they were granted under the Act brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). I am not exaggerating when I say that perhaps no more than 25 per cent. of the local health authorities of England and Wales have provided a fully comprehensive and adequate family planning service.
Of course, north of the Border, as my hon. Friend knows, the services, outside Aberdeen and one or two other cities, are extremely limited. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is time that the Under-Secretary of State had earnest and pressing conversations with his opposite number in the Scottish Office and suggested to him that the time was right to bring in an order allowing local authorities in Scotland to implement the Act.
We are dealing here with a very serious problem. I know very well that my hon. Friend is aware of it, but I wonder just how many members of the general public and how many hon. Members are aware of it. Of course, it is difficult to

681
estimate precisely, but about 200,000 unwanted children are born each year. That is the scale of the problem and the tragedy. We can tabulate the more manifest aspects of this problem, in that we know how many children are taken into care.
In this context, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a document, which I am sure he knows very well. It is the report of Sir George Godber on the state of public health, in which he estimates that about 20,000 children are taken into care each year and says in paragraph 5.63 that these children are unwanted children. Given the data provided by my hon. Friend on the birth control practices of the English population, it is hardly surprising. About 38 per cent. of those people questioned in the very extensive survey by Mr. Geoffrey Gorer, reported in last Sunday's Sunday Times, practice no form of birth control at all. That seems incredible in this day and age, but those are the figures and the number of unwanted pregnancies which I quoted shows that that figure is by no means an exaggeration.
I reinforce my hon. Friend's point, that we should spend far more on propaganda. In this context, I welcome the admirable poster produced by the Council for Health Education, drawing attention to the responsibility of men for birth control. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that far too many men regard the responsibility for birth control as one for women alone. I should like to see the message of this poster brought home to more and more men.
But the budget of that body is very limited. This message will not get on television, as it should. In The Guardian last Saturday was a comment by an advertising executive, a Mr. John Hobson, who I understand is this year's chairman of the Advertising Association. He drew the nation's attention to the derisory sums which we were spending to counter the £5 million-plus which the tobacco industry spends to encourage people to smoke—or, as I prefer to put it, to commit suicide. He went on to argue that an effective campaign of health education would cost at least £1 million.
The Under-Secretary cannot spend that kind of money, nor can the Council for
682
Health Education, but I hope that he will devote a percentage of the additional funds to be spent in this field on propaganda of this kind. It is expensive. The Family Planning Association has been advised by its technical adviser that a minimal campaign would cost £99,000—a large sum of money. I hope that, when my hon. Friend talks to the Treasury, he will draw to their attention the opinions of advertisers and of the F.P.A. and will press the point that limited sums spent on advertising are quite ineffective.
I should like the message of family planning brought home to people through the medium of television. The I.T.A. at one time had a very restrictive attitude to family planning. The subject was not thought appropriate for appearance on the media—
Mr. John Fraser: But sex is.
Mr. Jackson: Yes, sex is, but not family planning.
But the I.T.A. has changed its view, I am glad to say, and is prepared to take discreet advertisements drawing attention to this need. But what can the Council for Health Education do? It can only, through the Central Office of Information, produce "fillers" which will take their place in the 100 other fillers which appear in the public service section of commercial television. These, I am informed, appear on Saturday at 12.30 p.m., 1.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. That is hardly popular viewing time, and even though the C.O.I. may give priority to that form of advertising, it is obviously ineffective.
I should like to deal with the need for educating the young in the techniques of family planning. We all recognise the trend. People are marrying far younger. Perhaps it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend to consult his opposite number in the Department of Education and Science, with a view to considering the possibilities of giving family planning information education—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the six-months Amendment which appears on the Order Paper, but its non-selection will not affect the debate in any way.
Mr. John Wells: My reason for speaking on the Bill tonight is to try to explain the Bill and some of its provisions. I think I should, perhaps, explain first why some of my hon. Friends and I put down the six-months Amendment. It was simply that we felt it essential that the Bill should be debated in the House and not go through on the nod. This is the first British Waterways Bill that we have had under the new Act, and we feel that it is important that it should be considered in the House. My reason for seeking to explain the Bill and tell the House why, in my view, we should give it a Second Reading is that the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and I are the two political members, if I may call us that, of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council, and, for reasons best known to the two of us, it seems to have fallen to me to do this.
This is a general purposes Bill seeking powers to make provision for regulating the use of pleasure boats and houseboats on certain of the inland waterways which are controlled by the British Waterways Board, and to prescribe charges, and for various small, miscellaneous purposes. Until tonight the rivers the Bill will create charges upon have, in the jargon of the Inland Waterways community, been called free rivers, a name which, I think. will disappear after tonight, but it is important to say at this early stage that virtually no canals except for the Foss dyke are involved in the main provisions of the Bill. The Grantham Canal, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend here, is among the minor provisions of the Bill—but the main provisions of the Bill deal entirely with the free rivers.
The board considers that the increase of leisure activity resulting in the use of pleasure craft on these navigable free rivers such as the Severn and Trent whose
684
navigation it controls necessitates making greater the possibilities, far from those who use them, of contributions to the works and services which the board provides on its rivers, and to achieve this the board wants to introduce a registration scheme for pleasure craft navigating on such rivers. It has taken as the essence of its scheme schemes already in existence under the Thames Conservancy since the Act of 1966 and on the Norfolk Broads since the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Act, 1963.
The board has insufficient powers to introduce such a scheme without Parliamentary approval. None of the ancient public rights of navigation existing on the board's free rivers was affected by nationalisation or the subsequent Section 105 of the Transport Act, 1968, which abolished, in so far as they may have existed, the free rights of navigation on its artificial canals.
The proposed registration scheme contained in the Bill would enable the board to raise from users of pleasure craft income which would not otherwise be available to it. It is estimated that, when fully effective, the scheme will augment the board's revenue by a sum of about £20,000 per year. I am well aware that this is a very small sum, but we should realise that the ependiture by the board on the so-called free rivers in the current year is likely to be £623,000. Commercial craft will pay about £200,000 towards that £623,000. There will be a deficit at the present time of about £319,000, which would fall upon the general body of taxpayers, and it is, therefore, not unreasonable that the people who use the rivers should pay something towards them.
It has been asked: are the users really going to get any value for money? This is a most important point. The Chairman of the British Waterways Board very courteously came along to a meeting held in a Committee Room here earlier in the month and gave answers to various questions by hon. Members of this House and noble Lords from another place, but the answers which he gave seemed to some to suggest that there would be but rather slender value for money. It is reasonable to point out that there must be increased patrolling, increased sanitary facilities, increased water facilities—fresh drinking-water facilities, I mean—and increased

685
lock facilities. I mean not that there will be more locks but that the locks should be open for longer hours. These are extra services for which people will be asked to pay, and it seems to us—to me, anyway—that this is not unreasonable.
The proposed scheme is also of importance to the board in that it will enable the board to achieve a measure of control and management of craft using its waterways, as the craft will then be identifiable. The recent increase in recreational use is making it very difficult for the board to control speed limits, particularly in areas where water-skiing is carried on. Genterally speaking, the speed limits are quite low. I understand that it is quite impossible to get up on one's skis unless one is doing 12 miles an hour as an absolute minimum, and even then it is extremely difficult. Therefore, it is essential that the board should have some degree of control, because there are so many diverse bodies of people using the canals and rivers, and, also, the interests of anglers and houseboat owners must be considered. Therefore it is not unreasonable that the board should decree that certain areas should be available for water-skiing and other areas should not.
There was a wide consultation with interested parties before the Bill was proposed. The board has been considering it for some five years. In May of last year a consultation memorandum was sent to nearly 100 local authorities and river authorities and 166 pleasure craft operators, clubs, associations, boatyards, and other people. There were many public meetings or semi-public meetings help up and down the country, and at those meetings representatives of those bodies could make their representations. Unfortunately, as is, perhaps, inevitable in a consultation like this, one or two small clubs were omitted, but the board has gone out of its way to try to be helpful to those who were worried.
There are certain bodies which are still very worried. The Boy Scouts and Girl Guides seem to think that the charges will be exorbitant, but I think it is only fair to point out that the board has made the point to the objectors about the charges that the charges set out in the Bill are maximum charges and that concessionary rates will, of course, be negotiated with youth clubs or any body
686
such as the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides, and the board is very willing to meet these people.
There are two other major petitioners against the Bill, the Association of River Authorities and the Royal Yachting Association. One of the main points of the river authorities is that they consider that the charges are fiscal in character and must fetter the public right of navigation and offer no tangible benefits in return for registration. I think I have already dealt with the tangible benefits, which, I freely admit, are not very great, but neither are the charges very great, nor is the revenue going to be very great, and if there is to be speed control and patrolling, then registration must come about and there must be some charge.
The Association of River Authorities also called attention to the need for the control of pollution, but we must bear in mind that under the 1951 and 1961 Acts the river authorities are the antipollution authorities. I therefore hope that they will put their house in order and will realise that the board is doing what it can by providing new sanitary facilities along the banks and will continue to improve facilities. I am told that the Association of River Authorities has suggested that the board might pay something to it out of the charges. If that were done, there would be nothing left for the board.
The petition of the Royal Yachting Association alleges that the board's proposals would weaken the rights hitherto enjoyed. It states that the river waterways have hitherto been open as free rivers as of right to people desiring to navigate upon their lawful occasions. That may be true. This is where we come up against the houseboat provisions of the Bill. The unlawful or undersirable mooring of houseboats has caused considerable risks to navigation and danger to passing craft of all sorts, particularly commercial craft, the owners of which are still paying the lion's share of the expenditure on the so-called free rivers. If the Royal Yachting Association wants open navigation, there must he some degree of control of the moorings.
It may not be realised by people outside that, generally speaking, the riparian rights in artificial canals are vested in the British Waterways Board, whereas on these so-called free rivers the common

687
law riparian owners still have their rights and the British Waterways Board does not own the bank. Therefore, many houseboat moorers are trespassing on the rights of the riparian owners. It is extremely difficult for the British Waterways Board to take action in the county court against people committing a trespass against somebody else. Therefore, the board wants these powers to enable it to remove sunken and dangerous houseboats, and it wants powers of registration.
The Royal Yachting Association complains that the board's registration proposals conflict with the requirements of registration under the Merchant Shipping Acts. This has to do with marine mortgages. I must here declare an interest as a director of a company which issues marine mortgages. It would seem to me from personal assurances that I have had from the board that this is not a good point and that for purposes of marine mortgages the Merchant Shipping Acts will still apply and that registration is completely irrelevant.
Part I of the Bill is obviously preliminary. Part II deals with pleasure boats. Clause 4 in Part II applies the scheme to the main navigable channel of each of the river waterways specified in the Schedule. I hope that I have made clear that these are the so-called free rivers and, therefore, there should be no misunderstanding about the provisions applying to canals. Clause 5 deals with restrictions on pleasure boats, which must be sensible if we are to have registration and control. Clause 6 deals with registration.
Clause 7 sets out the maximum charges—and I underline the word "maximum" to give comfort to the Boy Scouts and anybody else concerned. Clause 8 offers short-period registration. It may seem high to some, but it is desirable. Clause 9 deals with marking. Clause 10 gives the board power to sub-divide the classification. Clause 11 deals with the production of pleasure boat certificates. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) was anxious about this point at the private meeting which we had with the chairman of the board. I understand that he is now more satisfied about the production of certificates and that this requirement is not unreasonable.
688
Part III deals with houseboats. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has fought a doughty battle on Clause 12, and I leave it to him to explain his victory over the board. Part V deals with the miscellaneous and general provisions. I will leave my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) to deal with that matter.
The board is perfectly fair in asking the House for these powers. Some who felt that the powers appeared at first sight to be a bit draconian have been slightly reassured by being told that most of the Clauses were taken as model clauses, as it were, from the Thames Conservancy legislation. My noble Friend, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, pointed out to me that the Thames Conservancy had been operating for many years and gave very good value for the many facilities it offered. It appears from the private assurances which we have had from the chairman of the board that it will seek to improve its facilities year by year.
For the boating community, the most important first step forward is that the locks will be open longer than at the weekend. I have referred to the block bookings and the concessionary rights for boating clubs. For the anglers, who are a most important section of inland waterway users, the fact that, as they hope, speed will at last be controlled should be a great boon to them. The walking public who use the towpath and the bulk of the taxpayers who will foot the major part of the bill will know that there will be more patrols about, which will make the towpath a safer and pleasanter place to walk along.
I hope that hon. Members will support the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: This is a non-party debate. It will help the Chair to ensure a balanced debate if those who are opposed to the Bill will let the Chair know. We have five or six debates ahead of us tonight. Reasonably brief speeches will help.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Carol Johnson:I am particularly glad to follow in the debate the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). As he pointed out, he and I have laboured together for

689
many years in the cause of the country's waterways and we have perhaps played a small part in awakening public interest in them and encouraging their full use for amenity purposes.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House share this interest. Those who served, as I did, on the Transport Bill in 1962 must have felt considerable satisfaction at the way in which the British Waterways Board has carried out the statutory obligations which were then imposed on it. Particular tribute should he paid to its present chairman, Sir Frank Price, for his energy and enthusiasm and, as the hon. Member for Maidstone said, for his readiness to meet in the House or outside groups of people interested in waterway affairs and to discuss a common interest with them. The broad has a very good public relations record.
I believe that this is the first Measure promoted by the board which will have a Second Reading. As it is a general powers Bill, it affords an opportunity for interested hon. Members to raise matters of general interest about the administration of the waterways. I am sure that the board would welcome any constructive criticisms about its activities. I do not want to speak at length or in detail about the Bill because it has been so fully explained and justified by the hon. Member for Maidstone. I merely want to underline one or two of the points which he made.
It seems clear that the establishment of a registration scheme for pleasure craft on the rivers and waterways and for houseboats wherever they may be has been proved necessary by the Board's experience and that this should not long be delayed. The Bill will enable the board for the first time to impose conditions on the suitability of craft as houseboats and also to deal with those houseboats moored in places which present a hazard to other craft. Without this new provision, it seems that the board will not have an adequate form of control and will not be able to provide efficient management. Nor can it collect the necessary charges which it already has the power to collect but which, for practical reasons, it finds it difficult to collect.
The question of charges has caused some concern but, as the hon. Gentleman said, the charges set out in Schedule 3
690
are maxima, and he and I and others concerned have received firm assurances that special cases, particularly voluntary associations and bodies, will be met with concessionary fares. In any event, I think that the small additional income which will arise as a result of the Bill will go towards meeting the cost of improving the facilities and amenities of the waterways, particularly in the way of extending patrolling and the lengthening of the hours in which locks are open.
The board cannot be said to have brought the Bill forward in great haste or without careful forethought. It has been cogitating its contents for many years. But the Measure has become more and more urgent because of the enormous increase in the use of waterways by pleasure craft, which has shown that there is need for improved forms of control and management. Unless the board is granted these new powers, there is a risk of the situation worsening quite intolerably in the next few years, particularly in respect of pollution—and pollution is a matter which is attracting considerable public attention.
The House will be reassured to know that there is nothing very new or revolutionary in the contents of the Bill, for it is based in the main on the registration scheme at present in existence on the River Thames. I believe the Bill to be in the broad public interest. I understand that it has the complete support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. J. B. Godber: It is some years since I had the pleasure of addressing the House about a private Bill. I want to intervene briefly, first, to give my general support to the purposes of the Bill and, secondly, to deal with a specific constituency issue which arises on Clause 19.
I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), for he conjured up in my mind interesting pictures, particularly when he talked about water skiers, who seem to be getting entangled with anglers, landing on top of houseboats. He made clear the need for some scheme whereby the activities of these mutually antagonistic sports could be practised in separate parts

691
of our rivers. I have spent many hours of enjoyment on our rivers, and I hope that the Bill will assist those who wish to continue so to engage in very healthy and enjoyable outdoor activities.
In Schedule 1, there is reference to the River Witham, in which I have a particular interest because it almost completely encircles my constituency. Arising to the south, it runs through Lincoln and down the eastern side of my constituency. I see a great deal of the activities on the river, and I hope that the provisions relating to it will be helpful to my constituents and to those who come from far and wide to enjoy the fishing in the stretch covered by the Schedule. But that is not the aspect I wish particularly to bring to the attention of the House.
I want to refer to Clause 19, which is the first Clause in Part V of the Bill. It refers specifically to the Grantham Canal and the Nottingham Canal and to the maintenance of a depth of water of at least 2 feet in those canals. When the Bill first appeared, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and I were approached by constituents concerned that, if the Clause went through as it was, it would lead to the draining of large portions of these two canals, with detrimental effect to our constituents. My hon. Friend was particularly concerned about some of the farming aspects of his constituency bordering the canal. I had the same problem, but I also received a large number of representations from amenity organisations in my constituency, including the Grantham Angling Association, the Grantham Rambling Association, the Lincolnshire Trust for Nature Conservation and a whole list of others.
In particular, it was the anglers, the conservationists and those who wish to make use of the Grantham Canal for amenity purposes generally, including the Grantham Canal Society, who played a prominent part in seeking to ensure that the provision for a depth of 2 feet of water was retained. The Lincolnshire River Authority also expressed concern, as did a large industrial organisation which is at present entitled to draw water from the canal. A large body of opinion in my constituency was concerned at the possible results of Clause 19 if it were allowed to go forward in the form it then took.
692
As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton had discussions with the British Waterways Board, which agreed to delete the reference to the Grantham Canal in this regard. Subsequently—although perhaps it is not strictly true to say "subsequently", because it was almost at the same time—I received representations from Grantham Town Council, which pointed out to me that there was a stretch of the canal right at the end which should properly be closed. This view was reinforced by another industrial firm. I have had discussions with the board about this in the last week or two, and I want to pay public tribute to its ready response in seeking to understand the needs of one's constituents and to the immense trouble it has taken to help. I am grateful to it.
As a result, we now have the situation in which undertakings have been given by the board that all the different interests concerned can be satisfied in one way or another. The amenity organisations will be helped by the undertaking to maintain the depth of water over the greater part of the canal; following an understanding I reached with the Board this week, it has given an assurance that it will include in the Bill a specific provision to enable a short section at the end of the canal, which has become derelict and an eyesore and could be a danger to children, to be closed.
In a letter which I received from the board yesterday I was assured that it could see no difficulty in making such a provision, so amending Clause 19 in a way which will enable this section of between a quarter and half-a-mile to be closed and drained and, therefore, utilised for amenity purposes of another kind, thus ensuring that any danger which could exist now on a length of the canal which is not properly maintained can be removed.
It seems, therefore, that, as a result of the ready co-operation of the Board, the end section of the canal can be closed, drained and filled in and made of use in other ways, whereas the rest of the canal, despite the provisions written into Clause 19, will be maintained and will be of help to the various amenity bodies, the industrial firm to which I have referred, and to the farmers.
This is a happy compromise. I commend the British Waterways Board for

693
the help which it has given in finding a solution which benefits all the interests concerned. I wish publicly to pay my tribute to it, and I know that all my constituents will be grateful that a solution of this kind has been found.
I hope that the Bill will go forward rapidly and will complete its various stages so that it can be utilised for the various wider issues to which attention has been drawn, as well as looking after the constituents of Grantham, which I am sure it will be realised is probably the most important constituency in the United Kingdom.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: The Bill does have virtues. The British Waterways Board must have powers, and pleasure boats must pay their whack. Indeed, the proposed charges for powered craft are extremely moderate. Moreover, the Bill actually recognises houseboats. Houseboat dwellers also have virtues. I think the House will agree that in Amsterdam, for example, houseboats are among the best things in the city, as they used to be on the River Thames.
But the Bill takes a high autocratic line. It creates eight new offences, punishable by fines, and multiplies by five times the maximum fine which the Board can already impose under its existing byelaws. I believe that the objects of the Bill could be achieved in a less savage manner. Therefore, I hope that the Select Committee will examine this aspect carefully.
Inland waterways have always been places of freedom, privacy and pleasure, but I wonder what they will be after the passing of the Bill. The Bill is concerned with the licensing, registering and, indeed, the numbering of pleasure. After reading this Bill about boating, I am reminded of Sir Noel Coward's song about the post-war Labour Government:
"When they've cleared all the decks
There will only be sex
That they can't nationalise."
I should like to illustrate this with a few points of detail from the Bill.
First, dealing with pleasure boats, there is to be a fine for having a boat on a waterway without a licence. It seems to me that the presence of a boat on a
694
waterway without a licence is merely trespass and could be dealt with in the same way that other owners of land deal with people who leave unwelcome objects on their land.
There is a process for recovering unpaid licence fees "summarily as a civil debt". Surely it would be more sensible to proceed as local authorities do when licensing cars. Unless they receive the money they do not issue the licence. This provision is repeated three times in the Bill.
The master of a pleasure boat must produce his pleasure boat certificate within three days of being asked for it. That is reasonable in the case of a car. But the master of a pleasure boat may be many miles from his home. Happily, the pace at which it is possible to travel on a waterway is infinitely less than on a road. For example, it is possible to reach Oxford from Aylesbury comfortably in a week. Therefore, a man who may have set out in his boat without his licence may be obliged to abandon his holiday. If he does not provide the certificate within three days he is liable to a fine of 40s.
Registration of a pleasure boat for less than a year is at the discretion of the board. I cannot see why this should be so. No such discretion is given to local authorities concerning the licensing of a car for a short period.
No provision is made for a reduced charge, or for a free passage—or even the right for passage at all unless one goes through the whole rigmarole of registering a boat and paying a year's licence fee—for boats in transit from one un-nationalised waterway to another—for example, from the Thames to the river Avon via the Grand Union Canal and the Stratford Canal or from the Nene to the Bridgwater Canal. I think that the Thames Conservancy recognises this principle of passage from one waterway to another over its water.
In my view, there is an insufficient differential between the charges for private pleasure boats and for hire pleasure boats. If a private individual wants to license his ordinary boat of, say, 20 feet length for a year, it will cost £6, or £3 if he does it for only a month, whereas a hire boat licence, which will be in use for an immensely greater part of a year,

695
costs only £1, one-sixth, more to license for the whole year.
My last point about pleasure boats concerns Clause 9, which states:
"Every powered pleasure boat … shall have its name or number conspicuously painted … in letters of such colour, character and size and upon a ground of such colour as the Board may prescribe upon each side of the bow and also upon the stern."
This raises a considerable point of taste. Times may have changed, but in the past British Waterways, under the Transport Commission, fastened on a particularly noxious combination of colours—a most unpleasant yellow and a most unpleasant blue. The board is now to have the power to have large numbers and, indeed, names painted in any way that it chooses to dictate on all boats. I do not think that this is entirely bad. For example, trawlers gain considerable character from having numbers painted on them. Many boats on the waterways have no character of any kind, except a faintly disagreeable one, and they would be greatly improved by having names and numbers painted on them. But I believe that this Clause could be misused in a way which none of us would like. And every time an individual uses his boat improperly numbered he is liable to a fine of £20.
I turn to houseboats. We are dealing here with people's homes so that we must address ourselves seriously to this matter. First, the board can charge a houseboat owner what it likes, that is to say there is to be no form of rent control for this type of home. Furthermore, there is no security of tenure, even when houseboat owners have local authority approval. The Bill merely says that the board "may" issue a certificate. If a houseboat owner sells his boat, the board will have power to refuse to grant a licence to the buyer, and this will introduce a grave risk of abuse. I suggest that the licence should be attached in some way to the boat, its position and condition, and not to the individual who happens to own it.
One must give notice of the sale of a houseboat "forthwith" or one is liable to a fine of £10. I do not see why this fine is necessary, for there is a Clause which says that until the board does receive notice the original owner is deemed
696
still to be the owner; and all that the board is concerned with is having some person to go for if some aspect of the houseboat displeases it.
The board will have power to serve a notice to remove or demolish a houseboat simply by nailing the notice on to the houseboat specifying the period within which it must be removed; and if it is not removed within that period, the board may demolish it or sell it, and charge the owner for doing so. However, in the Bill the period of notice which must be served is not specified, and this may give rise to abuse. It is not reasonable to expect the owner of a houseboat to be continually popping back and forth to ensure that a notice has not been nailed to his vessel; and there is also a fine of £20 for failing to observe the notice.
The houseboat dweller must produce his certificate, his licence to exist, on demand and there is a fine of £2 per offence for not doing so. I thought that we had got away from this sort of thing in Britain. He must keep the certificate on his person, like an identity card. He may, for example, call at a waterways office to transact other business and, while there, he may be asked for his certificate. If he does not have it with him, he is liable to be fined. This provision should be tempered.
I come to a general point which applies to both pleasure boats and houseboats, under Clause 17. Anybody can inspect the register of all boats; anyone can, having seen a boat, find out to whom it belongs. I am not sure that this is a good plan. The community has decided not to accept this principle in respect of motor cars. I am inclined to think that it should not accept it in respect of boats.
Part V of the Bill is different from the rest and should be carefully considered by the Select Committee. Clause 20 cancels any rights a former owner had to canal land when it ceases to be used as a canal. This is the wrong time, in the present climate of opinion, to alter the law relating to the rights of former owners whose land was acquired by Act of Parliament for a purpose which has now ceased.
Without wishing to trot out the much-worn name of Crichel Down, it seems that this is a provision of the same class. We should not in any case, take people's

697
rights and property away in a Bill the Preamble to which states that it is a Measure for regulating pleasure boats. It is true that, in its recently circulated statement about the Bill, the board said that it was for "general purposes" but, as I say, the Preamble says that it is for regulating pleasure boats.
Further, I understand that some time ago the board undertook not to seek reductions in public amenity by the Private Bill procedure. This is, therefore, an important point which was nought to do with waterways but with the rights of the citizen. This is not the right sort of matter to include in a Bill relating to another purpose, and the Select Committee should consider the matter.
While regulating pleasure boats and houseboats, the Bill does nothing about effluent and pollution. At present if one drops so much as a tea leaf into the River Thames one is in trouble. However, on the Oxford Canal, which for part of its length passes through the River Windrush, which flows into the Thames, one can throw overboard anything one pleases. If pleasure boats and houseboats are to be regulated this subject should be dealt with at the same time.
While I would not wish to oppose the Bill at this stage, these are points which I hope the Select Committee will consider.
7.45 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): I was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminister (Mr. John Smith) because at the outset he quoted Noel Coward's remark about the non-nationalisation possibilities of sex. The hon. Gentleman said that he would give us an illustration of that. In the event, however, he did not do so, to the disappointment of the whole House, especially on a Thursday evening.
It may assist the House if I intervene at this stage to offer some general guidance about the Bill, which is, of course, being promoted by the British Waterways Board with the formal consent of my right hon. Friend.
I propose to deal only with those aspects of the Bill which impinge on Government policy and, in particular, with those provisions which embody the
698
main purpose of the Bill, which is to empower the British Waterways Board to establish registration schemes for pleasure craft on the 250 miles of natural rivers for which the board is the navigation authority, and for houseboats on all the board's inland waterways in England and Wales.
The policy background against which these proposals should be seen is that of the new charter for the nationalised inland waterways proclaimed in the 1967 White Paper "British Waterways: Recreation and Amenity"—Cmnd. 3401 —for which the waterways provisions of the Transport Act, 1968, have established a statutory framework as a basis for the use of the Waterways Board's waterways, not only for commercial purposes, but also for amenity uses connected with cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes. These provisions include a requirement that the board should maintain its 1,400 miles of commercial and cruising waterways, including the natural rivers, to certain defined standards.
The Transport Act, 1962, empowers the board to make charges for its services and facilities and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions at it thinks fit. In the exercise of these powers, the board operates a licensing scheme for pleasure craft on its artificial waterways. On the river waterways, in the absence of such a scheme, the board finds it impracticable to charge the owners or users of pleasure craft for the services which it provides, unless such owners or users navigate their craft through locks controlled by the board.
Boat owners using only the considerable stretches of river between the locks may do so without making any payment notwithstanding that their enjoyment of the amenity depends on the maintenance of the navigation by the board. The board's estimates for 1970, as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) pointed out, show expenditure on the river waterways of £623,000, against which revenue from lock passes is expected to be £3,800. The revenue from freight-carrying commercial craft—estimated at £200,000—is declining, so that this year's deficit of £319,000 is likely to be exceeded in future years.
The proposed registration scheme, by enabling the board to raise from users

699
of pleasure craft income which otherwise would not be available to it, would do a little to counteract this trend. The board estimates that when fully effective the scheme is likely to bring in additional revenue of £15,000 to £20,000 a year.
Another very important factor is the growing need for effective regulation of the use of the rivers by pleasure craft, particularly by the enforcement of speed limits and other rules made in the common interest of all users. The board has made bye-laws covering such matters but has found it difficult to enforce them in the absence of a system for the registration and identification of pleasure craft.
One petitioner against the Bill has alleged that the board's proposals constitute a major derogation from the rights hitherto enjoyed by the users of the river waterways who have hitherto had to pay only for the use of the works which the board provides and through which craft pass in passage. But, as a I have said, the board possesses a statutory right to charge for the services and facilities which it provides and on the river waterways it provides other services besides the maintenance of locks. If it did not maintain the weirs holding up the pounds between the locks an adequate depth of water for navigational purposes could not be maintained. If it did not dredge the rivers between the weirs or in the tidal stretches shoals would form and navigation would become impossible. To make charges for such services is, in the board's opinion, impracticable except by means of the registration of pleasure craft. In adopting this solution it is following the precedent already established for the Norfolk Broads and the River Thames.
Some of the rowing, canoe and sailing clubs whom the board consulted before depositing the Bill have, I understand, opposed the scheme on the grounds that the charges were too high and the same point has been made by the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Associations in petitioning against the Bill. As the hon. Member for Maidstone said, the board is prepared to negotiate concessionary rates in special cases. I am sure that any representations made to the board as a result of the passing of this Bill will be considered.
The provisions in the Bill with regard to houseboats, which are to apply to all
700
the board's waterways, are designed primarily to deal with circumstances in which houseboats are moored so as to constitute a hazard to navigation or are allowed to become dilapidated and insanitary. The board's present remedy in trespass or for breach of byelaws, which exists only in respect of the artificial waterways, is unsatisfactory and often unenforceable.
I understand that an hon. Member—the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—has criticised these provisions as being too drastic in certain respects. It has been agreed in discussions between the board and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who, I am sure, will pay tribute to it, that the board will seek leave to introduce during the Committee stage an Amendment providing for any notice served by the board of removal or demolition of a houseboat to stipulate compliance with 28 days.
I do not think there is much that I can comment on the miscellaneous provisions. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) felt satisfied about the representations he has made. Like him, I pay tribute to the board and to Sir Frank Pice. The board is anxious at all times to consider any representations made by hon. Members about the canals and waterways problem.
I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. Cranky Onslow: I do not know what obscure penalty awaits me for having the extraordinary luck of catching Mr. Speaker's eye on three occasions in the last three days. I may have to pay for it afterwards, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Most instructive experiences happen by accident. I have now forgotten the reason why this Bill was brought to my attention, but I am glad that it was because, once it was drawn to my attention, I was struck by the provisions in Clause 12.
Having been inspired by those words, of which I do not think Draco would have been ashamed, I am able to confirm what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that a concession has been wrung from the promoters of the Bill. When I wrote to them asking if they could explain why the board needs power to

701
destroy property without advice to the owner and within time limits which are completely undefined, they wrote back:
"We are instructed that, if this met your objection, the Board, would be willing to include in the Bill amendments providing for twenty-eight days' notice to be given to the person having control of the houseboat and for the provisions of subsection (3) to be stated in or endorsed on every notice served in pursuance of subsection (2)."
It seems that this is approximately half the notice required in connection with an areoplane. As the Bill stood there was no need for any notice to be served. That was wholly objectionable and the Bill will be much improved when the Amendment has been made.
Others have been attracted by my opposition to make other representations. I will mention a couple of them. The first I can best state by reading a letter from the divisional representative of the Amateur Rowing Association in the East Midlands, who makes certain points which I think would come well into the category of a special case mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot put the point better than Mr. Brandon-Bravo does in his letter. He says:
"Unlike the Upper Thames, canoeists and racing craft in the Midlands do not require the use of the locks, and therefore the argument that registration gives free use of such locks has no validity.
Both sports are completely amateur and a levy on every boat would be an unreasonable burden.
These craft, unlike major powered craft, do not in any way cause erosion of banks or river beds.
Any regattas held on rivers where registration applies would create untold administrative difficulty for all visiting crews would have to take out registration for the day. In the case of canoeists who tend to practise wherever a stretch of water can be found, they may find themselves unwittingly breaking the law by not being registered for that particular stretch of water."
He ends his letter by saying—and this possibly is the most important point:
"It is essential under modern competitive conditions to conduct rowing from a small launch and if an arbitrary speed limit was imposed without the right to obtain special licences for rowing there would be a total undermining of all the work that has been done in recent years to bring British rowing up to Continental standards."
That has the makings of a strong special case which no doubt the Select Committee would like to consider.
Mr. Godber: May I recall for my hon. Friend the fact that in my youth we used to row faster than any launch?
Mr. Onslow: I do not know whether people row slower now or launches are faster than when my right hon. Friend was a young man. I do not even know when that was, but I was most interested in his intervention and I will not press him for details on the latter point. I have another letter here from a Mr. Chapman in Nottingham, who argues a powerful case for excluding the River Trent altogether from the provisions of the Bill. That seems to be something which could be put to the Select Committee for consideration.
I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), particularly as to Clause 20 and how objectionable it is in its present form. It seems a pity that a Private Bill comes before us without an Explanatory Memorandum. There is apparently a Consultation Memorandum sent to people thought likely to be interested, but the list of addresses is not necessarily complete.
All hon. Members know that the customary statement on behalf of the promoters usually arrives in one's mail on the day after the Bill has been debated, if it is debated at all. I should like to leave the thought with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of Ways and Means, that it might be possible to update our procedure in respect of Private Bills so that we knew a little more about what is in them and have a little more time to study them as well as more opportunity to oppose them, although I do not wish to entrench further on the time which the House would like to devote to other purposes by going any further into this matter.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Berry:I am sure that I carry the Parliamentary Secretary with me when I say that it is pleasant to move from the rather more turbulent waters which surround the ports of this country, metaphorically speaking, into the more tranquil waters further inland. I signed the Motion asking that this Bill be read a Second time in six months not for the purpose of delaying it, but, like

703
my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), so that we could discuss this important little Measure.
This is the first time that we have had a chance to discuss inland waterways as such since the 1968 Transport Act. At that time the parts of the Act dealing with this were already guillotined by the time they came to be discussed in Committee or on Report. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone for the way in which he has helpfully explained the Bill, and I would like to join with him and my other hon. Friends in paying a tribute to Sir Frank Price and his colleagues on the Inland Waterways Board for the work that they are doing on waterways development, not least in London, where they have done a great job in the Regents Park area.
There is nothing wrong with the principle established in the Bill of paying for the use of the water in these waterways as well as the locks. After all, it is the locks which help to keep the water up to the right level. It is only right that the principle should apply to the rivers and not to areas near the sea, where the water level is completely natural.
I am a litle concerned about the definition of "houseboat" in Clause 3. It seems to go rather a long way. The word "structure" particularly gives me cause for concern. Perhaps in Committee those who are concerned with it may wonder whether it does not go further than is intended. What we mean by a houseboat is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) said, a place where people live, and it should, I believe, have a more worthy description. I am also concerned about Clause 5 dealing with temporary visits by boats. I wonder whether there is a need for a licence for these. I would have thought that a certificate could have been waived for a short period. In Clause 6 we have this register, and I wonder where the books will be kept. It says that the board will:
"register such pleasure boats in a book to be kept by them at any office which they shall designate for that purpose …"
It is rather a vague phrase.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster in his remarks about the names of boats, dealt with in Clause 9. I agree that it seems a lot to say that these boats should
704
have their names displayed in three different places.
Mr. John Smith: And the numbers.
Mr. Berry: Yes, and the numbers. Subsection (3) of that Clause says that every tender should not only have the name but also the words "Tender to" as well as the number. Since many of these boats are extremely attractive, this could easily spoil the effect. The owners of such boats ought to be consulted as to the best way in which these details should be shown. I agree with my hon. Friend about the point he made concerning the three days.
Mr. John Wells: I do not think that my two hon. Friends are really on a very good point here, with the greatest respect to them. The three-day rule applies only to the pleasure boats, and if my hon. Friends look at Schedule 1 it will be seen that no one can really go very far in the boats to which these licences will apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) made the point about taking a week to go slowly from Aylesbury to Oxford, but the licences that we are discussing are for very much shorter routes.
Mr. Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. What happens if the master has been asked to send his certificate and two or three days later is asked again for it? He would not get it back and send it again within three days. Therefore, I feel that it is too short a time, although I appreciate my hon. Friend's point.
To return to the definition of houseboat, Clause 12 reinforces my argument that that definition is not quite what it might be. It is not quite clear in Clause 20 what happens if the waterway is abandoned. I would like to know whether the dry land vests in the riparian owners.
Turning to Clause 21, my hon. Friend referred to water-skiing, and I agree with him and what he said about the difficulty of getting up any speed. The British Transport Commission Act, 1954, from which this follows, speaks of "preventing" or "regulating" bathing in the canal and then there follows the sentence about prohibiting or controlling water skiing. There are two points here.

705
I am all for the encouragement of water skiing, which is a comparatively new sport in this country. Young people should be able to do it as much as possible. On the other hand, it has great dangers, and quite apart from consideration of harm and inconvenience to people in boats nearby, or living close by, it is essential that water skiing should be carried out in a place quite separate from any bathing areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone spoke about the Transport Act, 1968, having abolished the rights of navigation in so far as they existed. My interpretation of that Act was that those rights did exist, and I hope very much that the time will come when they will be restored. However, I do not want to go into that matter tonight. It is nice to have this debate now, because as we get near Easter summer cannot be all that far away, and as we think about the waterways that is a happy thought.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: This is an important Bill, and it is right that the House should have the opportunity for a Second Reading debate on it. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for having put his name to an Amendment which obliged us to debate it, to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) for his explanation of the contents, and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his advice.
It is a Bill for the registration of pleasure boats using river waterways and houseboats using the inland waterways or the river waterways. There is the distinction that there is an effort to regulate houseboats on inland waterways as well as the river waterways where they are not yet controlled. I want to address my remarks mainly to the subject of the pleasure boats in the river waterways, because that is the subject which seems to have been troubling most speakers in the debate.
There are three criticisms of the Bill as it stands. First, it takes away a freedom which has existed up to the present to sail on these river waterways. If it were disciplining that freedom so that it did not stifle itself, there could be no objection. But I wonder whether the
706
Bill is effective in giving the sort of discipline that will increase pleasurable navigation on these waterways.
Secondly, the schemes set out in the Bill seem in practice very difficult to apply and police. The administrative difficulties and the rather impractical points about the scheme have been listed by my hon. Friends the Members for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and Woking. I hope that they will have very serious consideration if the Bill goes to a Committee.
Thirdly, the Bill gives no power to refuse registration of pleasure boats. Therefore, it is not a regulating scheme that is set out in the Bill; it is merely a revenue-collecting scheme. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) talked about the need for control and management of craft in the river waterways and about the control and the suitability of craft, but I do not find these matters in the Bill. The board cannot refuse registration of pleasure boats; it can merely take the registration fees.
Even as a revenue-collecting scheme, it does not seem very efficient. We were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone that possibly £20,000 a year would be collected, against a total expenditure on these river waterways by the British Waterways Board of £623,000, to which commercial craft contribute about £200,000. That £20,000 does not seem sufficient to provide any great amenities such as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone detailed. I did not quite follow his point about walkers on the tow path having improved facilities, as that matter does not seem to come into the Bill anywhere as I read it.
Those are the three criticisms of the Bill, and they may well be corrected at later stages of the Bill's passage through Parliament. Perhaps the most important point we should consider is that the Bill comes before the House at a time when we have not had the benefit of any report from the Central Advisory Water Committee, which was recently reappointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Its terms of reference were:
"To consider in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and of technological and other developments how the functions relating to

707
water conservation, management of water resources, water supply, sewerage, sewage disposal and the prevention of pollution now exercised by river authorities, public water undertakings, and sewerage and sewage disposal authorities can best be organised; and to make recommendations."
I am sure that the Committee will have something to say about the use of the Board's river waterways. But there is nothing in the Bill to deal with any pollution that may arise from their overcrowding. Ministers talk a great deal about pollution. It is a fashionable subject. But that Committee has been reappointed only recently to advise on the use of water resources.
It may well be that it is not necessary to do anything about keeping the river waterways from being polluted, but we must look at the question very seriously. I believe that it is necessary to deal with it, and to do so quickly. I am sure that the Central Advisory Water Committee will advise necessary action to be taken in that respect. Is simple-revenue collection the right way to discipline the use of the river waterways, keep them navigable and prevent their pollution?
I am sorry that we do not have the advice of the Committee before embarking in the Bill on a very substantial change in the law, a change which does not necessarily, on the face of it, bring any recognisable benefit to the public. I am sure that the Bill can be greatly improved in Committee. It is a pity that we do not have better advice before us, and that the Committee will not have the full advice of the body set up by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
With those criticisms of the Bill, I can only hope that it will return to the House on Report with some of those very important points incorporated and perhaps a better scheme, a scheme of more discipline for the river waterways than is now set out.
8.19 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: If I may sneak again with the leave of the House, I should like briefly to answer two or three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). He may be on a slightly bad point concerning the issue of licence discs before the payment of cash.
708
He said that car registration authorities do not issue discs before payment. I understand that the board is seeking to issue them in exceptional circumstances in response to a telephone call to help the boat-user. Therefore, it is also seeking powers to pursue a man who fails to pay when he has had the licence. It would be pursuing a first-class rascal, so that is not unreasonable.
Mr. John Smith: How does one send a disc by telephone?
Mr. Wells: When someone rings in to the Central Office for a disc it is sent to him by post although the money may not have arrived, because it was a telephonic request.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend was implying that houseboats are parallel or on all fours with residences, and rather implied that rent control ought to apply; and he spoke about rents. It is not a rent for a dwelling but rent for the mooring facility, which is entirely different, with respect to him. After all, one cannot move one's house, but if a houseboat is sound it ought to be movable. A rent, therefore, is not quite a parallel example. Again, he made certain rather emotive suggestions about people's homes. Many of these homes are aquatic slums and many more are places where people go off with other people's wives for weekends. They are nobody's homes. I accept that some are people's homes but we do not want to get too emotive about the parallel.
My hon. Friend repeated the point about pollution, but, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, the board is not the anti-pollution authority. That authority is the river authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) rightly referred to the activities of the Central Advisory Water Committee, but until we see whether their terms of reference are to be widened still further it would be very difficult to go into that in great depth. Finally, my hon. Friend spoke, to use his own "shorthand", of "the Crichel Down sentiment" in complaining that the original rights of the original owners were being eroded. In a great majority of

709
cases it would be extremely difficult to find who were the original owners except when they were great landed estates; and it would be difficult even to find their immediate successors in title at this late stage.
Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend will see from Clause 20 that there certainly seems to be some erosion of rights since it refers to owners for the time being of adjacent land, which is very relevant. This has nothing to do with the ownership of the land when the waterway was originally constructed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Mr. Speaker has not selected the Amendment on the Order Paper, but that will in no way restrict the scope of the debate.
Mr. Neave: I do not know who is supposed to be presenting this Bill. British Railways have not made any arrangements for an explanation of its contents but have provided hon. Members with a statement. My hon. Friends on both sides of the House have put down a Motion on this subject, and perhaps I may speak to the statement provided by British Railways.
This is a general purposes Bill. It contains powers to construct level crossings and to stop up portions of road for the purpose of closing level crossings. I want to talk in particular of Stocks Lane crossing in my own constituency. For fear of intervening in the constituencies of other hon. Members I will not refer to other Clauses until I get to Clause 16.
For those who are interested as students of esoteric facts of railway
710
history, the Memorandum on Clause 16 is extremely interesting. It refers to investments held by Somerset County Council and says that for over 100 years the funds at that county council have held £1,200-worth of 2½ per cent. Consols as security in respect of possible damage to drains by the exercise of the powers of the Bristol and Exeter Railways Acts of 1836 and 1852. The council have agreed to accept an indemnity from the board in lieu of the deposited bonds which are to be sold. The proceeds are to be repaid to the board as successors to the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company.
This is nostalgic stuff for those interested in the history of railways but it is not a serious matter. There are other, much more serious, matters with regard to the Bill affecting our constituents. But perhaps I might refer in passing to Clauses 17 and 18. Clause 17 deals with enforcement of bye-laws. The board say that they are concerned to improve the capacity of their police force and to enable any constable to deal with hooliganism on football special trains and the like. It is an offence against the bye-laws for a passenger to behave in riotous, disorderly, indecent or offensive manner. Everybody can welcome this Clause and the powers it gives to constables to arrest a person on a train who is suspected of an offence against railway bye-laws and whose address the constable does not know and cannot ascertain.
I note also from paragraph 13 of the Memorandum that Clause 18 mentions the Amendment of the Railways Act, 1889, apparently because the board of the London Transport Executive is increasingly concerned at the volume of ticket frauds which are costing the board and the executive substantial sums of money. The Home Office concur in the need for higher penalties and the proposal that the maximum penalty for a first offence shall be increased from £10 to £20, and that the maximum fine shall be increased from £25 to £100, with or without imprisonment for up to three months, which may be imposed for a second or subsequent offence.
That is all I have to say in favour of the Bill and those are the only points which I, and I believe my hon. Friends, agree with it. The rest of the

711
Bill is very bad, for both general and particular reasons. I feel that British Railways have behaved with the greatest discourtesy to Parliament and in a manner which surprises me greatly since in their statement they describe the Bill as an annual Bill which they have presented to the House. One would expect, therefore, that they had some experience of Private Bill procedure. It would be out of place to discuss Private Bill procedure, as such, at the present time except to say that it badly needs improvement and that I hope one day to initiate a debate upon it. In so far as Parliament is here to protect the citizens and to protect them, in particular, from people like British Railways in depositing Bills without giving proper notice to individuals, the procedure has signally failed in that task and I hope that we shall find in the next Parliament a proposal to deal with the procedure.
One of my general reasons for opposing the Bill is the staggering assumption of the Railways Board that it is entitled to deposit in Parliament Bills which give it important powers over persons and property without consulting Members of Parliament on either side of the House. Parliament exists to protect people against such an assumption, but the procedure is not adequate. I have in private given the Railways Board a piece of my mind about this. The board appeared to be wounded by what I said, and rather perplexed. It did not seem to realise that the purpose of Parliament is to safeguard the citizen. This theory was quite new to the Railways Board, but I hope that it is not new now and that it will never again do such a thing. After a time the board became more apologetic, but it has got itself into a frightful mess on a Clause to which I shall refer, and I shall want some assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary about it.
The Berkshire County Council has petitioned against the Bill, but there are certain points on which my constituents in the neighbourhood of Steventon want to be fully assured before the Bill becomes law. Clause 6(1)(b) provides that in the county of Berkshire the board shall stop up the road known as Stocks Lane at the level crossing between Didcot and Swindon in the parish of Steventon, near Abingdon, there being two level crossings
712
near that point, the Causeway and the Stocks Lane crossing.
I first wrote on behalf of my constituents to the Western Region of British Railways four years ago, in 1966, as did other people. The constituent about whom I was concerned was Mr. Deane of Stocks Lane Farm, Steventon, who has a farm adjoining the level crossing which it is proposed to close. It is a 300-acre farm of valuable agricultural land, and the farm buildings are situated on the north side of the level crossing. Mr. Deane has 180 head of cattle which have to use that crossing, and this is, and has been for some years, one of the main points of discussion. What we were discussing in 1966 was not whether the crossing should be stopped up, but whether it should be replaced by an automatic half-barrier crossing, and the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the discussions.
Even as late as 19th March, 1969, the divisional manager of British Railways Western Region was still considering an automatic half-barrier crossing at Stocks Lane. The British Railways Board showed no sense of public relations and no appreciation of democratic principles when it deposited the Bill. The farmer, with whom the board had been in correspondence for four years, was not informed, although the Berkshire County Council which was petitioning was informed. Steventon Parish Council with which the board had been corresponding was not informed and nor was I. As a Member of the Parliament from which the board was proposing to seek powers, the board might, one might think, have had the courtesy to inform me.
Eventually the board decided to close the crossing, as there is another level crossing called the Causeway crossing a short distance away. I did not discover that this was to be done by the Bill until 2nd January when I discovered it by accident. I wrote to the divisional manager asking him what procedure he would follow, and he replied that he intended to follow the Private Bill procedure and to do this through a Bill which was already before the House. This is most unsatisfactory, and I have told him so in no uncertain terms. I said that I would raise this matter in the House because the public was concerned about this sort of procedure. No wonder that people are angry.

713
I turn to the immediate problem Since we have not before us any plans, I shall try to describe the matter generally. Mr. Deane, a farmer who has 180 cows, needs a crossing point of this railway. If the Stocks Lane crossing is closed, he needs to go to a point where he can get over the railway at the Causeway crossing, which will continue to exist. He also has to get over the railway his farm vehicles and tractors. These are wide pieces of equipment, and I will later give some of their measurements since this is an important matter in the negotiations which have started between Berkshire County Council and the Railways Board.
The Railways Board met the Berkshire County Council at the beginning of this week and offered to amend the Bill. I am afraid that such amendments would not satisfy my constituents so that the matter is by no means yet resolved and this is why I am raising it tonight. One amendment of the Bill would provide that the closing of Stocks Lane crossing shall not take place until a pedestrian footbridge at or near the site of the level crossing has been constructed and opened for public use. This would be an essential part of the undertaking to the Berkshire County Council and also from the point of view of my constituents in Steventon.
The second point is much more difficult and complicated. It still remains unsettled and cannot be taken to be in any way acceptable to me or my constituents. The reason is not that the Railways Board has not shown willingness in trying to meet objections, because it has tried to assist as a result of the considerable row which ensued when the depositing of the Bill was announced. There remains a most unsatisfactory situation for the farmer I have mentioned, Mr. Deane, and another person, a Mr. Jacques, who owns a bakery next to Mr. Deane's farm.
The Railways Board propose to widen a road called Mill Street which runs westward towards the Causeway Crossing. That is proposed to be widened at the cost of the board and to the satisfaction of the Berkshire County Council. The board will also have to make up a road called Cat Street, which runs to the
714
Causeway crossing, and also to widen it. That sounds like a constructive alternative to what hitherto has been the situation, but this will be a long way round for the farmer to take his cattle. It means taking them through an inhabited area where there are what one may call rural amenities, and also new housing. It is a fairly extensive operation involving widening Mill Street by two feet and also Cat Street. The situation is so unsatisfactory to Mr. Deane that I must oppose the proposal on his behalf and put forward an alternative.
The offer by the Railways Board which apparently has been accepted in principle by the officers of the Berkshire County Council has not been ratified by the Highways Committee—and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to note this fact. I shall ask the county council not to ratify it until the whole matter of an alternative route has been examined.
The alternative has been rejected as a result of discussions with the divisional road engineer at Cheltenham and involves the making up of the present track leading eastwards into the trunk road known as the A.34. The divisional road engineer is said to object to the access on to the A.34 as being dangerous in its present position. His advice is likely to be taken by the officers of the county council. I do not blame them for doing that. In its present location, the access is much too dangerous. The road will have to be made up, I think less expensively than making up Mill Street and Cat Street with the result that a new access will have to be formed which conforms to the safety policy of the divisional road engineer. The whole matter must be fully debated by Berkshire County Council, and further consultations must take place with the Railways Board before anything further is done. The petition of the Berkshire County Council will still be before the Committee and no doubt the arguments can be made there.
This matter has not been solved, and there are a good many more points that have to be made. One aspect is that the important A34 trunk road is to be realigned at Abingdon. The Parliamentary Secretary has been involved in this, and I hope that we shall hear something very soon. But we have not yet heard the result of the public inquiry. It is said that,

715
if the bypassing of Abingdon goes west of Abingdon, the part of it which relates to Steventon may not be constructed for eight years. I hope that this is not true. Even when the A34 is "de-trunked", according to the Berkshire County Council, it will still remain just as dangerous and as busy as now.
The position to which the council is referring is not a very optimistic one, and, if that is the advice of the divisional road engineer of the Ministry, I do not like the sound of it. It is an added argument for building the bypass in one piece, instead of two pieces, as I have often argued with the Ministry. This is relevant to whether the alternative route which Mr. Deane would find much shorter and much more convenient, and which I suggest would be less expensive to make up, should be considered.
The Highways Committee may reject its officers' recommendation, and I have no doubt that after this debate I shall be writing to the Berkshire County Council asking it to do so, because I am sure that this matter has gone along much too fast. Despite four years of consideration and correspondence, the negotiations between Berkshire County Council and the Railways Board started only at the beginning of this year although they could have begun a long time ago. I have no doubt that the Railways Board notified the county council that it intended to deposit a Bill before Parliament, but it did not start any negotiations. It would have been very much better if it had begun them several months ago, and then we should have known where we were.
A good example of the problem is that Mr. Deane's cultivating machinery is up to eleven feet wide, and the alterations to Mill Street and Cat Street will have to be considerably greater than proposed. The other track is fairly open, has no hedges and is equally capable of being made up, I think less expensively. Mr. Deane's haymaking machine is up to eight feet wide, and his combine harvester is 13 feet wide, overall. This is the sort of problem which this proposal raises, and it has not been given proper consideration. There has not been enough time, and the Railways Board has not used any imagination. It came as I said to Berkshire County Council only a few
716
weeks ago. As a result, I am here to defend my constituents' position and that of other members of the public who are accustomed to using this level crossing.
There is also the position of delivery lorries carrying seeds, fertilisers and foodstuffs. They are 20-ton lorries and at the moment they go over the crossing to the farm. It will be a big job to make up this road so that these lorries can approach the farm by an alternative route.
Finally, there is the bakery of Mr. Jacques. The flour mill in Gloucester which supplies him has written expressing concern about its lorries. They are eight-wheeler 15–18 ton lorries, and they go to Mr. Jacques's bakery every fortnight.
Those are the problems which arise from one Clause and one subsection of the Bill. These are very good reasons why opportunity should be given to hon. Members to debate it for it has been quite impossible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It is unfortunate that officers of the Berkshire County Council have reached an agreement with the Railways Board which clearly has not been sufficiently thought through to meet the objections of my constituents. That being so, I must pursue them.
While there will not be a Division on this matter, the whole manner and method of operating Private Bill procedure has been thoroughly unfair in this case. An unfortunate farmer has been kept waiting for four years wondering what was to happen to the level crossing. He and the Abingdon branch of the National Farmers' Union have had correspondence with me and other people. While all this has been going on, no one in the Railways Board has had sufficient courtesy, imagination or knowledge of the procedure of this House, although this is their eighth annual Bill, to take the trouble to notify those concerned that the Bill was to be deposited. Had they at heart the interests of those who use this crossing, we might have got round a table long ago to discuss their proposals. One can see the considerable complications that a proposal to close a single level crossing brings.
I am very much opposed to this Clause, and I hope that the Minister is in a position to give me a satisfactory undertaking about it.
8.48 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: It is only recently that I have become interested in Private Bill procedure on the Floor of this House. I did so when I had to oppose the Port of Tyne Bill. Once I became involved in the procedure, I soon found to my pleasure that this Bill dealing with British Railways was down for Second Reading. There and then I made up my mind that, whatever the Bill was about and whatever future Bills British Railways intended to introduce, I would oppose them. I think that British Railways have acquired far too many powers without the general public being aware of them and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has said, if British Railways can avoid Parliament and hon. Members, they are only too delighted to do so.
When I first looked at the Bill, it seemed to concern itself with very little except level crossings, cows, and a few other matters. I did my homework, and suddenly I discovered two very important Clauses dealing with the destruction of trains by football supporters after matches and with people who try to travel without tickets.
I am always interested in international football matches, but I am not in the habit of going from match to match. However, I have been a member of a bench of magistrates for many years, and we have often had people brought before us charged with travelling without tickets. It has long been my view that the powers of magistrates to impose fines or imprisonment in such cases have been very restricted. I was excited and interested to find these two Clauses in the Bill. How wise I was to decide to oppose every British Railways Bill. One never knows what one will be faced with, and what opportunities there will be to say something about the kind of procedures that occur on property belonging to British Railways.
Following on what my hon. Friend was saying about the lack of knowledge about Private Bills, it is extraordinary that this Clause should deal with the damage on football trains, the penalties and what can be done to bring these people to book. As far as I know, the public, who are desperately interested in this matter, did not know that penalties were to be imposed in a Clause in a little Bill of this
718
kind, mostly dealing with level crossings and the problems of cows. Most hon. Members are followers of football matches. With the great fights that take place—north, south, east, west, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, all over—and the anxieties that have been caused to people who are really interested in how to deal with vandalism and the enforcement of law and order, if real publicity had been given by British Railways to the problems and the relevant provisions of this Bill, I think we should have had a full House tonight. Vandalism deserves a full House; it deserves the advice and knowledge of the many hon. Members who are seriously concerned about this ever-increasing development of vandalism, and what flows from it.
However, when I came to look at this Clause, it suddenly occurred to me that there is a lot of other vandalism on the railways apart from what occurs on the football supporters' trains. Until tonight, I have never really been involved in a British Railways Bill, so I have no idea what has gone before with regard to vandalism.
For instance, in my part of the world, quite a large number of the "loo" facilities for women, which include the disabled, the elderly and the travellers with lots of children, have had to close because of vandalism. When one asks the stationmaster why they have had to close the toilet facilities, he says, "Because of vandals".
I do not know whether there are any penalties in some of those other Bills that have been promoted by British Railways, but if there are, they cannot be very good penalties, and they cannot be followed up. The result is that many of these facilities have had to be closed because they are so seriously damaged by vandals.
I hope that the Select Committee will find out why British Railways has decided to deal only with vandalism on football trains, when there is all this other vandalism. There is great public outcry against vandalism in telephone kiosks. Telephones are there for the use of the public and are put out of operation when people want to get through to the authorities and doctors and the like. These kiosks have been destroyed by vandals. Some kiosks are on stations. One only has to see how many one has to try

719
before getting through to know the effects of this vandalism. If British Railways are seriously trying to deal with vandalism on football trains, why do they not widen the Clause to deal with all vandalism.
The penalties are hardly adequate. In Clause 1, a penalty of up to £25 is prescribed. An offender may be arrested, and this is sensible, but that maximum is not enough. British Rail should impose a fine which will bite. The only way to deal with hooliganism—we cannot put masses of people into jail, of course—is to make the fines bite. As a magistrate, I prefer to give a great big fine and time to pay. We do not want to deprive people of their living circumstances, but we should impose a fine which has to be paid in instalments. This impresses on the offender every week that he has gone against society and must pay for his stupid behaviour.
When British Railways have at last got down to obtaining power to arrest, a fine of only £25 leaves me startled. When the constable has made an arrest, presumably the person is kept in custody until the charge is preferred. That is a very timid Clause. The general public, who are very alarmed about vandalism, would have appreciated a statement by British Railways, in a public relations exercise, that they were determined to stamp vandalism out.
We pay large salaries to people engaged in public relations, and I am sure that many of them are employed by British Railways. It would have been a good thing for British Railways to announce to the public the intention to deal with this matter, instead of slipping a Clause into a Bill and not telling Parliament anything about' it. Even British Railways must know that hon. Members are deeply interested in this matter. We might have had a good debate to decide whether we thought that British Railways understood the problem, and I sometimes wonder whether they do. We might have got much further and had the support of the public in doing so, for every member of the public would have supported British Railways in a serious attempt to deal with vandalism.
The next provision in which I am interested is Clause 18, which gives
720
powers to London Transport Executive. This is important in view of what the public has had to put up with as a result of the breakdown of the escalators in the Underground. Clause 18 permits the maximum penalties under Section 84 of the Transport Act, 1962, to be increased. It is thought that a further increase of fines may help to curb the offence of travelling without paying fares.
During many years on the Bench I have dealt with people charged with this offence. British Railways seem to know nothing about the new term "with it" If they did they would know that it was important to speed up dealing with offences. I am delighted that the Home Secretary agrees with me about this. All Home Secretaries, including Conservative Home Secretaries, take many years before deciding to increase a fine, but here at last we have a decision.
But I wonder whether hon. Members know that people convicted of travelling without paying a fare, even though they have travelled from John o'Groats to Land's End, cannot be made to pay the fare. This is absolutely crackers. There is no mention of exactly how much has been lost because of this offence, and we are not told how widespread the practice is, other than in general terms, and I like to have proper facts and figures. What is the estimate of losses resulting from the non-payment of fares since nationalisation of the railways?
British Railways are so busy trying to economise that they are getting rid of staff. At Kings Cross, there are ticket collectors up to a certain time of night, but later they are withdrawn, so that people can walk on and off trains without being required to show their tickets. I do not think that British Railways have any modern ideas of how to protect their own interests. As I have pointed out, when a person is charged and convicted in a magistrates' court for not having paid his fare, he is not required to pay the fare of which he has bilked the railways, and that is really nonsense. It is ridiculous that the Clause should not include provision for making the person pay the fare. Instead, it is really just a small matter of increasing the maximum fine.
Admittedly, if a person is caught doing it more than once, he can be fined up to £100 and, indeed, can be sent to prison.

721
I would start with a much bigger first fine. If one catches a person doing this and imposes a heavy fine on him straight away, he is much more likely not to repeat the offence than if one imposes only a small initial fine. Since the railways were nationalised, we have had various Acts of Parliament brought forward by Ministers of Transport of both political persuasions. The fact that we have had to wait until 1970 to have this sort of Clause in a railways Bill makes one wonder how on earth British Railways conduct their affairs.
I once went to a meeting of the central Transport Users' Consultative Committee because I thought it might be interested in my views. I can tell the House that it was not. It was really only interested in getting through whatever I had to say as quickly as possible. On everything I raised, the chairman said, "We have heard that one before". One wonders how many people go to these committees. This committee wanted me to go to the local committee for the Northern Region, but no one in Newcastle really knows where the Northern Transport Users' Consultative Committee sits. In fact, it sits in York, so it is not easy to get at by people in the North of England.
It seems that everything is being transferred by British Railways to York. Naturally, Newcastle used to be a great railway centre, but not now. I asked the other day why York Station looks so much cleaner than Newcastle's, and how much more is spent on swilling platforms in York compared with Newcastle. I was told that it was the same amount of money in each case. I do not believe it, however, because I never really believe anything the railways tell me. The fact remains that, by transferring from Newcastle so many things to York, including the Consultative Committee, British Railways have relieved themselves of a great deal of trouble from my part of the country, where people are active and outspoken.
Railway men are awfully nice. I am always delighted to see them. A most charming man came to see me the other day—I shall not give his name—to find out whether we would divide against the Bill. He had a large pile of letters, which were, he said, all mine. He could not have been nicer. He said that he was
722
very grateful for all my letters, and that was exciting, because I had never before heard anybody in British Railways say that he was pleased with me. British Railways do not generally like what I do. This charming man said that all that I had written would help him. As far as can make out, all the suggestions which I have made will be implemented. I think that I shall be dead before they are, but I am fascinated to think that my suggestions will be put into effect, because I wonder how much they will cost the railways.
I do not know what powers the railways have to buy land. British Railways can get all the help that they require when they want to acquire land, but when, occasionally, one of my constituents, perhaps someone in a low income group, or an industrialist, or a school, wants a bit of land from the railways it is extremely difficult to get them to move at all. One would think that one was asking to be sent on an expedition to the moon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, it takes weeks, months, or even years, to get the railways to act.
I remember that we tried to get a bit of land from the railways because we wanted to build a bridge to provide additional safety for the children at one of my new schools. The only reason why we managed to get the bridge built was that the Minister was coming up to the school to do the prize giving. As soon as it was known that he was arriving there, the bulldozers got to work, and everyone started talking about what was being done. I am not all that keen on Socialist Ministers coming to my area. It is bad enough getting Conservative Ministers to go there. It is very difficult to get Socialist Ministers to visit us.
The railways have everything weighted in their favour. The wretched public, the elderly, the disabled, and people with children have to walk further and further, without anybody to help them with their luggage. Sometimes I manage to get a sweet and charming engine driver to carry my bag for me. Engine drivers are very nice people.
If the railways want to deal with cows, or crossings, or something like that, they promote a Bill to give them power to take action, but when it comes to dealing with the public, they just go ahead

723
and do what they want. I should like to see a Bill introduced to prevent the railways from chopping off facilities which should be available to the ordinary travelling public.
As we are discussing Private Bill procedure, I should like to know exactly who decides what Bills will be introduced by British Railways. They say that they have put many Bills before the House of Commons. There are masses of things which the railways can do without seeking any powers to do them.
We all know that very often seats on a train are booked and paid for, and then those who have booked the seats do not turn up. In this way the railways get quite a lot of money, which they ought not to receive, yet they leave wretched passengers to stand during a long journey just because the seats have been booked. What has the Minister to say about all this?
I do not always argue on behalf of women, but when it comes to ensuring cleanliness at stations I think that things would be very much better if there were a woman on the British Railways Board.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: But men on the sleeper!
Dame Irene Ward: The men on the sleeper are absolutely marvellous. They could not be nicer.
I put in this point because it is tremendously important. For many years British Railways have been well served by the men. I am talking about all the men, not just about those who sit on boards. But it is very depressing when one talks to men who have served on the railways for many years. They say, "We complain about this, that and the other, but nobody is interested". It does not matter whether it is the guard who is annoyed about a train coming in late. He will say, "I can assure you that I will report this, but do not think that anybody will take any notice, because they will not". The genuine railwayman has no faith whatever in the British Railways Board; nor has the public.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, I have written to the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. I am told that British Railways cannot recruit guards, porters or shunters
724
in the North of England. This seems absolutely fantastic as we have such a high level of employment in that region. This is what we are told, but they keep dismissing porters—
Mr.Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must come to the Bill.
Dame Irene Ward: I did a lot about the Bill before you arrived on the scene, Mr. Speaker. But it is a miscellaneous Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must do a little more now.
Dame Irene Ward: Yes. But if you, Mr. Speaker, read the Bill carefully you will find that there are all kinds of miscellaneous provisions. This is what I am complaining about. British Railways put in all kinds of miscellaneous provisions, but nobody knows what they are. It would be a good thing if the House of Commons was told what the miscellaneous provisions are.
I was about to explain that at Blaydon in the County of Durham there are two level crossings. We had to have Bills dealing with those, but apparently we do not need Bills to ensure that trains are punctual or anything like that. We are given no idea in the Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot talk about the Bills we would like to have but have not at the moment.
Dame Irene Ward: I think that I have got out a lot, and I am delighted. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister give us an assurance about these matters. I once asked the ex-Chairman of the British Railways Board, Lord Beeching, whether he would lunch with me, but I do not think that he would—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That would have been most interesting, but it is not in the Bill.
Dame Irene Ward: I was trying to make the point that I have had to make representations to the Chairman of the British Railways Board. I have always thought that one can explain things more easily when meeting a man face to face. There are no women on the British Railways Board. It would be a good thing if there were.
I have come to the end of what I want to say, but I could speak about British

725
Railways for three hours if I had the chance. I hope, having ventilated our grievances tonight, that we will in future know from British Railways what their Bills will be, why they have to produce them, when they are really going to do something to deal with vandalism and people who avoid paying their fares—
Mr. Speaker: Order. At this stage the hon. Lady may discuss the Bill. She cannot discuss the whole of British Railways.
Dame Irene Ward: Clauses 17 and 18 deal with vandalism on football supporters' trains and those who get away without paying their fares. Why are these provisions in the Measure without any publicity having been given to them and without the necessary public relations work having been done? Equally, why are so many things that should be in the Bill not in it?
I appreciate that I am attempting to stretch the rules of order by raising certain matters that need to be ventilated. Unfortunately, there are to few opportunities to arise them. British Railways do not give us such opportunities. They merely introduce a Bill without saying what it is about; and then you, Mr. Speaker, and others get annoyed when we try to ventilate our grievances.
I hope that, in future, British Railways will be more businesslike, with-it and up-to-date in their methods. We like the people in British Railways. I oppose the Bill at this stage because of the way we have been treated, and I trust that this matter will receive full consideration so that on future occasions British Railways will adopt a different attitude.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I make no apology for joining the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in forcing a debate on Second Reading. After all, the Measure sets out to give the British Railways Board powers to construct works, to extend the time for the compulsory acquisition of land, to increase fines for vandalism on the railways and to enable the railway police to arrest offenders on British Rail property.
Because it is such an important Bill, I am amazed that British Rail have not taken steps to see that an hon. Mem-
726
ber who is able to present the Measure and explain it to the House is on hand. It is an insult to Parliament and the public that we are faced with a Private Bill of this importance without the promoters having arranged for it to be properly presented to the House.
I met representatives of British Rail and discussed a number of matters about the Bill with them. During that discussion I told them that I did not intend to divide the House on Second Reading. In view of the discourtesy which British Rail have shown, I am sorely tempted to divide the House, to show British Rail that they cannot treat the people and Parliament with contempt.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked a number of pertinent questions, particularly about the miscellaneous provisions. Had British Rail made arrangements for an hon. Member to present the Bill and to be in charge of it, the hon. Lady might have been given some answers.
It must be made clear that we are not prepared to allow Bills to come forward in this fashion. I hope that British Rail will take note of what has been said and will ensure that this state of affairs does not arise again. I regret that these complaints are being made when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), is present to answer for the Government because he is a man of considerable compassion who will do his duty in answering the debate.
However, this is not the Government's responsibility. British Rail should have arranged for the Measure to have been properly presented and explained, and for this reason I will not hold my hon. Friend in any way responsible if he is unable to reply to the points made by hon. Members.
I am primarily concerned with the proposals to close five level crossings on the North Kent line within my constituency. Those level crossings are vital for my constituents. The railway line cuts off a substantial portion of my constituency, the Slade Green, the Belvedere and the Thamesmead areas. Thamesmead is a most important area because it is the site of a new town development. The crossings provide essential access to those three areas. Several thousands of people

727
live in them and a considerable number have to cross the line to get to work in factories on the other side.
Despite the importance of these level crossings to my constituents, there has been no attempt by British Railways to consult local people, or even to inform them of the proposals to close the crossings. The London Borough of Bexley Council has been involved in discussions, but, like the British Railways Board, it also has failed to inform the public in my constituency of the proposals. Little wonder that there has been considerable hostility in the area since the matter was forced into the open by Press reports.
I also join the hon. Member for Abingdon in expressing serious concern that Private Bills can be promoted, not only by the British Railways Board but by other organisations, without the hon. Members for the constituencies affected being informed that the proposals affect their areas. This, too, should be rectified. My constituents are not necessarily against the closures of level crossings. Many of them welcome the closing of many crossings as long as proper and permanent means of communication are provided. They have suffered for many years from the frustration which crossings cause by holding up traffic. It is time that this was ended, but it should be done only after proper consultation with local interests and the provision of adequate alternative means of access.
Since publicity was given to these proposals, I have received a considerable volume of correspondence from local people. I have had many letters from retired pensioners who, by the abolition of the level crossings, will be cut off and left with a footbridge as the only means of getting to shops and friends. They ask in their letters whether it will be a step bridge or a ramp bridge. Someone should be present in the House to give an assurance on that point on behalf of British Rail. I have had letters from disabled people who fear that even if the footbridge is ramped they may be unable to manoeuvre invalid carriages across it and thereby will be cut off from friends and shops. At the moment they can get across the railway on the level.
There are considerable fears among people in the area. Mothers fear that they
728
will have difficulty in getting prams across the line unless there is proper provision. Their views should be taken into account. People employed in the many factories in the Slade Green and Belvedere area are most concerned that closure of the crossings might increase hold-ups through the concentration of traffic now using the level crossings on to the existing road network. Employers are much concerned that the proposals may mean greater difficulty for transport of material into their factories and of products out of them.
Clause 6 deals with the problem to which I want to refer, setting out the crossings which are to be closed. The first is in Clause 6(1)(a) and concerns a proposal to close the crossings in the Crabtree Manorway and Norman Road area. These two crossings are used by many industrial undertakings. First, in respect of the Crabtree Manorway crossing, there are at least 32 factories operating beyond the railway line, and beyond the Norman Road crossing there is a large residential area. The people there rely on that crossing to get from their homes to other parts of the town. The Borough of Bexley proposes to construct a road bridge at a point somewhere between the two level crossings to be closed, at a place called Picardy Manorway.
When is it proposed to construct this bridge? There are doubts that the design stage of the bridge has yet been completed. I have a letter from the Borough of Bexley dated 22nd September telling me that it is proceeding with the preparation of a scheme for the works on this bridge but that they will not be considered until the five-to-eight year period beginning 1971–72. If the road bridge has not yet completed its design stage and cannot be constructed until, at the earliest, 1971–72, why have British Rail included the provision in the Bill for the closure of these crossings? It is no use their saying that there is another Clause clarifying the position, saying that the crossing cannot be closed until the bridge is built. My constituents want to know why there is this hurry. Why have they not been consulted? There is no great urgency about this provision.
There is also the rather strange procedure over the agreement which British Rail have reached with the Borough of Bexley. It appears that on 19th June,

729
1969, a proposal was put to the highways and works committee of the borough saying that in return for the council's co-operation in the crossings closures, British Rail would make a contribution of £10,000 towards the construction of the Picardy Manorway bridge. The offer is subject to review if the level crossings are not closed before November, 1970. If the bridge is not yet even designed and cannot start before 1971–72, it is obvious that this date of November, 1970, is nonsense. There is no hope of that date being effective and the proposal for the Crabtree Manorway and the Norman Road crossings should be deleted from the Bill. There is adequate time for the consultations which the local people want.
The next proposal is in Clause 6(a)(iii) which is to close the level crossing at Pembroke Road. I have had no representations from local people about this crossing and it seems to be a reasonable proposal. I understand that there is a ramp footbridge due to be constructed. This is not a crossing which divides a residential area and there are other road networks providing access for the local people. Providing that the footbridge is erected before the crossing is closed, there can be no objection to this proposal.
The next proposal is to close the level crossings at Slade Green Road and Whitehall Road, Slade Green. These are the two which are causing the greatest concern in my constituency, because their closure would present a very serious situation for the people of the Slade Green area. The two level crossings, plus one road bridge, are the only means of road communication between the area and the rest of the community. If the two crossings are closed, the traffic now using them will be forced to use Bridge Road at Slade Green, which will lead to considerable congestion. That is not only my fear but the fear expressed to me by local people and, significantly, by industrialists in the Slade Green area, who fear that the capacity of Bridge Road will not be sufficient to take the extra traffic generated if the two crossings are closed.
That is not the end of the problem. What would happen to the Slade Green area if, because of an accident or any kind of calamity, Bridge Road were temporarily closed? How would ambulances, the fire brigade and essential services get to the people of Slade Green
730
if Bridge Road were out of use and the two level crossings were shut off? There would be a tremendous outcry in my constituency if British Rail were allowed, with the consent of Parliament, to close those crossings and to leave that area exposed to the danger of being cut off from emergency services.
I know that the local authority has consulted British Rail and that there is the possibility that one of the level crossings might be left available for use in an emergency. If British Rail had had the courtesy to appoint a Member to present the Bill to the House tonight, we might well have had an assurance about that written into the record, but it failed to take that opportunity.
An alternative means of access to the Slade Green area is essential. British Rail cannot rely on the fact that at an unspecified date the local authority will build a new road connecting Slade Green to Manor Road, Erith. There are no concrete proposals for that, and it may be many years ahead, but the powers to close the two crossings are in the Bill and it is the intention to close down as soon as possible. That is not acceptable to the people of the area.
There is the additional problem that if they are closed the extra traffic which will be forced on to Bridge Road will find, when it gets to the top and joins the A206, that that road is subject to extensive road works. What will happen to all that extra traffic when the road-works are carried out in the years ahead?
It has been suggested to me that if the level crossings are not closed British Rail way well have to consider installing automatic barriers on them. I should issue on behalf of the people of my constituency the very solemn warning to British Rail that if it tries to introduce automatic barriers in the areas of Belvedere and Slade Green it will face militant action from the local people, and that action will have the full support of the Member of Parliament for Erith and Crayford. We should not be prepared to allow that sort of situation to develop.
Although I am sorely tempted to divide the House on Second Reading, I shall resist the temptation, but British Rail must be fully prepared for further opposition at later stages of the Bill unless it meets the legitimate requirements of the people of my constituency.
9.40 p.m.
Mr. John Hynd: I apologise for rising at this time of night, but I will take only a minute and a half.
I would point out to my hon. Friend that whilst many of us will sympathise with some of his complaints about the actual procedure under which this Bill has been presented to the House, British Railways have produced a fairly clear statement as to the intentions of the Bill. Furthermore, this is a Second Reading, and if the Bill passes this stage it will go to Committee, where all the points that we have raised can be examined.
Clause 16 of the Memorandum states:
"The Promoters respectfully submit that they should be allowed to put forward their case for the clauses to the Committee in the ordinary way"
if the Bill receives a Second Reading.
In normal circumstances I would be tempted to try to follow the rather challenging remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) about the whole scope of British Railways. I will not do so, first of all because it would take too much time and second, because I would be wildly out of order if I tried to do so.
There is one point on which I agree it would be helpful to hear the Minister's comments. Clause 18 of the Bill provides for a considerable increase in the amount of fines for ticket frauds; but there is no provision for increased fines in Clause 17 for what is, in my opinion, a much more serious and dangerous offence—physical violence involving danger to passengers. I would not have thought that ticket fraud was something which affects ordinary people apart from the individual who is charged; but violence on trains, particularly by football groups and the like, can be a serious danger to life and limb. I would like to know, therefore, why this has not had attention.
My final point is with regard to the provision in Clause 17 that railway police should now obtain power to arrest in cases of hooliganism and disorderly, riotous, indecent and other such behaviour on trains. I am not authorised to speak for the trade unions involved but I know pretty well what is in their mind in this connection. They have been worried for many years over the position of railway
732
police vis-à-vis this kind of behaviour which puts the police in a defenceless position.
One may say that giving the police powers of arrest does not make their position safer, since it is easier to take a name and address than to make an arrest. On the other hand, although they are without powers of arrest at the present time, the railway police are expected where necessary to eject troublesome people from the premises. Power to arrest, therefore, would not expose them to further danger and may give them authority in dealing with these people. This will give considerable satisfaction to the trade unions.
I only hope that when the Minister replies to this debate he will say something to explain why there is no proposal to increase penalties for the much more serious type of offence.
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Two major legislative matters arise in the Bill—level crossings and crime. On the first, dealt with in Part II of the Bill, the House will recollect that after the Hixon level crossing accident an inquiry was set up under Mr. Gibbens, Queen's Counsel, who recommended certain technical improvements to the half-barrier crossings. Further installation of those crossings was cancelled for the time being until existing crossings had been remedied. Are British Railways intending to introduce again, by means of some of the Clauses in the Bill, the automatic half-barrier crossing?
We have in Clause 4 a reference to a new railway crossing of a road at Duxford, and in Clause 7 to a new crossing at Blaydon. In Clause 8 there is a reference to a change to footpath crossings without any indication of the protection which will be given to the pedestrian in those cases.
Clause 6 provides for the stopping up of roads, by closing crossings, without the public inquiry which one normally expects. Before these provisions were inserted in a Bill, the House should have heard from the Minister about the progress being made with the recommendations contained in the Gibbens Report. For several years the public has been deeply concerned about level crossings by reason of the number of accidents

733
which have occurred. The House is not anxious to give a Second Reading to a Bill which introduces in this casual fashion so many new level crossings and alterations to existing level crossings without hearing what progress has been made with the recommendations of the Gibbens Report.
Part IV of the Bill deals with crime. Clause 18 increases the penalties for ticket frauds, and that seems to be well justified. Clause 17 is an important Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) made an effective and moving speech on this issue. The wanton smashing of "football specials" and the terrorising of passengers has been a national disgrace for too long, yet it is left to a small Private Bill to attempt to deal with it. Of course there should be power to arrest in these cases. Why have not the Government proposed it earlier? Why have not British Railways, in their previous seven Bills, proposed it earlier? Will the Clause be sufficient to deal with the problem? With all respect to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I am sorry that more senior Ministers—the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General—are not here to deal with this important point. It is a matter not just for the Ministry of Transport but for those who are concerned with the enforcement of the law.
Look at the machinery of this clause. The constable cannot make the arrest if he is given an address. When he is given an address, how does he know whether it is true or false? These serious crimes of malicious damage and rioting on the railways are treated as no more than breaches of the board's bye-laws. This is not good enough. The statement presented to hon. Members by the board says in paragraph 12:
"The Board are concerned to improve the capacity of their police force and any constable to deal with hooliganism on football special trains and the like."
It would perhaps have been better if the words "and the like" had been spelt out. The public is fed up with the apparently complacent attitude towards the malicious damage caused in carriages, on stations and to lavatories, telephones, benches and so on. But it is violent hooliganism that gives the greatest anxiety, and it is regrettable that such serious crimes are left to be dealt with by a
734
Private Bill. The Government should have stepped in and dealt with that kind of violent crime firmly as a subject of substantive public law and not just as a private railway bye-law.
9.49 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): This has been an interesting debate which has ranged from rural Berkshire to the busy new Thamesmead area and taken in a local derby in football terms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) mentioned that no hon. Member was promoting the Bill on behalf of British Railways. I understand that it is not normal for an hon. Member to introduce a Bill on behalf of a nationalised undertaking. Certainly on the last occasion on which such a Bill as this was debated, which was in 1962–63, it was not introduced by an hon. Member.
First of all, I should like to make it clear that the Government have no objection in principle to the Bill. The administration of the railways is the job of the Railways Board and the Government recognise that if this administration is to be as efficient as we all want it to be many of the developments the board proposes need statutory authority. The board has found it necessary to promote a Bill each year for this purpose so that the Bill we are considering tonight can be regarded as one of a series.
Mr. Neave: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that it had not been the custom for an hon. Member to promote a private Bill by British Railways. No doubt he is correct, but is he in a position to answer a very important constituency point that arises because of the provisions of this Bill? Can he speak for the Railways Board?
Mr. Murray: I hope that I can answer some of the points that have been made.
Mr. Neave: Only some of them?
Mr. Murray: I did not intervene once in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I think I should be allowed to answer as many points as I can. If they are not covered, I am certain that the hon. Member, who has not been backward in coming forward in giving British Railways

735
the rough end of his tongue, will be on to them with further letters or telephone calls.
As I was saying, this Bill is one of a series. I am certain that British Railways would express some interest in the amount of heat which this Bill for the first time, seems to have engendered.
Two hon. Members who have taken part in this debate have expressed concern about Clause 6 of the Bill which would enable the Railways Board to stop up the roads over certain level crossings in Abingdon and Bexley. The Government do not consider that the level crossing is the ideal means of crossing where a road and a railway meet, but convenience and safety for the public must both be taken into account when considering either to open or to stop up level crossings as well as the savings of expense which will also result.
The Railways Board want to close the crossing at Abingdon because it is expensive to man and maintain. Clause 6 provides that closing this crossing will not affect the rights of pedestrians to cross the line and will require the board to maintain wicket gates on both sides of the railway, but I understand diet the board is now thinking of providing a footbridge for pedestrians.
Clause 6 also provides that the crossing will not be closed until Castle Street—which I understand is known locally as Cat Street—has been made up at the cost of the Railways Board, to the satisfaction of the highway authority, and is open for public use as a highway maintainable at public expense.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Berkshire County Council has petitioned against the Clause. The county council wants closure deferred until a link road to the east as well as to the west can be made up, but it is unlikely that anything of this sort would be practicable for some time. Meanwhile, the extra distance which vehicles will have to travel if the crossing is closed does not seem to be excessive, and pedestrians should not be inconvenienced at all. However, unless the county council's petition is withdrawn, all these points will be considered in detail by the Select Committee should the House agree to the Bill being remitted to it.
736
As to the crossings at Bexley which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford mentioned—he will know that I am a constant commuter on the North Kent line—it is provided in Clause 6(2) and (3) that none shall be closed until pedestrian footbridges are provided over the railway line at or near them.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do I understand the Minister to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) must speak for the constituents of Bexley? Where is the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)? Should he not be putting the case? Must we rely on my hon. Friend?
Mr. Murray: According to the comment which this Bill has aroused, it is difficult enough to speak for British Railways, let alone the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that Erith and Crayford comes within the Greater London Borough of Bexley and that is why we have that name mentioned. Subsection (2) further provides that a road bridge over the railway along the line of Picardy Manorway must also be opened before two of the crossings, Crabtree Manorway and Norman Road. are closed. The Railways Board will provide the footbridges and will contribute towards the cost of the road bridge.
My hon. Friend was concerned about the North End crossing and Whitehall crossing. He is worried that closing these two crossings may mean that traffic from Slade Green to North End Road will be channelled along Bridge Road and will cause congestion there. It is true that there will be extra traffic on Bridge Road when the crossing is closed. But I understand that the Railways Board have already given my hon. Friend some information which shows that on one day recently at the peak morning travel time between 7.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. traffic on the railway was such that the North End crossing was closed for 50 of the 90 minutes and at Whitehall crossing it was not possible to open the gates at all to road traffic, whereas in the afternoon peak period of 4.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. North End crossing gates were only open again for 50 of the 90 minutes and at Whitehall crossing they were only open for six of the 90 minutes.

737
I understand that the London Borough of Bexley, which is the highway authority both for the two roads over the crossing and for Bridge Road, has no objections to the proposals. Since closure of these crossings will be necessary if the public is to receive the full benefit of the new colour-light signalling system which the board propose to instal on this line, I was naturally pleased, after hearing several of my hon. Friend's objections, to hear him say that, although he was sorely tempted, he was not opposing the Bill.
Hon. Members have been a little disturbed and have mentioned that they feel that the Railways Board should consult them in advance about the terms of their Bills. This was particularly so where hon. Members' own constituencies were involved. The hon. Member for Abingdon has already been in touch with the Railways Board about the closure of the Stocks Lane crossing, and it was unfortunate that the board did not fulfil the undertaking they gave him last March to let him know what steps they would take. I understand that the board have apologised to him for this. I understand that the failure was an administrative error.
Mr. Neave: The board have apologised, but will the hon. Gentleman note that they did not understand that they had been discourteous to Parliament in not informing hon. Members that they proposed to deposit this Bill—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the British Railways Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Neave: The point is that British Railways do not understand in what way they have been discourteous in not informing hon. Members of their intention to deposit a Private Bill affecting our constituencies. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will see to it that the chairman and members of the Railways Board have
738
this pointed out to them so that it does not happen again.
Mr. Murray: They might not have understood before tonight. I am certain that they will understand after tonight. As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, he has received an apology saying that their omission was an error in administration, and they have informed me that they did not intend any discourtesy. But, although hon. Members rightly want to know statutory proposals for matters which affect their constituencies, we must accept that the Railways Board would find it difficult to give advance warning of all that they may have in mind. Often they are not able to take a final decision to include a proposal until just before depositing the Bill.
The board follows the statutory procedure which includes advertising locally and consulting highway authorities, and other authorities beyond the requirements of Standing Orders. In this case, it consulted the Berkshire County Council on the Stocks Lane proposals. By this means, hon. Members get to hear of proposals, especially when their constituents or local authorities are aggrieved by them. Hon. Members can always raise these matters with the board. Moreover, once a Bill has been deposited, hon. Members can obtain copies from the Private Bill Office. I understand that normally about two months elapse before it comes up for Second Reading and before petitions need to be lodged. I can assure hon. Members on behalf of the Railways Board that, should they discover any matters affecting their constituencies which arouse their interest or concern, the Board will be happy to meet and discuss matters with them.
I now turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I am not certain whether she will be surprised to know that these are mainly matters for the Railways Board to consider. It is the board's job to administer the railways efficiently, and this means that the quality of the service that they provide for their passengers should be as high as is consistent with their obligation to pay their way.
I know that the hon. Lady has had a long and voluminous correspondence with the board about different matters. When she spoke about a charming young man bringing out a great pile of letters,

739
I thought that she was about to say that that was just one week's correspondence. Her points include the difficulty of getting porters to carry luggage at railway stations. I understand that the board is making efforts to improve on many of the conditions about which she has complained, such as punctuality, a high standard of train and station cleanliness and train heating. Another point which she has raised with them is the importance of letting the public know about cancellations and delays as soon as possible so that they are kept informed.
The hon. Lady also said some hard words about the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee. I can assure her that these committees do a good job, both the central and the area committees, in bringing consumer influence to bear on the board, and that the board takes seriously any criticism or advice it receives from these committees.
In these days of political argument about law and order, I thought it a fairly natural reaction that Clauses 17 and 18 should have received some comment in the House. I am always interested, as a follower of Association football, to hear what people think about the football hooligans. But I was hoping that somebody would say that this is mainly the minority of cases, and that football followers in this country do behave themselves and are not a source of trouble. But the point was that it is really not just a question of football supporters: the board was concerned to give the powers of arrest, because it is an offence against the bye-laws for a passenger to behave in a riotous, disorderly, indecent or offensive manner. This was really the point, and the reason that they were asking for these powers of arrest. The hon. Lady talked about penalties. The penalties in Clause 18 are concerned with fare evasion and refusing to pay fares, and are not meant for dealing with violence or hooliganism.
I hope I have answered most of the points that were raised in this very wide-ranging debate. I am certain that, if hon. Members are concerned about any of the points which I have not answered, they will not hesitate to either write to me or to the Railways Board. Certainly, no one who has taken part in the debate has ever been hesitant about writing to
740
the Railways Board. I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Postponed proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed.
Question again proposed.

FAMILY PLANNING
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Before the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill was interrupted, I was drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the need to take more seriously educating the young in the techniques of birth control and responsible parenthood. There is general recognition throughout the House that our schools, our institutions of education, should provide training in road drill, because we recognise that unless children have a traffic sense, unless they know their highway code, as pedestrians, cyclists, or even as motorists, they are endangering their lives.
Similarly, we should give even greater priority to family planning. The statistics produced by Sir George Godber show that there is great ignorance and prejudice results from the ignorance of birth control techniques. I qualify that statement by saying that it is not just a question of ignorance. Often, or at least sometimes, the appropriate motivation is lacking. I hope that more attention will be paid to this.
I say that, knowing that the Ministry will use the F.P.A. as its agent in family planning. I welcome this, but I have had some correspondence with the Secretary of State on the attitude of some local F.P.A. branches towards birth control advice to the young and the unmarried. Some local branches have been less than helpful. I hope that the Department will make it clear—I know that they are doing this—that, if the F.P.A. is to be the agent, there must be no discrimination against the young and unmarried.

741
The next point I wish to raise concerns the sense of embarrassment which many young women feel when broaching the subject of family planning with their general practitioner. In this context, a survey was reported in the Sheffield Morning Telegraph among young women in a North Derbyshire pit village is of interest. It was undertaken by the Shirebrook Amenity Society into the general amenities of the village. One of the most revealing facts was that many women were reluctant to go to the general practitioners in the area, because they were known to be Roman Catholics. I understand that the amenity society, as a result, made representations to its health executive, suggesting that there should be a Protestant doctor so that women did not feel the embarrassment of approaching Catholic doctors.
I think that this feeling of embarrassment is exaggerated. I know the attitude of the Roman Catholic church, but many Roman Catholic practitioners are liberally-minded, and if they felt unable to give the advice, they would doubtless refer their patients to others who would. But this is a blockage and it is a problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) talked about the rôle of general practitioners. Obviously, this service will be provided in future by the F.P.A. and the general practitioners, but a general feeling in the profession is that doctors should receive some additional remuneration for the assistance which they give patients in respect of family planning. They point to the fact that they are paid for taking cervical smears and to the additional payments which they receive when doing vaccinations. They feel that this additional service should also be paid for.
Some doctors have experienced difficulty in prescribing. I hope that this information will come as a surprise to my hon. Friend: if he knew about it, I am sure that he would see that it was stopped. It has been reported to me by two general practitioners that their regional medical officer has drawn their attention to the heavy prescribing of pills on the form EC 10. I hope that the Ministry will direct that the prescription of pills on the standard form is allowable
742
not only in respect of medically referred cases, but in respect of all cases.
A new development, which I greatly welcome and which I hope others will welcome, is the acceptance by some employers of the need to provide family planning services. I gather that this is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether employers accept responsibility is not a matter for the Minister. This is an interesting debate, but it does not cover the whole world.
Mr. Jackson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to order. Nevertheless, I would point out that the services are provided by the F.P.A., which in turn receives a grant from the local authority. Therefore, I thought it would be in order, and, with permission, I merely make a passing reference to it.
I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to a clinic held in the factory of Texas Instruments, Ltd., at Bedford. The hours worked by ladies at this factory make it difficult for them to attend the local F.P.A. clinic. Their employers, therefore, thought it proper to invite the F.P.A. to hold a clinic at the factory. This kind of invitation should be widely welcomed. I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to see an extension of that particular service.
I turn now to the technology of birth control. I am no specialist in this sphere, but I am told that it is almost in the Stone Age. When I compare the money which we spend on technological developments of one kind and another—I think particularly of Concorde—and the amount we spend on family planning, I wonder whether we have our priorities right.
I think it appropriate to mention that Professor Sir Alan Parkes, who is a member of the Advisory Committee on Medical Research, at a recent conference alleged that we are spending more on the problem of infertility than on the whole question of contraception. I think it is absurd that we should be spending so much on such a problem, although I do not suggest that it is not important to some people. Nevertheless, in terms of the wellbeing of the total community, it is absurd that birth control should be given far lower priority than the problem of infertility.

743
I understand that the total turnover of the various drug houses producing the Pill is about £4 million. The Pill has taken a severe knock recently, because there has been a lot of adverse publicity. The companies concerned are seriously alarmed by this and are reluctant to spend the additional enormous sums of money which must be put into further research. They feel that the projected turnover will not justify the expenditure. I suggest that my hon. Friend's Department should think more seriously about providing assistance to the industry for research.
Finally, I draw attention to the debate in the other place on the Green Paper on the Health Service and ask for clarification. The question was raised by the noble Lord—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The only reference that the hon. Gentleman can make to a debate in the other place is if it refers to a Minister making an official statement on Government policy.
Mr. Jackson: I am happy to comply with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I will merely refer to the fact that the Baroness Serota, speaking for the Department, failed to answer a query addressed to her by Lord Addison on the rôle of the area health authorities concerning family planning. I know that this is a matter which concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I should like to know whether the area health authorities are to be given mandatory powers or enabling powers which will enable them to operate in the way that local authorities operate. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that there is to be a statutory obligation on area health authorities to provide a fully comprehensive and adequate family planning service.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House, at the risk of tedious repetition, that this is the third of eight debates we have tonight. Reasonably brief speeches will not be unwelcome.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: can scarcely hope to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite of my point of view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Since not one is present, that must be an accurate statement.
744
This is a three Clause Bill. Clause I votes more than £200 million of extra supply for the current financial year, Clause 2 votes more than £800 million for services ending in 1971, and Clause 3 says:
"This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1970."
However, it is traditional, when discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill, to discuss items of special interest to individual hon. Members and to have the opportunity, if necessary, of a very long debate to complete the programme. I will try to be brief, though since I have made some controversial speeches outside the House of the subject of birth control and population control, I owe it to the House to put some of my views on the record of the House.
I wish to put this subject in a wider context, that of population control, because that means birth control for the common good. Few people think of it in that way. The population explosion is believed to be in India and Asia, but not in Britain. Population increase in Britain is thought to be something for which we must provide and not something which we should discourage or try to stop. The positive aims and benefits of family limitation need to be well defined and plainly put across if they are to become accepted in a democratic society as desirable objectives of social and econmic policy.
Whether it is to solve or avert manifest evils of over-population or to improve the quality of life in the fullest sense, they must carry conviction. I frequently say—I have been saying this for years—that party programmes offering economic and social policies for better living, better housing, schools. hospitals, roads, education and social services never mention population control as a means of attaining those desirable ends. No equation between population increase and a higher standard of living is ever offered for public examination, though I am glad to note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services has embarked on some studies which may give us this much needed information.
Warnings from the demographers about the rising ratio of dependent old and young go largely unheeded because

745
the underlying philosophy of the political approach is that it is the duty of the State to make itself rich enough to provide a good life for the population presented to it by the mothers of the nation, and that is what economic growth is believed to be all about. No other domestic purpurpose has been included in any party political programme in this country so far.
Birth control for the good of all has hitherto been less acceptable than family planning for personal hapiness and welfare. Indeed, family planning has to be put across mostly as a contribution to a balanced and happy family life, rather than a contribution to population control. The prevailing doctrine seems to be that it is no business of the State to tell us how many children we should have. I think this may logically come within a declaration of human rights, but it cannot easily be reconciled with the assumption of wider and heavier responsibility by communities everywhere for child and family welfare. I do not believe that the economics of family size can be regarded any longer as the sole responsibility of the parents because family size is the business of the State. It is a joint responsibility and mutual benefit can come from it. I think it essential that this doctrine should be accepted.
Political parties and Governments find these matters extremely distasteful. They tight shy of them. They arouse deep emotions, deep personal convictions and religious differences. They are embarrassing and they are bad for party unity, we are told. They are vote losers, we are told. On looking at the record, one finds that the Labour Party at its annual conference has discussed birth control only three times in 40 years, and the Conservative Party conference not at all. Yet it was a Labour Minister of Health in the second Labour Government, the late Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who issued the first historic circular to local authorities on the giving of contraceptive advice. What he did over 30 years ago stood as the sole contribution of Government to this matter until the present Government came into office in 1964.
Then my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), then Minister of Health, renewed that historic circular of 33 years ago, reminding local authorities that they
746
have the power under the authority of Parliament to spend money on the provision of contraceptive advice for medical reasons. But it was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) introduced the Family Planning Bill, 1967, that local authorities were empowered to spend money on giving contraceptive advice for social and not exclusively medical reasons.
If we are to preach the doctrine of family responsibility, social responsibility, the interests of the wider community in making the most private personal decisions, we have at least to enable the community to practise birth control if they are convinced that that is the proper thing to do. They cannot do that if they do not know, or know imperfectly, or cannot afford the means of carrying it out. That is why I feel that from now on advanced thinking on this subject, like that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should consider placing contraceptive advice and contraceptive appliances on the National Health Service. I think this would popularise birth control in all forms and would enable the Government to back that policy with the fullest advice and practical support.
This is precisely what was recommended by the Royal Commission on Population 20 years ago. One of the most depressing experiences is to read the report of the Royal Commission and to realise how little has been done about this in the intervening period. It is absolutely essential that the Government should sponsor this programme. It is no good leaving this to the initiative of private Members, and the hazards of Private Members' Bills. I congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington at the time that he introduced his Bill, but I would have been even more pleased if it had been a Government Bill. That would have shown that the Government were putting their backs into it and lending moral support to provisions to widen the scope of local authority services.
We all know how difficult it can be to get Private Members' Bills through this House. My hon. Friend was fortunate in placing his Bill before the House at a time when there was greater acceptance of it than many of us expected. There was no vote on it in this House, there were no Amendments in

747
Committee and there was not even a campaign against the inclusion of the single girl. There were no Amendments or Divisions in another place. That was very encouraging, but the Measure does not go far enough, because it puts the responsibility in the hands of local authorities, some of whom are co-operative, some of whom are positively obstructive.
My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) asked the Minister whether, in the proposals to transfer family planning services from local authorities to the N.H.S., the service will become universal, provided as part of the Health Service and regarded as an obligation on the area administration of the Health Service. if any Government will bring forth proposals to put contraceptive devices, appliances, the Pill—the lot—on the Health Service, it would be the boldest stroke yet towards achieving happiness for thousands of families, and greater wellbeing in the community at large.
This would probably divide the House sharply on grounds other than political. It would cut across parties but this is not unusual in politics nowadays. I could mention a number of topics when divisions in the House have been across it rather than down the middle. I believe that this will come about, but I should not like to predict that it will happen this Session. When people can free themselves from the embarrassment of relating their deepest personal emotional experiences to the possible consequences of the act of procreation they will be able to accept the sterilisation of physical love as essential to improving the quality of life, quite apart from its effect upon population.
It is a gratifying sign that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has felt able to bring this subject forward tonight. As the sparse attendance in the House reveals, if we do not have a large measure of visible support, we are free from a large measure of visible opposition. That in itself is a comfort in such a debate and would not have been so a few years ago. I have now done my duty. Many of the things I have said outside the House I have now said inside it and that gives me a great deal of satisfaction.
10.40 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for raising the subject of family planning. I think that every one of my hon. Friends who has taken part in the debate will agree that it is a very important subject.
I want to begin by reaffirming that the provision of a comprehensive family planning services for all who need it is the avowed aim of the Government. When I say "all", I mean irrespective of age and married status, and this covers one of the points my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made this abundantly clear on many occasions. We regard a family planning service as an indispensable element in the welfare of the individual and the family. It is essential in strengthening family life and preventing marital disharmony, ill-health and in some cases social breakdown. We believe that a comprehensive family planning service, fully integrated with the other community services, would also relieve the burdens, often considerable, which are placed upon other health and welfare services by the physical and mental distress and ill-health which result so often from the lack of knowledge and effective methods of family planning.
I listened with great interest to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I I agree with him that family planning is not just in the interests of the individual—and it is in the interests not only of the family but in the interests of the community as a whole. It is more than just a purely personal affair, though the personal side is very important.
I was very interested in my right hon. Friend's comments on the whole question of a population policy. He mentioned the historic development that Arthur Greenwood initiated so many years ago. It was the present Government who were the first to go further and give positive encouragement to the provision of a family planning service under the National Health Service. It was in 1966 that my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) as Minister of Health first

749
asked local health authorities—by reason of their responsibility for community preventative services—to provide both family planning advice and treatment and publicity by all means open to them, including giving finance and other assistance to voluntary bodies working in this field. Some local health authorities had already begun to take steps to implement this advice when the Family Planning Act, 1967, conferred additional powers on them. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) here, because he was instrumental in initiating that legislation.
That Act enabled local authorities to provide direct, or arrange for other bodies to provide, a service for the public generally and not as previously only for those in medical need. We extended the service so that it took into account the social factors as well as the more narrow medical ones. Following this Act, my right hon. Friend the former Minister of health again wrote to local health authorities emphasising the need to provide as comprehensive a service as possible as soon as this could be done and expressing the hope that the extension of their powers would serve as a stimulus to future action on the part of all authorities. He spelt out specifically the need to continue to make full use of the services of voluntary bodies working in the field and to provide a domiciliary service where this was considered necessary. This was a point my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood raised. I think that local authorities are increasingly conscious of the need in certain circumstances for a domiciliary service, and this need will perhaps be more clearly identified as a result of a survey and investigation that I shall mention in a few minutes.
In most cases we know that my right hon. Friend was knocking on an open door, and that the majority of authorities fully accepted the spirit of the 1967 Act.
It is unfortunately the case that the beginning of the real family planning service in the local authority field precisely coincided with the start of the present period of financial stringency. Although I think that some authorities could do more than they do, it remains true that expansion of the service has been constantly regulated by the amount of money available.
750
It is to the credit of many local authorities that we have achieved as much as we have in such a short time. At present all local authorities are providing a service of some kind—this does not mean that I would be entirely satisfied with the service they are providing—with one exception, and in this case the authority concerned has agreed to start providing a direct service next month. I fully accept that in a number of cases the level of local authority provision is quite inadequate, but I know that it will be some satisfaction to hon. Members to learn that estimated expenditure on this service by local authorities in 1969–70 shows an increase of about £150,000 over the expenditure for the previous year.
I accept that expansion by local authorities of their family planning services would bring direct and substantial cost benefit to them, but the problem is that some of the savings can arise only in the long-term, whereas the short-term expenditure involved in the expansion of the service presents difficulties to many local authorities in the current financial situation. I should make the point, however, that we are currently considering the possibility of obtaining information which could form the basis of cost benefit study so that we can analyse the economic consequences of action that may be taken. I emphasise that the difficulties are considerable.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would my hon. Friend care to qualify his statement that the saving is only in the long run? The long run in this instance, as has been shown by the cost benefit analysis which has been undertaken into the domiciliary service in both Newcastle and Southampton by my one-time colleague John Peel, is very much in that short run, the short run being no more than five years.
Dr. Dunwoody: I did not say—I certainly did not intend to say—only in the long run. I thought I said that some of the savings arise only in the long term, because the benefits that accrue will be with us for a very long period of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood mentioned the question of the extent to which we are encouraging local authorities. I assure him that my Department does all it can to encourage local authorities to provide a better, fuller and

751
more adequate service. This encouragement is given all the time to local authorities in the day-to-day correspondence we have with local authorities. I do not think that there are any local authorities which are unaware of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's views on this matter.
I mentioned a moment ago the question of domiciliary services. I think that local authorities are becoming conscious of the need, but I think we will see the real scope that there may be for these services when we have some more of the results of the investigations we are initiating.
As regards general practitioners it is estimated that the great majority of contraceptive prescriptions—perhaps about 80 per cent.—are given by general practitioners. It is, perhaps, not always realised by many people that the majority of women obtaining a family planning service do so from their family doctors. The question of possible embarrassment has been referred to. I do not say that there would not be cases where embarrassment might arise, for one reason or another. One reason has been mentioned. I speak with a little experience when I say that there are many women who would be happier to go to a doctor who knows them and who knows their family circumstances than to a stranger. Therefore, I think that it works both ways and that there are certain people who will be embarrassed in any given situation and it is perhaps best if we offer alternative avenues along which those concerned can go.
I am sure from my contacts in the profession that the family doctors are increasingly providing family planning advice and treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak raised the question of additional remuneration. This takes us beyond the scope of the Bill. I will certainly take note of the points he raised. As to his other point, if he would give me details of the two cases to which he referred where approaches had been made to the individual practitioners about their prescribing, I should be happy to look into them.
The question of literature and publicity material for use by general practitioners in their surgeries and waiting rooms was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood. I am certainly prepared
752
to consider this in consultation with the Health Education Council, on which a primary responsibility devolves in this direction, together with many of the other points which have been raised during the debate concerning publicity and propaganda. They are important points.
Perhaps I might mention one area in which the Department is already giving considerable thought. We are actively considering using our own social security offices throughout the country in appropriate circumstances for the display of family planning posters provided by the Health Education Council.
On the hospital side, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently written to hospitals about their family planning services. His letter encourages hospital authorities to provide a service of advice to their patients, either directly or by arrangement with a voluntary organisation on the hospital's behalf. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood quoted a good instance in his part of London where this is being done.
My right hon. Friend has also urged hospitals to co-ordinate their services with those provided by local authorities, general practitioners and voluntary organisations so that a comprehensive service is available for the districts they are serving.
Despite all that I have said, there are gaps in the service. It is particularly for this reason that my right hon. Friend has commissioned a comprehensive national study of the family planning service which will cover all aspects of the service, including publicity. This study, which will be carried out by the Government Social Survey during this year, is designed to find out both whether the facilities now available meet the requirements of the people who use them and also the ways in which they might be improved. To obtain this information, the Government Social Survey will ask people in the sample whether they have obtained advice from local authorities, family doctors, hospitals and/or voluntary organisations and whether they are satisfied with the help they have received. They will also make inquiries of those who do not use the existing services to find out whether other sorts of provision are needed or whether there is no expressed demand for service among these people. This covers

753
the point made about domiciliary services in certain situations.
The answers given during those interviews will, of course, be treated as strictly confidential and the individual questionnaires, which bear no names or addresses, will be seen by no one outside the Government Social Survey Department. I am sure that the House will agree that the survey should serve as a basis for future guidance to local health authorities on the ways in which the family planning service should be developed. Local authorities are extending their services. I am sure that they will continue to do this, but when we get the statistical returns from the investigation—we expect to get the early returns, for the second quarter of this year, by late summer—we will have something firmer on which to base future policy decisions.
The question of technology and research was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak. We are aware of the need for both research on existing methods of contraception and the development of new methods, but this is primarily a matter for the various research bodies concerned. The Medical Research Council is sponsoring studies in this direction. It is co-operating with the Family Planning Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners. They are initiating long-term prospective studies relating to contraceptives generally.
When one looks into this aspect, there is the question of training. The possibility that general practitioners should have additional training has been mentioned. In passing, I would mention that we agreed last year to grant £20,000 a year for five years to the Family Planning Association to expand its training programme for doctors and nurses. It is important that those working in the service should acquire skills and expertise in this work.
I referred to the importance of publicity. It is essential that increased publicity be given to this service to ensure that people have a clear understanding of the various kinds of treatment available, that they are aware of where to go to obtain treatment and that they are encouraged to take advantage of it. The Health Education Council has taken over the health educational promotional
754
activities of my Department and has an important rôle to play in this.
As a first step, it has already appointed an advisory panel on sex education whose priority task will be to consider the problem of educating the public in the use of all kinds of contraceptives. It will also be asked to advise on the extension of training and education of professional and lay workers in health education. The promotional activities of my Department are now vested in the council which is giving this work top priority. Encouraging local authorities generally further would best await the initial results from the survey which I have mentioned.
Television advertising has been mentioned. This is being considered by the Health Education Council which is examining the possibility of preparing "fillers" on this subject. It is an expensive form of publicity and one has to compare its effectiveness and that of other forms of publicity. But I certainly would not want to prejudge any decisions which are rightly the prerogative of the Health Education Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak spoke about youngsters in schools and the links between the education departments and my Department. My Department has a continuing dialogue about the whole of health education with the Department of Education and Science.
Family planning is one of the personal health services intended to become the responsibility of the new health service authorities, the new area health boards proposed in the Green Paper. I cannot anticipate the Green Paper structure, but, as hon. Members know, except for three specific proposals spelled out early in that document, it is a discussion document. It is to be debated on Monday and it will be discussed in the country in the next few months and succeeded by a White Paper which we hope to publish in the summer months. But I have very much in mind what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak. In the context of family planning, the permissive powers needed and the sort now in operation in local authority work are not characteristic of the National Health Service.

755
It is likely that in future there will be emphasis on the provision of a service through the community health or group practice centre used by a number of doctors and other health workers and providing a useful focus for the spreading of knowledge and advice about family planning and staffed by family doctors who have received training in this work and supported as necessary by nurses and health visitors. The latter will no doubt concentrate particularly on seeking to persuade a far higher proportion of mothers with low incomes and large families to attend for advice. One of the problems which has emerged in the debate is that as we devise means by which we
756
provide advice we make it more readily available to those who least need it while the very groups in our society who most need it are the very last to know where to go to get it.
These future possibilities for family planning are in line with the policy of encouraging the provision of preventive services by a single community care team. Whatever the future may hold, I hope that it goes without saying from the extent of the activity which I have described that we have all aspects of the family planning service under constant review and that our eventual aim of a free, across-the-board service is constantly before us.

POLICE FORCES
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish that more hon. Members were present to discuss the subject I wish to raise because it is of import both to the House and to the people generally. It is that of the hours, wages, working conditions, pension rights and deployment of the police. During my 25 years in this House, I believe that I have heard only about three debates, if that, which were concerned purely with the police forces. We have had several debates on crime and public order and related matters but few dealing with the police as such. Hence, I wish to deal just with that subject, bringing in the allied aspects of crime and crime prevention.
It is right that I should, even in a House so sparsely attended, declare my complete admiration, which is shared by all hon. Members, for the excellent work done by the police, both generally and in the Metropolitan area in particular. I know that I am only echoing what the people generally think. The police do excellent work in the most difficult circumstances. Most of my speech will, I hope, be constructive and helpful in its ideas and suggestions, and if I conclude with some criticism I emphasise that it is not of the police but of the administration and antediluvian attitude of the Home Office. My attack will be on the political machine and the administration which the police have to work under.
The Supplementary Estimate dealing with the police covers the recent pay increases awarded. Even with those increases, I believe that the police, in relation to others doing essential work of prime importance to the country, will be underpaid, just as they are underpaid now. Indeed, they are relatively poorly paid and, I repeat, certainly underpaid. They are certainly overworked and understaffed. They have the most awful conditions of hours, shift work and what I would loosely call accommodation. I do not mean their personal housing which, generally speaking, is pretty good. I am talking about the very old police stations. If hon. Members were occasionally to spend some time visiting some of them, as I have done in my constituency, they would be appalled
758
at their filthiness because they have never been renovated or decorated and in many instances they are past decorating and should be replaced by new stations. Some have been rebuilt and some new stations have been provided, but not sufficient.
I note that there is to be a reduction in the building of new stations and other buildings. That is deplorable. It says that there is a hold-up in the erecting of new buildings. Why? Thousands of building trade workers are unemployed, as are many workers in ancillary industries. Money is not short. We have the money and the workers so why can there be any reason for saying that there should be a hold up in producing new accommodation?
Some of the work the police have to undertake is beneath their dignity and beneath their ability. The police forces generally are not being properly and adequately employed in the type of work they should be doing.
Their pension rights and pension scheme are not as good as they should be. The scheme is not as good as that for the Civil Service, and I do not see why it should not be altered to enable police to continue in the service if they so desire. We know that their system provides for a relatively short period of engagement and a relatively early pension at a relatively young age, and I shall put forward some ideas for improvement.
The police shortage is mainly due to inadequate salaries. A large sum is provided in the Estimate for a police recruiting campaign, but I am convinced there would be no need to spend money on it if the police were to get improved salaries and conditions of service which would encourage people to go into the police forces.
The police are being wrongly deployed. In some instances they are doing unnecessary work, unnecessary, that is, in the sense that their skills and abilities are not needed to do it. The police are, or should be, a force of highly-skilled men with a high standard of mental and physical ability and fitness, and most of them are big and able chaps. My suggestion is that we build up a very skilled force, with very high salaries, and quick turnover so that there is a chance of rapid promotion, and that this very

759
skilled and well-paid force should concentrate upon crime detection and crime prevention, and be used in an attempt to stop the serious—the very serious—crime wave in this country, the crimes including the physical assaults we read of daily, almost hourly, and the robberies we read of daily. If we were to have a highly-skilled force of men of top-rate physique, who could include, for instance, ex-Army people, it could get on with the most serious job, which is crime prevention, and arrest this terrific growth in crime.
Then I should like to see a secondary force, which, for want of a name, I would call the police reinforcement, or police administrative enforcement, force. It would consist of two types of policeman. There would be men not necessarily of the same degree of either the physical fitness or above average mental ability of the men in the first force; they would be just the ordinary type of person. The force could also consist of retired men who had retired at 45 or 50. Many a man who compulsorily retires at that age says, "I do not really want to retire, because I feel too young to do so, but I have to retire," and then he looks around to find some other job, and many of them go to some private security firm and some get more money than they got as policemen.
I shall have some more to say on that in a moment. I cannot see why men of that age, who are not, some of them, capable or physically fit enough for the hard slog of the more skilled type of crime prevention, could not form the nucleus of this secondary force which could deal with the—certainly important, but not so important—job of enforcement of the law for road traffic, for example.
They could deal with traffic offences and with enforcing the road rules and regulations. It is not generally known that there are about 2,500 rules and regulations affecting vehicles on the roads, and the majority of them the police are supposed to enforce, but the police cannot, because they have not the time, they have not the men. They have not a chance of enforcing even, I would say, 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the regulations about such things as roadworthiness of vehicles, lights on vehicles, brakes, and
760
a host of other things. It is a police job to enforce the regulations, but, first, they have not the time, and second, quite frankly, they do not like doing this type of work. They say "This is not the sort of job we want to do", and I agree with them. Why should young, fit, able men have to spend their time sticking tickets on car windscreens because motorists have parked for a couple of minutes too long in a yellow band area? The police do not like the job and they should not have to do it.
I suggest the establishment of a secondary force comprised of, among others, retired policemen. Women could be included, along with youngsters coming out of universities and colleges. It could, for them, be a sort of police cadet force, preparing them for joining the regular police.
It is a crying shame, on entering a police station, to see several able-bodied policemen sitting at desks writing in books and filling in forms. This work could be done by girls, leaving policemen to get on with the work for which they are best suited. A police administrative force, so to speak, could relieve policemen of much of this paper work.
Many policemen, on retirement, join private security firms. These men are still fit, able and not really old. As we believe in competition, what about establishing a police security force, in competition with private security forces—I believe that there are four such firms, all of which are doing nicely and making lots of money, often aided and supported by the police—which could be hired by private industry to, for example, guard money being taken to and from banks? This may seem a revolutionary suggestion, but we have competition between State and private enterprises in other spheres.
The present situation concerning police discipline is chaotic and unfair to policemen. Any person can make an allegation against a policeman and policemen can be, and often are, suspended from duty without pay.
Mr. Antony Buck Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester) indicated dissent.
Mr. Lewis: That situation has pertained for many years. Perhaps the rule

761
has been altered. Do I see the Minister shaking his head in dissent, too?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I was not shaking my head. I will try to deal with this matter later.
Mr. Lewis: I was about to say that this is wrong. I am not against a policeman being suspended—this might be necessary on occasions—but there is an old maxim in the legal profession, which my hon. Friend will know, that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty. If a policeman is suspended he loses one-third of his pay. I suggest that he should not lose any pay whilst on suspension. If a charge is made, and whilst investigations take place, it is fair that a man should be suspended; but it is wrong to stop one-third of his pay during his suspension.
If a policeman is found guilty of misdemeanour, the odds are 1,000 to one that he will be demoted, which is punishment, or, if he is tried before a court and found guilty, the sentence of the court will be carried out. But, as matters stand, he is already sentenced to a salary reduction of one-third before the case is investigated.
I do not believe that there is a sufficient and fair system of investigating allegations against policemen. The police investigate their own colleagues. That is not good for the police who are doing the job or for the man being investigated. Certainly the public suspect that the matter cannot be fair and above board if the police investigate it. I do not see why there should not be a special investigative tribunal or police appeals tribunal, completely free and independent, to which both the police and the public could have the right of appeal. This would be better for the police and for the public. It would give the police the opportunity that other workers have of going to some independent body to have a matter examined.
I do not think that there is anything against the police having trade union representation, which is the right of other workers. Recently, I read that one of the branches or district councils of the Police Federation has asked for an amendment of the Police Act which would give them the right to strike. I am sure that everyone immediately re-
762
volts at the idea of the police striking, but I do not think that they would. However, the opportunity is a wonderful bargaining weapon. After all, the Home Office, or whoever may be the police employer, does not always do things properly.
Why should not the police have the opportunity of the full and complete trade union representation that other employees have? I do not see why that at least should not be given to them. I believe that the chances of their ever having to use it would be limited, because there would not then be dilatoriness on the part of the police authority in reaching a settlement.
There is such a situation at the airport. I will not go into the merits now, because it would not be right. However, I read that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity left a dinner party and spent the night discussing the matter. Why? Because there was the threat of a stoppage. Without the threat of a stoppage it would probably take 12 to 18 months to settle.
This has happened with the police award. I do not know how many months they have had to wait before getting this rather belated and, I think, inadequate reward. I do not want to mention names, but some people have managed to get a 35 per cent. increase in salary in about 14 months, and the same sort of opportunity should be available to the police.
I often criticise the Home Office, but I pay tribute to it for the grand job that it has done in the provision of mechanical aids and equipment for the police. I was one of the first to raise the question of providing the police with personal intercom sets. These have been provided, but they are not as good as they could or should be, and further improvements should be made.
Does every policeman have a phone in his home? If he does, does the Home Office pay for it? I suggest that every policeman should be on the phone because, unfortunately, due to vandalism and other causes, one often has difficulty in contacting a police station. The Home Office should recompense policemen for the cost of having a phone at home.
There appears to be provision in the Supplementary Estimates for money to be spent on a Press publicity campaign to

763
recruit people for the police force—[Interruption.]—The antics of my hon. Friend reminds me of the occasion when Mr. Gaitskell complained about an interruption, and Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, replied that he was looking for his ju-jubes. If my hon. Friend has lost a pound note, I shall help him to look for it, and if we cannot find it I shall give him one out of my own pocket.
I suggest that the police should be their own recruiting agents. They should operate on similar lines to the London Fire Brigade, which is the most marvellous force in the country. When the Fire Brigade wants recruits, it puts on a marvellous display which attracts people and kids from schools in the surounding districts. The police, too, should put on displays to draw attention to what they do. They should get the public, and particularly the children, interested in the various duties which they perform.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: They do.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, but they do not do enough. The police should give lectures at schools. Naturally, they would have to map out their lectures to suit the various age groups. They could, for instance, give lectures on traffic control. Lectures could be given to adults in schools, colleges and universities. There could be educational classes in universities at which the activities of the police could be explained to students and they could be told how they could join the police force.
In making criticisms, I emphasise that they are not made against police personnel but against the system. Too much time is wasted by the police on stupid activities. I recently saw three white Jaguar cars, three motor-cycle police and 10 officers in Palmers Green. The police were sticking labels on cars which had stayed a few minutes over the normal parking time at the road side. In that area parking is permitted from 9 to 5 and no obstruction was caused by the cars. It was a waste of time, effort and energy by all those policemen. A force of older men, or some of 16 or 18 years of age—too young for ordinary police duties—or women, could do that job.
Recently there was a case in which a midwife went into a chemist's shop to obtain an oxygen apparatus for a woman
764
who was in labour. She was in the shop a few minutes and when she came out she found that her car had been towed away to a pound by the police. The policeman who took the car away could surely have realised that as the car had a nurse's badge on it and was outside a chemist's shop, it was likely that a nurse owned it and that she was in the shop. He could have gone in and asked that the car should be removed. That is not the sort of work on which a policeman should be engaged.
I also criticise the administration with reference to licence fees for cars. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are milked from the Revenue by those who deliberately avoid paying Road Fund licences. The force I have suggested could deal with this matter and the money they obtained could be used to help pay for some of the improvements in police forces that I have proposed.
I introduce a personal note. I ask the police to drop the practice of keeping black lists of Members of Parliament and others who they think might cause trouble and bother. I have it on very good authority, from two commanders, two deputy commanders and two chief superintendents of police, that there is a black list at Scotland Yard, and my name is on it. The police could do other things than that. I have the evidence to prove what I say.
Mr. Buck Mr. Buck indicated dissent.
Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman has a word with me privately, I will give enough circumstantial evidence to prove what I say. I have it on the very highest authority. Sometimes Members of Parliament have to make criticisms, not necessarily of the police. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but we sometimes have to criticise the administration, and because of the way we have to frame Questions or make approaches within the rules of order, it looks as though we are criticising the police themselves. One should not then be put on the black list.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: There is no black list.
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend says that. I shall use another term. I may not be on the black list, but the police are very niggled at my efforts. Will my hon. Friend check that back? This was

765
told to me by one of the highest authorities in Scotland Yard, and I was told that, because of that, they keep that kind of information at Scotland Yard.
Mr. Elystan Morgan Mr. Elystan Morgan indicated dissent.
Mr. Lewis: I have not time to go into the details now, but I am quite willing to do so. It is relevant to the question of the police and police efforts.
Mr. Buck: The hon. Gentleman has made an allegation of some seriousness. I have never heard of black lists, and I note that the Minister shakes his head and denies that there is such a thing. The hon. Gentleman ought to let us know, if he has any cogent evidence to support what he says.
Mr. Lewis: All right. About two years ago, I was with a commander and a deputy commander of police. One of them said—he called me by my Christian name—"Arthur, one day when you have time, come over to Scotland Yard and have a look at our 'black museum'". Is there such a term?
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: All right. I would not have known that if I had not been told.
Mr. Morgan: That is totally different.
Mr. Lewis: I replied that I would one day, and he said, "While you are there, you might ask to see the black list. You are on it". I laughed it off and thought no more about it. A little time later, I was told by a deputy commander of police the same sort of thing. Again, I thought nothing of it. One day, I had a phone call from a correspondent of The Times. He said, "Mr. Lewis, would you agree to meet us and give us a story? We are writing an article for The Times weekly supplement, and we have been in touch with Scotland Yard. They say you are on their black list. You are the one who could give us some information against the police". I replied, "Oh, no. I am not doing that. I am not against the police. I never have been against the police. Where did you get that from?". "Scotland Yard", he said, "Did not you once raise in the House questions about the deputy commissioner of police going along to apologise to Lady Churchill for a drug raid and not apolo-
766
gising to your constituent?" I said, "Yes, I did. Where did you get that from?" "Scotland Yard", he said. I replied that I was entitled to make such criticisms, and he said, "They do not like it very much".
I took no notice. Then, on one occasion, I was coming to the House on a Friday in my car, at about 9 o'clock, to give me plenty of time for the 11 o'clock sitting. I pulled up at some traffic lights as they were about to change to red. I had time to go over, but I did not. I stopped hurriedly, and a Jaguar behind knocked into the back bumper of my car. I got out and went to have a look at the damage, and he moved over. When I got back, the lights had changed again and eventually he was going up the road. So, instead of taking my normal route up Caledonian Road, I went up Camden Road, chasing this chap.
I got caught in a radar trap. I said there were some extenuating circumstances, and the officer gave me the name of a chief superintendent to whom I could appeal. At the House, I reported this to the chief superintendent of police here. He said that since this was my first offence in 35 years, he did not think that there would be much further. But sure enough, they did prosecute, when the superintendent at the station concerned had the appeal. I had already complained at this station about police not having taken action about unlicensed cars outside this same station—Caledonian Road Police Station. The magistrate who heard that case said he was very surprised that it had gone ahead. Because of a technicality—I was not legally represented and wrongly pleaded guilty—I got an absolute discharge on a first offence.
But, about 12 months later, I pulled up outside a bank in central London, in Lordship Lane, Tottenham. I waited for three minutes on a yellow band. A disablement discharge certificate, with my name on it, was fixed to the car. When I came out, a policeman was writing out a ticket. I said, "I have not been here for more than five minutes." He said, "You make the laws, we enforce them. Oh, yes, you are Mr. Lewis—Mr. Arthur Lewis—that's right." He said "Three minutes" and wrote it down. Again I appealed, but again they went ahead.

767
I could quote a number of such instances. One could say that it is coincidence, but I have discussed this with a number of my police friends, both before the accident and afterwards. They have said, "We believe the police have got it in for you. You must be on their black list." I said, "It appears that way." I hope that the administration—this is not a question of individual policemen—will realise that hon. Members raising matters here do so as Members of Parliament and are not attacking the police.
My objective is a good police force. My only criticism has been this last one, and only then because the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) suggested that I go into details. I would disabuse anyone of the notion that I have ever criticised the police. I have criticised the administration at the Home Office, who are not up to date or doing their best to give the police the opportunity to perform as well as they can. This is the object of this debate.
11.40 p.m.
Mr. Antony Buck: The first task of any Government is the maintenance of law and order, and because the principal instrument in maintaining law and order is the police. I welcome any hon. Member raising issues involving the police.
I thus congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on raising this issue and particularly on the tone and constructive character of his speech, possibly with the exception of the last part. I am sure that he will not in all seriousness wish to pursue allegations that there are black lists based on a few minor traffic infringements. I should not like to tell the House the number of parking offences that I have committed over the years, but I do not regard myself as having been victimised because of the number of penalties that I have had to pay for these offences.
The bulk of the hon. Member's speech was contained in the first part. Some of his ideas were fascinating and interesting and I am sure that we shall want a little time to consider what he said. I should like to put in a word of warning about the idea of, as it were, a two-tier police force. As I think the hon.
768
Gentleman will appreciate, there are very great dangers in putting forward such a suggestion. Without wishing to offend my Italian friends, I can mention the situation which exists, or did exist in the past, in Italy where there are I think three types of police. It is said that if one is accused by the stradali—the traffic police—of a traffic offence, one should go to a member of the gendamerie or the carabinieri and seek advice. There is a competitive spirit—or at least, there was—among the types of police, which is not entirely healthy. I was not initially attracted by the hon. Gentleman's idea of a two-tier police force. However, one wishes to give all his ideas very close consideration.
It is right that the House should do everything in its power to support the police who have an increasingly difficult task. First, in this matter of the police and their morale, there is the pay issue. I commend the fact that the Government announced on 26th February an 8½ per cent. interim pay increase for all ranks up to chief inspector. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary can tell us what progress has been made with the negotiations for new rates of pay for the senior grades of police officer, for superintendents and chief superintendents. These senior officers are on duty for 24 hours of the day. They bear remarkable responsibilities, and their lives are full of strain. The sooner their claims are dealt with the better.
One understands that an overall two-year agreement is being negotiated and it is expected that it will run from next September for this two-year period. Perhaps we can be informed of the state of progress, and when it is likely that the terms of the long-term settlement will be known. I hope the Under-Secretary will assure us that the two-year agreement will reflect the crying need for incentives for men of ability and ambition. This need was ably analysed in The Times of 30th January this year by Mr. Norman Fowler, who is held in great respect by those of us who follow police matters. He pointed out that the present system is not designed to reward or attract the able and ambitious man—at least, not such men in sufficient numbers. I hope that in the new agreement this fact will be recognised and alterations made.

769
The by no means satisfactory pay structure is only one of the reasons why police morale is not as high as we should like it to be. The workload is perhaps to be regarded as the main one. The hours of work and the volume of work put on the police, partly because of increased duties that we have imposed in recent years are among the main reasons. Even more important, there is the considerable increase in crime. The latest figures for London show that offences against the person in 1969 were up by 22½ per cent. to a total of 6,800. Offences involving firearms went up by 47 per cent. to a total of 272. In Surrey the chief constable recently reported an overall crime increase last year of 14 per cent. and an increase in wounding offences of 55 per cent.
The increased work represented by these figures inevitably affects police morale. There is also a very great strain imposed by the demonstrations, of an increasingly violent nature, which have taken place over the last year. I fear that we can expect more in the coming 12 months. I do not want to turn this ino a highly conroversial debate, but bearing this background in mind I regard it as absolutely tragic that the Home Secretary should have imposed a ceiling on police recruitment in the past. This is no longer with us, but we lost a chance to get the police force up to strength.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has recently outlined some of the steps which should be taken to try to improve the situation in the police force. In his speech to Conservative lawyers he pointed out the great importance of avoiding the imposition of further administrative burdens on the police by legislation. He also pointed out the need to hasten the civilianisation of the police.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I know that the hon. Gentleman is reiterating a point made by his right hon. Friend, but does he say that unnecessary legislation has been passed by this House, increasing the burden on the police? If so, will he specify which Acts he has in mind?
Mr. Buck: A large number of burdens have been put on the police force. I cannot specify further at the moment, but they have been plenty of examples given tonight. I see it in the courts all the time. 'Take the new tyre regulations, for
770
instance. The hon. Member for West Ham, North quoted 2,000 regulations relating to vehicle use. I am not utterly convinced and I speak personally here, that it is right to have the police so closely involved with these. What we are looking to is the future. We must avoid imposing further burdens on the police by further administrative action, continue with the civilianisation and see that they do not have to carry out so many routine duties in magistrates' and other courts. Today one often sees in court several police officers on duty even though the case does not involve violence.
We need more experts to help the police, such as accountants to help the Fraud Squad in its tremendously difficult task. I think that I am right in saying that there is not a single accountant on its staff. It calls in accountants to help in individual investigations, but they are very badly needed on its staff. Scientists are needed in greater number to deal with forensic problems. Some of us have been stressing for a considerable time that computers are badly needed. Increasing use is starting to be made of them.
My right hon. Friend also made a point of the need to create within the police force a career, educational and pay structure that reflects the great importance of the police.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Many ex-Servicemen with wonderful records could take over many of the administrative jobs in the police force if there were liaison between the Ministry of Defence and the police force.
Mr. Buck: There is certainly scope there. My constituency is a popular garrison town, to which quite a lot of ex-Servicemen tend to return to live. Some are absorbed in the garrison, some in local firms and some could be used in the police. It is interesting to find the hon. Gentleman in such broad agreement with the lines of policy laid down by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that the Government will start embarking on some of the plans put forward by my right hon. Friend. They have only a very short time left, but if they start on this work we shall be able to finish the job and raise the morale of the police and stop

771
the wastage. That is particularly
important.
The points I have mentioned emanate in the main from my right hon. Friend. I also believe that the House should give more of a lead in these matters. We should devote much more time and attention to questions of crime, the maintenance of law and order and police matters. I have had this in mind for quite a time, and with the help of the able Library staff I have calculated that over the last full Parliamentary Session, 1968–69, there were only 14½ hours of parliamentary debate on the whole issue of law and order and police matters in particular. I do not vouch for the absolute accuracy of that figure, because it is difficult going through HANSARD in detail, but that is about the total. Compared with it, the number of hours devoted to Service matters in that period is very striking—42½ hours calculated by the same method.
We are somewhat handicapped in our attempts to give more time to the consideration of law and order and police matters because the relevant principal reports do not come before Parliament until well on into the summer. They are the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Report of the City Commissioner, and that massive document, the Criminal Statistics, relating to the preceding year. All these most important documents appear in June or July, and we do not debate them. A vast amount of work goes into their compilation—police work in the main, but also work by clerks of court.
I regard it as little short of an insult to the police that Parliament does not consider the matters they put before us. I ask for an assurance that the Under-Secretary will do everything in his power to ensure that this year the first three of the reports I have mentioned will be issued in time for us to have a full-scale debate on the conclusions to be drawn from them.
There is, lastly, the question of the "authorised" establishment of the force. When is it proposed that there should be a consideration of the appropriate establishment of police forces in various parts of the country taking into account
772
the vast increase in crime which has taken place, the increasing burden placed upon the forces because of demonstrations, the increasing burden placed upon them by legislation, and because of population changes? It is some time since there was a reassessment of establishments.
This has been an interesting debate. We shall listen with great care to what the Minister says, because the whole issue of the police is rightly causing people very great concern. It is right that a message should go out from the House tonight that we are wholeheartedly behind the police in their increasingly difficult battle against the crime wave which is still besetting us and the increased difficulties confronting them because of the various factors which I have mentioned.
11.57 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): This has been a brisk and interesting debate. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for his solicitude concerning the pay, conditions of service and other matters relating to the police. I am deeply grateful to him also for the warm admiration he has expressed for the manner in which the police discharge their duties generally. As my hon. Friend said, he has from time to time in the past been a harsh critic of the police.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did not say that. I said that I had been a critic of the administration, not of the police. I have criticised the administration, which is vastly different.
Mr. Morgan: In my short time as a Minister I have had to reply to scores of rather critical Questions that my hon. Friend has tabled against the police. Be that as it may, there is joy in the portals of the Home Office at the repentance of my hon. Friend on this point. I am sorry but not altogether surprised that he has not included the Home Office within the ambit of his generosity.
My hon. Friend has had harsh words to say about the Home Office in relation to the question of pay and hours. He has raised a number of points concerning hours of duty, pay, conditions of service, and pensions, of police forces. On all these matters my right hon. Friend

773
the Secretary of State for the Home Department is required to consult the Police Council for Great Britain before making and laying regulations. Regulations about pensions are additionally subject, as the House will know, to affirmative Resolutions by Parliament.
The Police Council is a statutory body set up under Section 45 of the Police Act, 1964. The Staff Side is composed of representatives of all ranks of the police forces of Great Britain. Before making regulations on matters not specifically allocated to the Police Council by the 1964 Act, my right hon. Friend is required to consult the Police Advisory Board, on which the police associations are represented. The most notable matters dealt with by the Police Advisory Board are discipline, promotion, training, manpower and general operational organisation.
I mention the Police Council and the Police Advisory Board because, between them, they cover the whole spectrum of police activity about which my right hon. Friend has power to make regulations. We hear a lot these days about the participation of workers in management. In the police service, it has existed under statute for many years.
To deal rather more specifically with the question of pay, which has been raised by both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), this is, as I have said, a matter which is the subject of negotiation in and review by the Police Council. The last major review made by an outside body was in 1960 by the Royal Commission on the Police, chaired by Sir Henry Willink. Its method of calculating its figures, sometimes called the Willink formula, was not endorsed by either side of the Police Council and, indeed, was not recommended by the Royal Commission as a permanent formula. Nevertheless, the rates of pay recommended were acceptable to both sides and to the Government. Since those rates were fixed, the Police Council has, by agreement, carried out a review of pay every two years.
My hon. Friend asked the reason for that delay. He will be aware that this is a biennial exercise and that the Police Council, in so reviewing pay, uses the index of weekly wages to ensure that
774
movements in pay are comparable with those in outside industry. The interim award of 8½ per cent. of which we have heard was agreed by the Police Council and approved by the Home Secretary because movements of pay in outside employment since the last police pay review were pushing police pay increasingly out of line. This was having adverse effects upon the service. The normal two-year periodical review at 1st September, 1970, will still take place.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: What I tried to ask, although probably not sufficiently clearly, was why the police have to wait two years when Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown in other occupations do not have to wait two years. The civil servants do not. The Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board does not. Members of Parliament have to wait, but almost everyone else can negotiate as and when he chooses. Why should the police find themselves getting out of line by waiting? Let us alter this.
Mr. Morgan: I do not want to go into all the detailed cases involving the friends—and, perhaps, those who are not always friends—of my hon. Friend in this connection, but this is a system which has lasted since 1960 and has broadly been accepted by both sides.
The current rates of basic pay give the youngest constable, on entry at 19 years of age, £900. The older entrant, at the age of 22 or more, gets £1,025. An officer with two years' service and beyond the age of 22 gets £1,150. With six years' service, that rises to £1,340. Rates in London, as the House will be aware, are weighted and are £50 higher. To all these figures there should be added the value of housing benefits which, in terms of taxable income, probably represent to the married man in a less expensive area at least a further £200 and in London two or three times that amount.
As part of the 1968 pay settlement, the Police Council agreed to a reduction of working hours from 42 to 40 per week, such reduction to operate from 1st April, this year. Police Regulation 18 prescribed the normal daily duty as eight hours plus any period for reporting at the start of duty, that is, usually about 10 minutes, but less the 45 minutes refreshment break stipulated in the regulation. Therefore,

775
eight hours means eight hours gross, and a 40-hour week is a five-day week.
From 1st April, normal duty should allow, in addition to public holidays and annual leave, two rest days in each week, but a number of forces are not yet able to grant the full quota of rest days. The regulations provide for time off in lieu of rest days worked, and, if that is not possible, for overtime at the rate of time and a half. The Metropolitan Police regularly work three rest days in each period of four weeks, and of course they are paid for this. Regular overtime, as it has come to be called, therefore supplements pay by about 22½ per cent. on average. It is fair to say that overtime in other forces, in provincial forces, is generally substantially less.
Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member said that there should be much greater civilianisation, that where it was possible for tasks now carried out by the police to be discharged by civilians, every possible effort should be made to bring that about. Since the end of 1963, the number of civilians, including traffic wardens, employed in the police service, has increased by 16,700.
Much could be said about pensions, but at this late hour I merely draw attention to the fact that the police pension regulations are made by the Secretary of State and are subject to the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. They are made after consultations conducted in Committee E of the Police Council for Great Britain on which all the service associations are fully represented, together with the local authorities and the Home Departments for England and Wales, and for Scotland.
This Committee has set up a working party, which is fully representative of all police interests, to examine police pension arrangements in the light of the Government's proposals for earnings-related pensions and to make recommendations. These recommendations will form the basis, therefore, of negotiations in Committee E.
Reviewing the police pension scheme is likely to be a somewhat complicated business, but the Home Department and the working party set up by local authority associations have put to the Staff Side as a basis for discussion their proposals for the main features of a
776
revised pension scheme. A meeting of the Police Council's working party was held on 6th March, when preliminary consideration was given to these proposals.
My hon. Friend mentioned the money spent on recruiting. He suggested that, if salary scales were at that level they should be and conditions were improved, there would be no need to spend hundreds of thousands of £s on recruiting each year. Up to about 20 or 30 years ago, the very security which the police service offered, in circumstances where security did not exist in so many other occupations, was a positive encouragement to people to join. Changed conditions mean that there has been a levelling up in this connection and thus one of the most important attractions has disappeared. Likewise, the very substantial pensions in comparison with other occupations were also a substantial attraction. Looking into the future, that attraction will not be so dominant in comparison with other occupations.
On the other side of the coin, in an age which is given more and more to leisure, the fact that here we have a disciplined force with, inevitably, tied conditions, means that there is a minus factor which limits the attraction more than it may have done in years gone by. Therefore, the basic attractiveness of the police service as a service must be lower now than in previous years. It is against that background that we should look upon the question of general and local advertisement for recruits.
My hon. Friend referred, as he has done before, to the question of deployment. The dispersion of effort in terms of men and money between the prevention and detection of crime and, for example, the regulation of traffic is not amenable to a decision based upon available statistics. It is, moreover, a matter on which the man in the street often has strong views, but more often they are subjective views which may change suddenly as the impact of crime or, alternatively, traffic affects him personally. I am sure that my hon. Friend has found this to be so.
It is, nevertheless, for chief officers of police to decide how to deploy the manpower available to them and they have to do so in general terms of deciding the relative strengths of detective and traffic

777
departments and in particular terms to deal with circumstances or emergencies. No one is in a better position to make this decision than the chief officer of police. He depends upon his experience; he is in a position to look upon the whole scene as a totality and, of course, to a considerable extent, he relies on a professional police interpretation of statistics, which in themselves of course do not provide a decision.
My hon. Friend dealt with setting up a police security force which could, from time to time, be hired to private industry for the protection of bullion in transit. Without dealing with the general merit of such a suggestion, while we have 92,000 police officers in England and Wales, and are below establishment, as the hon. Member for Colchester has pointed out, and with the priorities which have to be enforced in this situation, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this is not the time to set up such a force, to be hired out and therefore taken out of the general ambit of the duties which fall to the police force as a whole.
My hon. Friend also mentioned police discipline. He raised the question of suspension without pay, but no police officer is suspended without pay. He receives a suspense allowance of two-thirds of his pay.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise. I was on the principle of no stoppages.
Mr. Morgan: I appreciate that. The Police Council is considering whether this system should now be amended, but chief officers do not, in any event, lightly suspend their men.
The second point my hon. Friend raised on discipline was whether or not complaints against the police should be investigated by the police themselves. As he is probably already aware, my right hon. Friend has set up a working party to consider whether the system of investigating complaints should be changed, and organisations outside the police are being contacted in this connection. This is a difficult question. On the one hand, there is the general principle of jurisprudence that no man shall be the judge in his own suit, and, on the other, the undeniable fact that it is most difficult for a disciplined force to have an outside body investigating these procedures but not having the expertise or authority to
778
investigate, and above all, the danger that if such an outside body is called on to carry out such an investigation, it will inevitably lead to an undermining of the hierarchy of discipline in that force.
An important point was raised by my hon. Friend about trade union representation. There is a necessity for a fairly strict code of discipline governing the conduct of every policeman on duty and there are also, in police regulations, restrictions on the private life of the police who may not for instance, engage in politics. Some hon. Members may regard that as an advantage. A police officer's place of residence must be approved by his chief constable and he and his immediate family may run a private business only with the chief constable's approval. This is not discipline for its own sake. The aim is to preserve the police officer's absolute impartiality.
There is one other type of restriction: it relates to membership of a trade union. Section 47 of the Police Act, 1964, makes it impossible for a police officer to join a trade union, and nor may the Police Federation be associated with an outside body, as is provided by Section 44 of the Act. Section 53 provides that anyone causing disaffection among the members of the police force or inducing them to withhold their services is guilty of an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment. As my hon. Friend said, there have recently been suggestions that police officers should have the right to withdraw labour. I do not believe that any substantial number of police officers hold this view. We believe that most police officers readily accept this particular restriction, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
Then there were a number of minor matters which I should prefer to deal with by way of correspondence, if I may, for I appreciate that there is a number of debates to follow this one, but I would like to refer to the whole ragbag of grievances which were raised by my hon. Friend towards the end of his speech. Some of these, the parking ticket cases, dealt with specific occasions. I sent a message to my hon. Friend—yesterday, I think it was—asking him for further and better particulars of any specific matters which would be raised, but I did not get any information, and the House will

779
readily understand that, therefore, I cannot deal with these cases, which are two or three out of very many thousand which the Home Office gets in the course of a year. Indeed, some of them may not have been the subject of specific communication with the Home Office.
Then at the very end of his speech my hon. Friend, on a personal note, maintained that there was a sinister black list kept by the police of people who had made nuisances of themselves, or had in some way embarrassed the police forces. This has been the subject of correspondence between my hon. Friend and the Home Office, the subject of Parliamentary Questions, and, indeed, of oral conversation between my hon. Friend and myself. I reiterate here what I have told him on so many occasions, that no such list at all is kept. As to whether the police may regard him with awe, or whether they may feel niggled or embarrassed in any way, I simply cannot say, but I do give him this most solemn assurance, as far as my information goes—and, indeed, I speak from the certainty of conviction in this matter—that there is no such list, and that his name is not singled out for special attention in any way at all. I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend will feel completely relieved even by such an assurance. All I can do is to quote a German philosopher at the end of the last century who said, the greatest enemy of truth is not falsehood, but conviction. I am afraid that hardly anything I can say can shake my hon. Friend's conviction in the matter.
A number of points were raised by the hon. Member for Colchester. I am afraid that I cannot deal with more than two or three of the main ones at this late hour. He raised the question of a rise for superintendent grades. I can tell him that a rise of 8½ per cent. has been agreed between the police and the Secretary of State and that regulations to implement this change will be brought before the House soon.
Mr. Buck: Am I right in thinking that this is the first time this has been announced? I have not seen or heard it before. Or have I not done enough research?
Mr. Morgan: I am not aware that it has been announced before this. I have
780
not taken part in any such announcement myself.
With regard to final settlement, of course the interim pay award in no way affects the settlement which should have taken place on 1st September of this year. All I can say is that it will take place as soon as humanly possible.
Then the hon. Gentleman mentioned once again the ceiling which was imposed a few years ago upon police recruitment and the "tragic", indeed "disastrous", effect which this had had. May I, with all the partisan meanness I can command, once again quote to him the recruiting figures which were average for the years his party was in office? A net increase of some 1,300 police officers per annum, compared with a net increase for the last five years of some 2,000 police officers per annum. That is eloquent testimony of the improved performance of Labour over the Conservatives in this connection.
Mr. Buck: It is easier to get recruits when there is a high degree of unemployment.
Mr. Morgan: The general conditions relating to recruitment have been more difficult in the last six years than during the 13 years of Tory rule.
The hon. Member for Colchester then referred to the speech made last Monday evening by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was devoted to the question of fighting crime could easily have been a Home Office brief, for all the proposals and ideas in it have constantly been referred to and have been espoused for a long time by Home Office Ministers. For example, on the question of hastening the civilianisation of the police in office and clerical work, traffic control and other spheres, I have told the House that the Government have been responsible for an increase in this respect of 16,700 civilians.
Then we come to the question of giving the police more expert civilian assistance and creating within the force a career, educational and pay structure truly reflecting the policeman's vital and unique rôle in the protection of a modern society. That comment of the right hon. Gentleman was almost like the French gentleman who one day had the shattering

781
revelation that he had been talking prose. I am sure that the truth relating to these matters will come home in an equally spectacular way to the Leader of the Opposition.
We have been exhorted by hon. Gentlemen opposite to make the police force more efficient. I cannot resist, even at this late hour quoting some facts. Under Labour, the resources of manpower, vehicles and communications available to the police have increased enormously. At the end of 1963 there were fewer than 80,000 police officers on the strength. Today there are more than 92,000. At the end of 1963, 17,300 civilians were employed on police work. The figure today is about double that, about 34,000, which represents a total increase in police manpower of 29 per cent. During the same period, the number of vehicles increased from 10,700 to 18,000, an increase of 70 per cent., and the number of pocket radios increased from 500 to 21,000.
The hon. Member for Colchester lamented the fact that during this Session of Parliament only 14½ hours had been devoted to this question—
Mr. Buck: I referred to the last full Session of Parliament.
Mr. Morgan: He said that only 14½ hours had been dedicated to discussing questions of law and order and, if I understood him correctly, to discussing matters relating to the police.
Mr. William Hamling: Why did not the Opposition use a Supply day for such a debate?
Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has anticipated my next words. I do not recollect the Opposition requesting one Supply day, or any part of one, for a debate on this important subject.
The question of law and order is a matter of paramount importance. However, I trust that the hon. Member for Colchester will convey to the Leader of the Opposition the feeling of hon. Members in all parts of the House that it should never be flung into the cockpit of politics. It is not a political issue. We are prepared, with great pride, to defend the record of the Government in relation to combating crime. I am certain that no proper indictment can be laid against the Government of any failing or dilatoriness in that connection.

PARLIAMENT AND THE PUBLIC
12.30 a.m.
Mr. Michael English: I want to draw attention to the means of communication between this Parliament, as the legislature of this country and its centre of government, and the public at large.
In the Estimates upon which the Bill is founded, there are Supplementary Estimates for both the Treasury and the Foreign Office which no doubt include chief information officers and others who are responsible for disseminating information to the Press and, thus, to the public.
Before turning to the system by which that occurs, I should like to refer back to the question that we have discussed on previous occasions in this House, namely, how we might publicise our proceedings here—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assist the Chair by indicating to which particular Estimates he is relating his remarks.
Mr. English: Certainly. The Supplementary Estimates of both the Treasury and the Foreign Office and other Departments relating to increases in salaries which, as they are not specified, I take to include officers engaged in these duties—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman help the Chair by indicating which subject, because some of the subheads at which I have looked appear merely to give increases in respect of National Insurance contributions and other matters, but nothing to do with actual increases in salaries.
Mr. English: I checked this with the Clerk's Department. There are increases—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am in charge of the debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer the question which I put to him.
Mr. English: Yes, Sir. Under both the Treasury and the Foreign Office—I have not got a copy of the Estimates: it was here a moment ago but it has now gone—you will find increases in salaries—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may proceed until I find the relevant sub-head.
Mr. English: Before referring directly to the persons who speak to the Press on behalf of Ministers and advise Ministers in their own conversations with the Press, I should like to mention that we all realise that a large part of our proceedings is in public. Unfortunately—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are not discussing the general policy in the Estimates. This is not a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill approving the original Estimates, but merely on the Bill dealing with increases in the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, his remarks must be wholly related to the increases. He cannot debate general policy on Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. English: I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you will be aware that we have recently passed through a debate which dealt with a great deal on the police force—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can only advise the hon. Gentleman that I rule as I hear; not on what has gone before.
Mr. English: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would point out, however—this is easy of proof—that the information services of Her Majesty's Government, which are included in the Estimates and in these increases in the sense that increases in salaries generally under the Treasury and the Foreign Office are included, have constantly increased over many years, particularly since the Second World War. In almost every set of Estimates and Supplementary Estimates there are increases in the items to which I wish to refer. This is only one of a long series. There are additional officers who assist the Government in their information services. This is not something which I necessarily wish to criticise, but I wish to investigate the use to which these individuals are sometimes put.
We in this Parliament have excellent means of communication with the public through the Press Gallery reporters who report our proceedings. Theoretically, there are 291 such reporters, but there are places for only 102, so it is perhaps
784
fortunate that two-thirds of them stay away at any one time.
The facilities for reporting our proceedings to the public are excellent, but I wish that they were even better. I wish, as I believe half the Members of the House do, that there were facilities for the televising and radio broadcasting of our proceedings direct to the public. The dissemination of information about our activities in this House would be greatly improved by those means, and I hope that in the next Parliament they will be adopted.
The proposal to televise our proceedings on an experimental basis was defeated by only one vote, and I think I am right in saying that the overwhelming majority of the younger Members were in favour of it. I believe that with the passage of time, and as people brought up in the day and age of television come into the House, that decision will be reversed, and that the public will be able to see and hear what we do in this Chamber, rather than merely hear individuals being cross-questioned on a programme following our proceedings, possibly by people less well informed than Opposition Front Benchers might be.
If one goes a stage further back to the activities of the individuals referred to in the Supplementary Estimates, one finds that one of their functions—anda very valuable and correct function it is—is to ensure that whenever the Government issue a policy statement, a White Paper, or similar document, that document is handed to the Press privately, under embargo, a day or two before the date upon which the statement is to be made, or the document is to be published. This is a wholly laudable practice. It is obviously sensible that a newspaper reporter should have time to consider the policy statement in detail so that on the day of publication he can not merely produce a good summary of it, but can criticise it, favourably or unfavourably as the case may be. A good summary is all that most people ever see. They do not buy White Papers and similar documents. They read their newspapers and expect to be told what is contained in Government documents.
One wonders why these people about whom I am talking do not do the same for Members of Parliament. On Wednes-

785
day we received the White Paper on the Annual Price Review. Presumably this was issued to the Press, under embargo, by the information officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, some time before we saw it, which was at 3.30 p.m., the time at which the Minister made his statement to the House. That was the procedure adopted for all hon. Members, except one, the exception being the Opposition Front Bench speaker on agriculture.
We are faced with the extraordinary situation that the Press is given time—and rightly so—to consider White Papers before they are made public, but we are not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member again, but this is a debate on general policy of a Department. I find difficulty in relating his remarks to the increases referred to in the Estimates. I am afraid the hon. Member must confine himself to that aspect. This is not a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill—dealing with the original Estimates of the Departments he has mentioned.
Mr. English: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are asked to increase expenditure on these information services. We are asked to increase expenditure to provide for Her Majesty's Government, for example—I quote one example and hope to quote others—giving information to the Press in advance so that the Press may consider it. We are asked to provide for these increases, yet in this case the information services are either inefficient or perhaps, though I hesitate to say it, are deliberately endeavouring to make it more difficult for hon. Members to operate effectively as criticisers of the Executive. It seems that when we are asked for increases in money we should immediately ask whether the increases, like the original sums, are being applied efficiently to the purposes for which they are asked.
In this case, using the one example, a White Paper was issued, but, except for the Opposition Front Bench Member concerned, it came to hon. Members only at 3.30 p.m. It was impossible to read that statement while at the same time listening to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to ask sensible
786
questions immediately after. For exactly the same reason that the information services of the Government issued White Papers in advance to the Press, one would have thought that hon. Members, could have had it issued to them at 11 o'clock in the morning at least, on a matter which does not concern the nation's security—the Agricultural Price Review—so that they could read it and could be sensibly informed to cross-examine the Minister. That is done for the Opposition Front Bench with statements and White Papers. The only real inefficiency, but a very great one, is an attempt, one might say with the agreement of both Front Benches, to prevent a back-bencher criticising or asking questions of the Government Front Bench.
Within the rather strict limits which you correctly set, one may legitimately turn to the activities of the information services in regard to what we call the Lobby. The Lobby is almost a body which does not exist. There are permitted at any one time 80 United Kingdom and 47 overseas Press representatives in the Lobby. I have never seen so many, and I doubt whether my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House has seen so many, at a Lobby conference. I understand that the normal number attending a Lobby conference is about 40. The system itself might well be criticised.
We are asked, and have been asked in the past, for increases in money for the information services. Let us consider one of the principal purposes. We are not only considering the Parliamentary Lobby as the recipients of information, but also the foreign diplomatic correspondents being given Foreign Office briefings, industrial correspondents at the Department of Employment and Productivity, and so forth. One could go through a whole range. I take the case of the Foreign Office deliberately because it is in these Estimates and is probably responsible for more briefings than almost any other Department. It has them, I believe, at least daily.
In a lecture delivered at Stirling on 26th February, Mr. Alastair Hetherington made a series of criticisms of the whole system, criticisms which we ought to consider when we are considering the

787
increased amount of money to be spent in respect of these items. He cited, for example, the comment of the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition:
"Press comment … is conditioned by official Press conferences—particularly in the Foreign Office. Nothing is said to Parliament by the Foreign Office, and diplomatic correspondents are reduced to utter dependence on a daily briefing at the Foreign Office."
We all realise that that is true. There is a daily briefing by information officers and other officers in the Foreign Office. There is a daily briefing to the Press, but nothing like a daily briefing is given to Members of Parliament, and Parliament and the public are informed through the Press as a result of these briefings. It is, therefore, important to question the efficiency with which this is done.
Mr. Hetherington makes several substantial criticisms of the whole system and gives several examples. I shall not quote in detail, but, to put the matter briefly, the editor of a great national newspaper, who was himself once a foreign editor, is directly accusing the Foreign Office of untruth. He is accusing the Foreign Office directly, with illustrations and examples given in his lecture, of quite literally not telling the truth on all occasions.
Other criticisms can be offered. An accusation commonly levelled at the Foreign Office—I do not think it is in Mr. Hetherington's lecture—is that on occasions when they suspect that the Press may receive information from another source, officers at the Foreign Office are known to give such information at the private briefings and ask that it should be "not for writing", as the phrase has it; in other words, that it should not be used. That seems rather an unjust and improper practice if done for that reason. Obviously, it is permissible for someone to ask for something to be off the record, or not for writing, but if it is used as a method of blocking information which foreign correspondents would otherwise receive, it seems to me to he an improper practice.
One can criticise the Foreign Office information services and others in respect of these briefings by adopting Mr.
788
Hetherington's other observation. He said—and I agree—
"I will not labour the point. It happens extraordinarily often. The Foreign Office in my experience are the worst offenders, but they are far from being alone".
As regards his criticisms of briefings generally, one would believe that the editor of a national newspaper is a person who is likely to know that the Foreign Office is the worst offender in such breaches as there are or such misuse as there is of the Lobby system.
Here is one suggestion for improvement. These briefings, we all know, are conducted by Government Departments and even by the Leader of the Opposition. Their existence ought to be brought out into the open. The public have a right to know that they occur, as we know. If we see, on the same morning, in five national newspapers, five stories which are remarkably similar, we deduce that a Ministry or a civil servant has given a briefing. We realise that it has come from 10, Downing Street, or the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the House or the Foreign Office. If we know this, why should not the public? These briefings must be in private to serve their purpose, but is there any reason to conceal their existence?
Would it not often be possible to attribute the information, in the way that this is often done after White House Press conferences? There, there is a series of possibilities. Things can be said which are off the record or not for attribution, but it is much more frequent in the United States for an individual to be able to write, "A White House spokesman said today. …" If this were done more frequently in this country, when whole series of stories stem from a single original source, the public could know what hon. Members know, through their knowledge of how the system works. Why should the public be the only ones not to know? Why should they not be told in their newspapers, "A Foreign Office spokesman said today …"? This would improve the system.
I do not say that it could be done in every case, but we should more often publicise the existence of our information services, we should look at them more closely than we do, and above all,

789
we should inform the public that they are operating and putting out stories from the Government, so that they know the source of stories which so often appear in their newspapers.
I hope that, within the limits of order, I have made my point—that we must not grant increases in these services without thought. We should consider what they are used for, we should ensure that they are used for their proper purpose, and we should keep our people in our democracy as fully informed as possible of how their Government are working.
12.53 a.m.
The Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Shore): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on the skill that he has shown in relating this very wide and interesting theme to the narrow point of the increase in the Supplementary Estimates in relation to the information services of particular Government Departments. He showed the skill which we have come to expect of him in negotiating this rather difficult course.
This is a subject with which all hon. Members—and all Ministers—are very much concerned. All of us who are part of this great British democracy are concerned that we should make it possible for all those involved in it to have the maximum amount of information. This is very much a part of the work of the information services and the information departments of the Ministries. It is necessary in the world in which we live that we should maximise understanding of public issues and that through that understanding we may gain, as we so often need, consent to the policies which are being pursued.
My hon. Friend touched on one of the two great media of communicationbroadcasting—and he expressed a regret, of which I am already aware, that this House has not seen fit to agree to conduct an experiment in closed-circuit television broadcasting. I remember very well my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, since he and I served on the original Select Committee which investigated the possibilities of televising Parliamentary proceedings in the 1965–66 Session of
790
Parliament. The work of that Select Committee was not completed, but my hon. Friend had the opportunity of continuing his work on this subject in the Session that followed.
As my hon. Friend will recall, this matter was brought before the House in a debate in, I believe, November, 1966. Then the House, by a very narrow vote, did not approve the Select Committee's recommendation that this experiment should take place. As recently as November last year the same matter was brought before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and on that occasion, too, the question was not decided because sufficient votes were not recorded in its favour. So my hon. Friend's hopes in this respect clearly have not been fulfilled. Whether they will be at a later stage is something which I suspect another Parliament will decide, unless hon. Members bring this matter forward, and I am not aware of pressure building up for this experiment which would be likely to lead to another debate in the remainder of this year.
I turn now to the other medium—the Press—to which my hon. Friend devoted most of his remarks. He made some interesting and partially valid points in describing the information services and the relationship between them and Parliament and the journalists who write about Parliament. He argued that it would be greatly to the convenience of hon. Members if they were able to receive copies of White Papers and statements to the House earlier than is customary. He suggested that it would be very helpful to hon. Members if they could receive some documents at the same time as did the Lobby and other correspondents. This is not always possible. He referred in particular to statements that Ministers may make.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, they are customarily made available to Opposition spokesmen, but the statements are often drafted and completed only a very short time before they are made available. It would be difficult in some cases to make such statements available to Members generally. Often the publication of White Papers and other documents is not possible except at a relatively short period of time before the time when they are available to the

791
Press. My hon. Friend says that White Papers and other documents are made available to correspondents. He will agree that it is important, if we are to get a proper communication between Parliament and the public, that the Press should have the opportunity to write up, to describe, the material being published. It is necessary, simply because they have dead-lines to meet and have to turn the material into columns in the newspaper, that they should get it in sufficient time to make this possible. The needs of Members of Parliament are slightly different. They do not have this technical requirement. They have the statement available, they can read it. If it is the subject of an immediate statement they hear the statement and can put questions. If it is not immediate, there is plenty of time to consider the contents of the White Paper in the expectation, or hope, that there will be a debate.
Mr. English: With respect, my right hon. Friend is defending a case I did not put. I accept all that he has said, even about the statements. But surely when a White Paper is already in print, issued with an embargo, there is no reason why additional copies should not be issued to Members, not necessarily at the same time as they are issued to the Press? There is another point. On the morning of the Agricultural Price Review statement I understand it is customary for the N.F.U. Council to be informed of the whole statement, as it must be to decide whether it is an agreed Price Review. If that can be done, and the Press fully informed, it seems that a few hours before such a statement is made, copies of the White Paper—which will be issued that day—could be made available in the Vote Office for hon. Members so that they could be adequately considered beforehand.
Mr. Shore: I do not make the point that this is completely impossible, mechanically or administratively. What I am saying is that I do not think that hon. Members are put at the disadvantage which he is implying. The statement and the questions that follow upon it are generally only the opening stage of the parliamentary discussion. Often, as with the Price Review White Paper, the statement which my right hon. Friend makes is possibly only the opening presentation
792
of his policy, and it may be that time will be found for a more extended debate later.
My hon. Friend moved on to make more extended criticisms—following on the interesting lecture that the Editor of The Guardian gave a short time ago—of the Lobby system, the particular practices of the Foreign Office Press Department and the general use of unattributable briefings. My hon. Friend will recall that Mr. Hetherington's criticisms of the Lobby system were by no means severe. In his lecture he made some good points about it, saying that it
"… is convenient. It allows the background of Government policy to be explained. It allows for informal questioning, so that people may understand what the Government or Opposition are trying to do. It provides for continuity of knowledge, because most of the political correspondents are highly experienced people."
It is true that he also warned about the possibility of abuse, but Lobby correspondents are very experienced men and it is not easy to pull the wool over their eyes. I am sure that it is not attempted very often and it does not often succeed.
The system that has grown up is one that Government, Opposition and Members of Parliament have all found of great benefit. Although no institution can escape criticism from time to time, I think that on the whole it is serving the House and Parliament very well.
Every Minister is in a sense responsible for his own information services, and I shall not attempt to deal with my hon. Friend's particular criticisms of the briefings of the Foreign Office. But I would point out that, of all Departments, the Foreign Office, dealing as it does in the highly sensitive area of international relations, diplomacy and the ever-shifting flow of events, is perhaps most naturally inclined to use off-the-record briefings. It is likely in principle to be more attracted to this form of briefing than a Department operating in the domestic sphere.
I think that generally my hon. Friend would rather have less off-the-record briefing and a good deal more on-the-record briefing. It can be too easily overlooked that an enormous amount of information is pouring out all the time on the record. I shall not bore the House by itemising it all, but to give illustrations I have checked some figures. First

793
this House and its Questions. About 24,000 Questions, oral and written, are answered in each Session. I am told that about 6,000 to 7,000 Press notices a year are issued by Departments. There is an endless flow of speeches in the House and outside and a vast volume of written information which is being supplied in what also at times seems to be an endless stream.
This Government have been particularly anxious to increase both the quantity and the quality of information available to Parliament and the public. My hon. Friend recalled my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words in 1963 when he was Leader of the Opposition:
"On vital issues Parliament is told less and less."
My right hon. Friend pointed to some of the most important matters of the day. The negotiations for Britain's membership on the Common Market which were proceeding in 1963 were very much in his mind when he made that criticism.
My hon. Friend, who takes great interest in the question of negotiations with Europe, will agree that the flow of information on the problems involved in negotiating for entry into the Common Market has been far greater during the last three years than it was in the earlier period.
Mr. English: One of the main points in Mr. Hetherington's lecture was that the recent White Paper might never have been issued but for events that had taken place which put pressure upon the Government to issue it. At one time there was to be a series of White Papers on the Common Market. Only two were issued. There has not been, for example, a White Paper on the implications for taxation purposes of our entering the Common Market.
Mr. Shore: Substantial White Papers covering some of the most controversial areas of policy were issued in 1967. Although the Government may have been encouraged by the interest of the Press to produce a White Paper earlier this year, it was the Government's intention that the nation should be informed as fully as possible on this most important matter. Looking back over the past few years my hon. Friend will have detected a clear policy of collecting and releasing more information so as to inform people.
794
There has been the development of important new methods of inviting public discussion on matters of importance. I think particularly of the series of Green Papers we have issued. There was "The Task Ahead", which was the economic survey covering the period 1968–72. There were the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology for reorganising Government research facilities. There is the Green Paper which we may be debating next week on the reform of the Health Service. The nation has found this to be a very valuable innovation.
The five-year public expenditure forecast has given Parliament information of a kind which it can use; it has broken down the information in a way meaningful for discussion and decision-making. The Government's attitude has been very well expressed in the White Paper, which was issued after the Fulton Committee reported last year, entitled "Information and the Public Interest", which outlines the Government's policy concerning information. Perhaps I may conclude by quoting what is almost the foreword of that White Paper. It is a quotation from the Fulton Committee, and it is as follows:
"We welcome the trend in recent years towards wider and more open consultation before decisions are taken; and we welcome, too, the increasing provision of the detailed information on which decisions are made. Both should be carried much further; it is healthy for a democracy increasingly to press to be consulted and informed."
I assure my hon. Friend that it is along those lines that the Government will seek to conduct their information services and to make the best use of them in the interests of Parliament and of the nation.

SLUM CLEARANCE, WILLESDEN
1.16 a.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I wish to discuss the £98,000 increase in administration shown at page 189 of the Civil Supplementary Estimates, 1969–70. I am aware that in dealing with that small part of the total Estimates I am on very small ground. In ancient theological times there was the question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. My problem tonight is to find how many devils will dance on a

795
very small amount of the total Supplementary Estimates.
My contention is that a good deal of this increase in administrative expenses, especially on travel and subsistence, has arisen since preparation of the original Estimates because of changes of policy by local authorities. The Government bear a heavy responsibility for slum clearance and redevelopment, and have naturally had to engage in greater administrative activity when local authorities pursue changed and inadequate policies.
I am very concerned with my area of West Willesden. As an example of the changes which have occurred, there was in 1964 and 1965 in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, a clearance area in South Kilburn of 342 unfit, slum houses, but it was not until 27th January this year that I got an Answer from the Department that 320 of those houses were still standing.
This and other similar matters have caused a good deal of administrative interplay between the Ministry and my borough. Ministers have visited the borough and in recent months deputations have attended the Ministry. During the 10 years that I have been a Member of the House, the housing problem as it affects my constituents has been the most important problem that I have had to bring to the attention of the House. During the last six months, there has been more interplay and activity between the Ministry and the local authority because of changes of policy in this regard, brought about by the change of philosophy which came with a Tory majority at the town hall.
My main area of concern has been three development areas which were previously agreed but which, in recent months, have had to be re-discussed. I refer to Stonebridge, Church End and Willesden Green in my constituency, and South Kilburn in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East. Stonebridge still has 350 designated slums occupied by 700 families.
Part of the discussion is about what constitutes a slum. It is Government policy to urge local authorities to get rid
796
of slum areas as speedily as they can, but many years ago the then local medical officer of health, Dr. Leff, pointed out to me that there was no point in designating more slums in Willesden, because the problem was so great that designation would simply increase the number of statistics while not improving the houses.
Last Sunday morning, as were so many of my colleagues, I was canvassing for the Greater London Council elections, and I visited three flats within a short time. At Denton Road I went into an upstairs flat of two rooms. There were many children. The flat was running with damp. This made the wiring dangerous, so electricity could not be used. The owner's name was not in the rent book. Although the situation was appalling, the flat was not designated a slum.
The second, in Barry Road, was occupied by a couple who were doing their best to make it comfortable for their two children. But the two children were sleeping in one bed, one at one end and one at the other, and one was suffering from bed wetting. The result may b imagined. This is in the Stonebridge redevelopment area.
Within 200 yards of my Labour Hall there is furnished accommodation about to be cleared as part of a redevelopment programme. Because the property is furnished, there is no security of tenure for the tenants. In one room there lived a mother and father and daughter of 21. The mother was deaf and dumb; the father was deaf and the daughter did not seem as bright as one would hope. All three slept in the same bed. The conditions of living were appalling. This, too, was not designated a slum.
Is the additional expenditure involved in the Bill to cover instructions to the district valuer not to evict these people so that the owner receives a higher rate of compensation? That is the kind of problem that is causing concern.
There have been changes in the redevelopment situation since I last addressed the House on the subject. At this time last year there were 6,943 people on the waiting list; today there are 8,184. Last year, there were 1,604 suffering from medical disability on the waiting list; this year, there has been an increase of nearly 20 per cent. to 2,130. The number of premises statutorily deemed to be overcrowded has risen from 988 last year to

797
1,218 and the number of families broken up has increased from 236 to 298.
Does this increased expenditure mean that more help will be coming from County Hall from the housing programme of the Greater London Council to deal with the problem? Have the exchanges of the last few months led us any nearer to starting Stage 4 of the Stonebridge redevelopment scheme? Have the negotiations with the Minister when he visited the Borough of Brent about these matters in January resulted in our being able to decant from areas of redevelopment into the 2,000 units which are available in the Chalkhill Estate which was especially built for that purpose and which the local borough council undertook at various public inquiries would be available for such a purpose?
Last time I raised this matter, which was after the original Estimate was put forward, my hon. Friend said that 1,281 flats were ready for occupation and 12 were ready for letting, but I understand that none has yet been allocated. That was within the last two months. Do the administrative expenses we are asked to approve tonight mean that we are able to bring more pressure to bear to see that these places are occupied by the people for whom they were intended?
There have been discussions arising from the Curzon Crescent renewal scheme, which is crucial to the redevelopment of Church End. Stage 1 means shifting 138 families in the next 12 months, stage 2 means shifting 82 families and stage 3 means shifting 206 families. This whole area needs renovating in order to fit in with the redevelopment plan for Church End. Do the administrative expenses we are being asked for tonight mean that pressure has been brought to bear in order that this may go forward quickly? When will it begin?
I wrote to the town clerk on 18th December and received a reply on 29th December saying that there would be no further delay. That was three months ago. Can my hon. Friend say whether the administrative money involved here has anything to do with this delay, or will it enable the scheme to be brought forward? The scheme for Church End, which was approved some time ago,
798
covers 50 acres comprising houses built between 1875 and 1900.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I admire the ingenuity with which the hon. Gentleman is trying to meet the requirements of the rules of order, but I must point out to him that it is out of order to raise on a Supplementary Estimate the whole question of policy involved in the original Estimate, unless the new money asked for is very substantial—that is, of the same order of magnitude as the original Estimate. The figure the hon. Gentleman is trying to relate his remarks to is an increase of £6,000 on a total of £300,000. Therefore, he must relate his remarks more specifically to the Supplementary Estimate about travelling expenses, etc.
Mr. Pavitt: I will seek to narrow my remarks, but I could also contend that the £6,000 has been spent entirely on administration in negotiations with Brent and in organising the points which I am raising tonight. But there is a further matter which is to do with the Estimate on page 190. The borough, because of its great housing problem, has had a complete review of management services. Although the figure is £15,000 in total, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your Ruling that a substantial amount is not involved, but it adds to the force of the argument that, unless this additional money is spent on achieving the results I am seeking, it should be withheld.
If we pass the increase asked for, will it, first, help the Minister to enable the council to acquire the necessary land? Secondly, will it accelerate the negotiations which have gone on since and before the original Estimate with regard to land at St. Raphael's Way and mid-Harlesden goods yard, which are small areas which could, nevertheless, give room for substantial numbers of houses at least 400? Thirdly, will it have any effect on the cut-back on housing starts and the shortfall of 1954 recently announced?
It was expected in the borough that 1,978 dwellings would be started in 1969 but, according to my latest information, only 24 were started.
I would submit that the House has a responsibility here. In passing money for administration, I have a responsibility

799
to my constituents to ensure that the purpose of the original Estimate is not being thwarted by the Supplementary Estimate. I have a problem in that the largest number of immigrants live in my constituency. There are twice as many there as in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). This does not increase my housing problem, because that is there already. We have dealt with it extremely well and any primary school teacher in Willesden could give the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West some lessons of how to deal with difficult problems with compassion.
I want to know, in connection with administrative arrangements, with central Government and in pursuing central government policy, what the Ministry is doing in relation to the town hall in my borough. I am afraid that the policy originally put forward by the previous Labour council is now being altered out of all recognition as a result of the change at the town hall. What is the exact position as a result or recent negotiations? What are we getting for the extra expenditure? I want a complete reversal of the Borough of Brent's housing policy so that they put homes first, before this obsession with rates and antagonism to council tenants, which amounts almost to a psychological neurosis.
It is on a narrow point that I am seeking to judge responsibility. I ask for some consideration of the grievances of family after family in my constituency and that the policy changes shall be put right in their interest.
1.32 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I have a deep understanding of the feelings which lie behind the introduction of this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), because, as the House will know, and as my hon. Friend has indicated from time to time, I stand here not only as a junior Minister in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government but as the representative of Willesden, East, which contains some of the housing problems my hon. Friend has so effectively outlined this evening. My hon. Friend has been very closely asso-
800
ciated with trying to tackle some of the problems in this district for many years.
Before taking up the particular points my hon. Friend has put, may I remind the House of the position of Willesden which is now part of the London Borough of Brent. The position is today virtually what it was when the Milner Holland Report was presented to the House: it is one of half a dozen areas of Greater London which suffer more housing stresses than any other boroughs of the 32 making up this city.
Although much was done in the years following publication of the Milner Holland Report, between 1965 and 1968, to increase the rate of house building in the borough, it remains the case that Willesden, or many parts of it, encompass some of the worst housing problems we have to handle in Greater London, and it typifies the worst of the problems as seen in other parts of the city and in the whole country. This is so, notwithstanding the build-up of house building which occurred from 1965 to 1968, an increase which I calculate as 275 per cent. The dwellings put into tender in each of those years were equal in number to the total construction in the four years before the amalgamation of Willesden and Wembley. This was the result of long-term planning, purchase of land and of all else that goes with a housing programme.
Turning from the general background prior to 1965, as reflected in the Milner Holland Report, to the position which has been queried by my hon. Friend this evening, the question is, what has been done as the result of increased activity by the Ministry in housing with particular reference to priority housing area authorities which have shown a marked reduction in their house building activities?
The Borough of Brent has been visited by my noble Friend Lord Kennet, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and it has been the subject of considerable correspondence, telephone inquiry, and meetings between officers of my Department and officials of the authority. Turning to the results of all this I have to say that we are continuing the pressure, the contact which we have with the local authority, in order to get it to change the policy which it has embarked upon

801
since May, 1968, of cutting back to a major—to a drastic—degree on its housing efforts in the borough, which remains one of considerable housing stress.
As my hon. Friend has said, there are over 8,000 families on the housing list. He made a minor breakdown of the figures. I want to say this. When we speak of 8,000 families on the waiting list, or of any number of families on the waiting list of any borough—and we are particularly concerned with the priority housing authorities with which the Ministry has been very active during the past six months or so—we are speaking of figures which reflect only part of the problem. I grew to learn before I came to this House, when I was on the local authority, but I have learned much more since going to the Department, that housing lists, up and down the country, reflect only part of the problems of the districts with which we are concerned. This is one thing one realises more and more.
I would illustrate that by saying, having visited many local authorities which have slum clearance areas, that only something like 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.—may be a little more—of the families living in areas of great housing need—otherwise they would not be slum clearance areas—may be on the housing list. That, in itself, is a good enough illustration of the fact that housing lists, while they are useful guides, are only limited in their usefulness, and can only to a limited degree show the seriousness of the housing situation in an area.
When we speak of these 8,000 families, when we speak of the many hundreds of families suffering from health disability in their midst, or of husbands and wives living apart, when we speak of the 2,000 at the top of the list in priority categories, we are still speaking of only a small part of the total, and of the total problem of the borough, and I wish this would be taken aboard much more by those authorities of the kind we are speaking of this evening, which have been cutting back on their housing activities.
In addition to that, of the 60,000 households in Willesden, 25,000 are sharing accommodation with other families. There are between 43,000 and 44,000 dwelling units in the area, but there are about 60,000 households, which is a guide-line to the number of substandard
802
and obsolescent properties, and that goes well beyond the actual number of classified slums which should be pulled down in the area.
My hon. Friend mentioned a series of points which have been the subject of negotiation, correspondence, telephone calls and meetings between the Ministry and the local authority and which are covered by the sort of administrative expenditure under the Bill. Resulting from those contacts, I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that, as things stand, the position does not show progress. That is the position following those negotiations and since the special meeting of consultation in February of this year.
At that meeting the local authority was asked for information about its house building programme. It made it clear that it had no house building programme beyond the year 1970. It said to my hon. Friend Lord Kennet, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who chaired the meeting, that in this year's programme 2,000 dwellings would be put out to tender. However, many of those have fallen out of the 1969 programme.
When nearly 2,000 should have been put to tender on the year's original programme, only 24 went to tender. Three hundred, or perhaps a few more, were included, but they were short-falls from the previous year. While we were told that 2,000 would go to tender in 1970, we were informed that there would be nothing to follow. We are considering the implications of this for a borough of this sort and with the problems it has, and we shall be making further contact with the authority.
My hon. Friend will be aware that I speak with great sadness about this, not just as a junior Minister but as a colleague who represents a borough with serious housing problems. Unfortunately, on the information which we have Departmentally, that figure of 2,000 starts in 1970 will, in practice, prove false, since, if our information is substantiated in the coming months it will prove to be a formal programme which will not be implemented.
There are two big schemes, both of which my hon. Friend mentioned, which we consider are unlikely to materialise in 1970; that is, Stage 4 of the Stone-bridge redevelopment scheme, for 1,191

803
dwellings, and Stage 1 of the Church End redevelopment scheme, comprising 400 new dwellings. I understand that these will be considerably delayed by further reviews being requested by local authority officers and as a result of the policies being followed in respect of Chalkhill, a matter to which I will return. It is extremely unlikely, with the council's present mood, that there will be more than a few hundred dwellings going into tender in 1970.
My hon. Friend asked about the result of our negotiations on land assembly to get future programmes going. There is no land assembly going on in the borough at present for any future programmes. What is more, there have been sales of land which are of vital importance to housing development.
One important site which was cut from the 1968 programme was St. Raphael's Way, to which my hon. Friend referred, which will provide over 300 dwellings. No moves have yet been taken to buy this land, which is still available for purchase by the authority, despite the fact that, ahead of any negotiations being restarted, the Department has told the local authority that it would be prepared to consider this piece of land for expensive site subsidy.
As far as I am aware, no move has been made on the mid-Harlesden goods yard site, which would provide more than 70 new homes in a part of the borough which is in great need.
I indicated that I would touch on Chalkhill. This estate of 1,500 dwellings is the key to future progress in the borough. The failure to make use of that estate, which is nearing completion, to rehouse families from areas awaiting redevelopment will kill any expanding programme for the future. We are still seeking to persuade the authority to use the estate by way of rent pooling and applying a rent rebate scheme, which so far it has refused to do, to rehouse the families for which the land was originally bought to provide new homes and get redevelopment and slum clearance speeded up.
My hon. Friend placed great stress on what success, if any, we had had in getting the local authority in on these negotiations by our officers and by Ministers to build up on their slum
804
clearance efforts. The last slum clearance areas were those in South Kilburn, represented by the former Willesden Borough Council, covering over 400 dwellings and confirmed by the Minister in 1966. Of the 450 dwellings concerned, 322 are still standing, of which 224 are still occupied, 95 per cent. of them being in multi-occupation by three or four families, and 98 are boarded up awaiting demolition. Most of the families are eligible for rehousing, which means that 550 families are still living in disgusting conditions in properties included in clearance areas nearly six years ago.
As my hon. Friend said, there are also 350 properties in the earlier Stonebridge compulsory purchase order area, which are virtual slums, still occupied by 700 families.
Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend saying that there are families which need rehousing and that there are empty places in Chalk Hill in which they could be put?
Mr. Freeson: There are a number of empty dwellings in Chalk Hill. I am not suggesting, however, that the major part of the estate has been completed. I understand that the major part of the estate is due to be completed in a matter of weeks. Since the change of political control in 1968, the intention of the council has been not to give priority use of this estate to rehousing families from the very slum clearance and redevelopment areas for which the land was originally bought when this long-term planning was undertaken by the then Willesden Borough Council before London local government reorganisation. The properties will be completed. It is the biggest housing scheme that the borough has seen, and one of the largest in the London area.
It was designed as the key to speeding up slum clearance and urban renewal in this seriously stressed part of London but, as things stand, unless the council agrees to the views which we have been pressing on it, that a rent rebate scheme should be applied to the estate, and that it should be rent pooled with the general run of estates, the majority of the properties there will go to families not in the gravest need. In fact, as things stand, we have a situation which, so far as I am aware, is unique in the country—a massive estate for which the borough

805
council governing an area of serious housing need has been advertising generally throughout the whole of London for tenants who may come in as if they were coming to a private estate agent.
This is a serious situation. I know that the authority has the matter under consideration following our representations. I hope that at the next council meeting it will accept the representations which we have been making and apply rent rebates for rent pooling so that the estate can be used as originally visualised, and that it will then get ahead with further slum clearance.
If Brent were to rehouse people from South Kilburn and Stonebridge on the Chalkhill estate as originally intended, many of the South Kilburn and Stone-bridge slums could be cleared within 12 months. Many acres of land would be released by way of further clearance for redevelopment, which in turn would allow other slums, as yet undeclared, to be cleared, as well as clearing some of the urgent cases on the housing list. Furthermore, it would allow the first stage of the Church End redevelopment, which would otherwise be held up, to go ahead more rapidly. And thus the 1970 programme could be accomplished, which it will not be on present policies.
I end by referring generally to the position of slum clearance and future programming because this has been a major part of the representations on which my hon. Friend has been seeking information from me. I have said that as things stand there is no housebuilding programme beyond 1970. We shall be making further representations to the borough with a view to getting it to change its ideas.
It is a central part of any such representations that if there is to be a further housebuilding programme it must be related to the need to get ahead with further declarations of slum clearance areas, but we have the ironic—if that is not too mild a word—perhaps I should say shocking position that in recent times the council, through its chief officer, the town clerk, has said that there are no slums in Brent, and this in an area which is among the six worst housing areas of Greater London. According to our information in the Ministry, we estimate that there are at least 1,200 to 1,300 slums
806
requiring immediate clearance, but as yet undeclared, in addition to those standing in previously declared slum clearance areas.
That figure is based on a sample survey undertaken by Greater London Council in co-operation with the local authorities to see what the physical housing conditions were like in Greater London. We in the Ministry do not accept that the survey, which produced figures for Greater London as a whole from which this 1,300 was projected, was adequate. It produced a figure of about 22,000 classified slums in London as a whole. We regard this as a gross under-estimate of the situation in London. It is nearer 100,000. If one projects the more realistic total for a borough such as Brent and a district such as Willesden, we get figures running into several thousands. From my personal experience of the district, I believe there are several thousand in the borough.
It is very urgent indeed that the local authority should further investigate slum clearance areas and get on with declaring those areas which are in immediate need. Unfortunately, the local authority has not even made a return in answer to the Minister's slum clearance circular issued to local authorities throughout the country. The reason for the delay may be because it has publicly stated the view that there are no slums—a fantastic view in the face of the housing conditions to which my hon. Friend has referred and of which I and the Department, and the chief officers of the authority are aware.
We have shown in representations to the borough in all these negotiations, correspondence and meetings that there is a very serious situation in the district. It has lasted a very long time and allows of no complacency or self-satisfaction. It requires urgent action to re-establish the kind of redevelopment programming and house building programming that had been building up to a very good level until 1968. It was almost quadrupling previous housing efforts of the two boroughs which preceded the London Borough of Brent under the London government reorganisation.
This is the urgent need for the district and the many thousands of families living in disgraceful conditions. I hope that

807
note will be taken of the views expressed by my hon. Friend in support of representations we have been making to the authority and that it will very quickly switch its policy to get ahead with some more extended housing activities in terms of construction, improvement of old properties, and conversions to modern flats for which many thousands of families on and not on the waiting list are in great need.

C.S. GAS
1.59 a.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: The House is asked to vote a supplementary sum of £6,555,000 for purposes of defence, and it is asked to vote £590,000 specifically for research and development establishments.
My purpose tonight is to inquire into the extent that these sums are required for the manufacture and possible eventual use of C.S. gas. It is now more than 50 years since the First World War, but men still shudder at the idea of gas warfare. The very expression still conveys a sense of horror to most ordinary people and those responsible for the conduct of public and, particularly, defence affairs. It is, therefore, right that we should probe into any possible expenditure on weapons of this nature and, specifically, C.S. gas.
C.S. gas is a chemical weapon. I doubt that I can pronounce its chemical name correctly, but, for the record, it is called Orthochlorobenzylidene malononitrile. It was invented, or, rather, synthesised, for the first time in the United States in 1928, but developed, I am rather sorry to say, in our own country in the 1950s, and developed primarily, I gather, for use in riot control; that is, for use against civilians rather than against a military enemy. It falls into the category of what are called incapacitant or harassing agents; that is, it is primarily designed not to kill but to incapacitate or to render ineffective for a short period enemy soldiers against whom the defence forces may be operating.
Harassing agents as such are not a new phenomenon. They were the first form of chemical warfare used in the First World War.
808
The effects of this gas, to quote a distinguished American biologist, Professor Meselson, are as follows:
"Exposure to CS causes intense pain in the eyes and upper respiratory tract, progressing to the deep recesses of the lungs, causing a feeling of suffocation and acute anxiety. If exposure is not excessive, these symptoms usually pass within minutes after restoration to fresh air. Heavy dosages as may occur in confined spaces or when massive quantities of C.S. are dispersed, can cause lung damage. Very intense exposure to unprotected skin can cause second degree chemical burns."
It is manufactured, I understand, at Nancekuke in Cornwall.
Having explained as best I can the nature of the weapon, I wish to devote some time to the use of this gas because, unlike a great many other weapons in this category, this is not an academic or theoretical subject. C.S. gas has been used widely in war, not, I am glad to say, by British forces but by American forces. It has been dispersed by means of grenades, shells, sprays and bombs to flush out—I think that is the expression—enemy soldiers with a view to driving them out of their defensive positions and subsequently killing them by more conventional weapons. It has been widely used in practice, and in discussing its use we are not airing theories; we are talking about what has happened.
Moreover, I must emphasise at this point that those who would argue, and have argued in the past, that this is somehow a humane weapon, that it is simply designed to incapacitate an enemy with a view to taking him prisoner or rendering him unable to fight for a short time, have no grounds for that argument so far as experience goes, at least in Vietnam. This gas has been used in combination with conventional weapons, such as rockets, mortars, machine guns and bombs, as a more effective means of destroying the enemy and not in any way to incapacitate him temporarily and with a view to taking prisoners or more mercifully dealing with resistance in a particular part of the battlefield—
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): My hon. Friend is surely not suggesting that it could not be used for that purpose?
Mr. Hooley: With respect, I was describing how it has been used.
Of course, the Government and the House are not responsible for the use of

809
this weapon by another country, even if this country is a military ally. The House is concerned with the use or possible use of C.S. gas by British forces under possible conditions of war. But this country and this Government cannot be regarded as free agents in the use of this gas, since we are bound as a country by a very important international instrument known as the Geneva Protocol. This convention lays it down that certain forms of warfare are not legitimate, and since we have signed this document, we have presumably renounced those forms of warfare.
The operative paragraphs of the protocol say:
"Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases"—
I emphasise the words "or other gases"—
"and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world;
Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; and, to the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and practice of nations; … the High Contracting Parties, in so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration."
That is an international instrument which this country freely signed and ratified and by which I contend that we are bound if we are contemplating the use of any weapon of this kind, particularly C.S. gas.
It may be suggested that 1925 is a long time ago and that circumstances have changed, that the technology of war has changed and that it is not logical or reasonable to be bound by an instrument which could have been out-dated by the advance of science and greater knowledge. I must therefore point out that this protocol has been reaffirmed in recent years.
On 5th December, 1966, four years ago, the United Nations passed a resolution by 91 votes to none, with only four abstentions. The operative paragraph read as follows:
"The General Assembly … calls for strict observance by all States of the principles and objectives of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on
810
17 June, 1925, and condemns all actions contrary to these objectives."
That was in December, 1966.
Last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who was then in the Foreign Office, speaking to the 18 Nation Disarmament Commission in Geneva, when he referred to chemical and bacteriological warfare, suggested an important new international instrument designed to limit and, indeed, prohibit the application of biological weapons. He said in the course of his speech on 17th April, 1969:
"However, today I would once again repeat that nothing that I have in mind would in any way limit or derogate from obligations assumed by States party to the Geneva Protocol. On the contrary, I repeat what I said in introducing this subject, that I would like to see all countries who have not done so already ratify the Protocol."
That was less than 12 months ago. It could hardly, therefore, be argued that this instrument is regarded in any way as having lost its force, and certainly not by Her Majesty's present Government, of whom my right hon. Friend was, and is, a distinguished Member.
Last year, on 1st July, the United Nations produced a report on the subject of chemical and bacteriological warfare which had been commissioned by the General Assembly. The Secretary-General, U Thant, had been instructed to consult experts in this field and to produce a report, which he duly did. In the preface to the report the Secretary-General made three recommendations, as follows.
First, he renewed
"the appeal to all states to accede to the Geneva protocol of 1925."
Second, he asked them
"To make a clear affirmation that the prohibition contained in the Geneva protocol applies to the use in war of all chemical, bacteriological and biological agents (including tear gas and other harassing agents) which now exist or which may be developed in the future".
Third, he called upon
"all countries to reach agreement to halt the development, production and stockpiling of all chemical and bacteriological (biological) agents for the purposes of war ….".
In December last year the General Assembly again, this time by a vote of 18 countries to three or four, reaffirmed the

811
view that it was contrary to international law to use
"any chemical agents of warfare, chemical substances, whether gaseous, liquid or solid, because of their effects on man, animals or plants."
The interesting feature of that resolution is that it goes beyond the suggestion that what is prohibited is merely a gas or other chemical weapon which is lethal to man. It suggests the outlawry of any chemical weapon which could damage or destroy the flora or fauna in man's natural habitat.
In the light of these international instruments, declarations and resolutions, I and many people much better versed in these matters than I am were gravely startled by a statement in this House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs concerning the use of C.S. gas, which was held to be prohibited in war by the instruments and declarations which I have quoted.
My right hon. Friend said:
"… modern technology has developed CS smoke"—
he called it, somewhat disingenuously, "smoke"—
"which unlike the tear gases available in 1930, is considered to be not significantly harmful to man in other than wholly exceptional circumstances; and we regard CS gases and other such gases"—
he reverts to the normal word applied to this substance—
"accordingly as being outside the scope of the Geneva Protocol."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1970; Vol. 794, c. 18.]
It is my view and the view of people much more expert than I, that this is a totally untenable proposition. The words of the Geneva Protocol are quite clear. I will repeat them. They refer to:
"asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and all analogous liquids, materials or devices …".
That is a very comprehensive and thorough-going prohibition. I cannot see how C.S. gas can, under any ordinary construction of the English language, be taken out of that definition.
In all the discussions on the use of chemical or gaseous agents of warfare there has never been a distinction drawn between what is, to quote my right hon. Friend, "significantly harmful" and what is absolutely lethal. The whole range of chemical and gas agents has
812
been prohibited. International opinion has been flatly against gas as such, for a very good reason.
This reason was probably best set out in a letter published in The Times, from Professor Meselson, on 12th February, 1970, in which he wrote:
"The chief hazard in using irritant gas in war is that it abandons the unique and simple standard of 'no gas.' It spoils the chances for a uniform understanding of where we hold the line. It stimulates military interest in gas warfare in many countries, creating pressure for the acquisition of chemical weapons where there had been little or none before. And it favours the application of existing and future knowledge in biochemistry and medicine to military purposes, opening up a new dimension of welfare that otherwise might be kept closed."
There is great force in this line of argument, that once we breach the dam, on however sophisticated an argument, or in however tiny or apparently insignificant a manner, then the consequences become incalculable.
I hasten to add that this is not just the opinion of one man, one odd scientist. The British Council of Churches, the Friends' Peace Committee, the United Nations Association, all have seriously criticised this statement by the Foreign Secretary, and have condemned this unilateral derogation from the Geneva Protocol by Her Majesty's Government which is involved in this statement.
A very distinguished Member of this House, probably the only Member of this House to hold the Nobel Peace Prize, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), has also condemned this change of policy in very forthright terms, publicly, and within the associations with which he is concerned.
The danger of this change of attitude on the use of C.S. gas is that it may call in question the good faith of the United Kingdom in general discussions and negotiations on chemical and biological warfare, where hitherto we have had a very good record and have given an outstanding lead.
But, worse than that, by constituting a unilateral derogation of an international instrument of an authority so high, a prestige so great, as the Geneva Protocol, which has stood the test of 45 years, it may undermine respect for similar disarmament agreements. If one country

813
can simply opt out of a prohibition in a particular respect on however sophisticated grounds—that it is not lethal, that it is smoke and not gas, and so on—it will create mistrust and suspicion that the other important instruments of disarmament do not mean what they say, or can be made to mean what somebody else says.
2.21 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has deployed his case with a great deal of skill and, obviously, a great deal of sincerity. It is a case worth putting, and it deserves a considered and careful answer.
However, I think that my hon. Friend would not expect me, speaking from the post in the Government that I have the privilege to occupy now, to answer in any detail some of the matters of higher foreign policy that he raised, particularly those concerning the international effect of what he considers to be the unilateral abrogation by the United Kingdom of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. What I would like to do is to sketch in from a defence point of view some of the background to the arguments that have taken place over the protocol, and then to give the House some information on the circumstances in which C.S. has been used by the British Army, particularly in the recent past.
As my hon. Friend said, the protocol states that it prohibits the use in war of
"asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices."
It goes on to prohibit all bacteriological methods of warfare.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Hugh Dalton, later Lord Dalton, said in reply to a Parliamentary Question
The United Kingdom became party to the Geneva Protocol on 9th April, 1930. Shortly before this the then Under-that, inter alia, tear gases were prohibited under the protocol. That was the view that the United Kingdom Government then took and expressed again in a Memorandum that they tabled before the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference in December, 1930,
814
in which they said, basing themselves on the English text of the protocol, that they had taken the view that the use in war of other gases, including lachrymatory gases was prohibited. My hon. Friend is right when he says that that was the position the British Government took up in 1930.
In the re-examination of this question in recent months the Government have sought to establish what the drafters of the 1925 protocol meant by the term "other gases". Then the Government have sought to apply those conclusions in the light of what is known of gases now available. My hon. Friend characterised this as a sophisticated and specious approach. I could not agree with that characterisation of the Government's approach. It is only common sense that, as the Geneva Protocol was entered into in 1925 and ratified by the United Kingdom as long ago as 1930. it is incumbent upon any Government from time to time to review their interpretation of what the 1925 protocol meant in the light of what is now known of technological advances in this field. The Government, therefore, concluded that the best interpretation of this ambiguous phrase "other gases" is that the protocol seeks to ban the use in war of all gases which are significantly harmful to man. This view is fully consistent with that which was advanced by the then British Government in the 1930 Memorandum, because the tear gases which were available in 1930 are indeed considered to be significantly harmful to man.
But C.S., unlike the gases which were available in 1930, is considered to be not significantly harmful to man in other than wholly exceptional circumstances. I will in a few moments go in greater detail into that part of the argument which my hon. Friend deployed with such skill.
decided that C.S. was outside the scope
It is for that reason the Government of the Geneva Protocol. C.S. is at present the only such agent in existence, but the possibility of further developments in this field cannot be ignored.
I can do no better than quote the statement which was made by my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Chalfont, in

815
another place on 26th February in answer to a Question by my noble Friend, Lord Brockway:
"My Lords, it is true that in 1930 the Government made a certain interpretation of the Geneva Protocol. This interpretation in general terms has now been reiterated. The Government had to give close consideration to what was in the minds of the drafters of the Protocol and what developments had taken place since. One of the developments that has taken place since is that the agent known as CS has been developed. Her Majesty's Government decided that this agent was not significantly harmful, except in exceptional circumstances; and it was to exclude significantly harmful agents that the Geneva Protocol was formulated. We therefore believed that we were right in saying that, although we stood by our interpretation of 1930, this agent should be excluded. It is not, in fact, as my noble friend has suggested, entirely true that we achieved general agreement at Geneva in the 'thirties. We suggested that tear gases should be excluded by the Geneva Convention, and the reaction to this was not, as my noble friend has suggested, unanimous."
In answer to a supplementary question, my noble Friend, Lord Chalfont, said this:
"So far, there is no evidence that the use of this gas in war—and I emphasise 'in war', because I think it is not fully appreciated that the Geneva Protocol deals with war and not with riot control or internal security—except in exceptional circumstances, is significantly harmful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 26th February, 1970, cc. 161–64.]
That is the statement of the Government's position; and. although I want to draw one or two conclusions from it in a moment or two, I would not wish to go further in defining the stand that the Government have taken on this question.
Mr. Will Griffiths: Have not the doctors at least made out a case? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has great talent, but he is not a professional man. Is it right that C.S. gas is dangerous?
Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend has anticipated my argument by about three minutes. If he will be kind enough to wait, I promise him that I will deal with the point.
Mr. Griffiths: If my hon. Friend thinks that it is all right, I do not.
Mr. Richard: I gather that my hon. Friend did not agree with me. It might have been better if he had listened to the whole of the debate before interrupting.
816
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley, it seems to me that two points emerge from what I have said so far on the Government's position. The first is whether C.S. comes within the terms of the protocol. For the reasons given by my noble Friend Lord Chalfont and, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in the Government's view the answer is clearly that it does not.
A second point, however, follows from that. Even if the use of C.S. is accepted—my hon. Friend did not suggest this, but it has been suggested elsewhere—as being outside the terms of the Geneva Protocol, the suggestion is sometimes made that the United Kingdom should now have said that it nevertheless deems the protocol to cover C.S.
It is not for me to say what the international effects of such a declaration would have been. It is, however, perhaps for me to say what the military effect of such a declaration might have been on the Army. The military effect of such a declaration would have been somewhat anomalous concerning the Army, namely, that we might have found ourselves in a situation in which, in war—as my hon. Friend knows, the protocol applies only to war—we would be denying ourselves by the protocol the use of a weapon against our enemies when, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, one can imagine many situations in modern military warfare when it could lead to less loss of life than if it were not available. We would be denying ourselves the use of that weapon in war but, at the same time, we would be preserving the possible right to use it in time of peace for riot or crowd control purposes against our own citizens.
Whatever the international effects of that argument might be, I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will agree that the military effects would be quite extraordinary for the Army. To put soldiers in a position where they are told, "This is a weapon which you can use in, say, Northern Ireland against citizens of your own country for crowd and riot control, but, nevertheless, you would not be entitled to use that weapon against possible enemies in a war situation"—however that might be defined, which again causes difficulties—would be an extraordinary and anomalous position.
Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend is dealing with the argument in a very fair-minded fashion, but would he not accept that, leaving aside the morality of using this weapon against civilians, the danger in war is that the use of such a weapon provokes counter-use, with the serious danger of escalation into general chemical and gas warfare, which cannot apply in the civil situation?
Mr. Richard: I accept that that is an argument, but it is an argument that was dealt with also by my noble Friend Lord Chalfont in the statement to which I have referred. What he said in answer to precisely that point was that he took the view, and that it was the Government's view, that since the protocol did not exclude agents which were not significantly harmful except in exceptional circumstances, the point did not arise. In other words, in the view of my noble Friend, there could not be escalation when the agent that was used was one which was not significantly harmful.
I turn to the medical aspects with which I was asked to deal. It is perfectly true that C.S. gas was first synthesised in the United States by Corson and Stoughton, and I think that it is from their surnames that the initials come. It was not developed, however, until 1950, when it was developed in this country as a possible riot control agent to succeed C.N., which was known and accepted to be hazardous. In 1958 it was approved for introduction into British service.
British C.S. has not been used in Vietnam; nor has it been used in Paris; nor has it been used in the United States. The United States makes its own C.S., as far as we know. In the Paris riots the French police used mostly C.N. and very little C.S. We have not sold C.S. to France, nor to the United States. C.S. is not patentable, and it can be made anywhere without licence. It is produced in this country only at the out-station of the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke in Cornwall. My hon. Friend correctly said that up to five tons a year of C.S. could be produced at Nancekuke, although current production is not more than three tons a year.
My hon. Friend quoted one doctor's view of the effect of C.S. A committee known as the Himsworth Committee was set up to examine precisely the effect of
818
the use of C.S. gas in Londonderry last year. It describes the symptoms as follows:
"The symptoms experienced varied from a slight but definite 'pricking' of the eyes and front of the inside of the nose to the maximum symptoms of streaming from the eyes and nose, spasm of the eyelids, marked salivation and retching or sometimes vomiting, burning of the mouth and throat, and a gripping pain in the chest of such intensity that breathing became restricted to shallow gasps that only took place when breath-holding was no longer possible. In addition, when the full symptoms are present the face became pale, as we have confirmed in ourselves, and this on occasions had clearly caused conspicuous alarm to others. In no case of those actively engaged and therefore presumably heavily exposed, did we, however, learn of a collapse or of a person being unable to move away from the line of fire. Some were certainly assisted but whether this was necessary is not clear.
The remarkable thing about those with marked symptoms was the speed with which these disappeared once away from the exposure. At one moment the exposed person is gripped by the full symptoms. Then he either stumbles away, or the smoke plume veers or the discharge from the cartridge or grenade stops and, within three to four minutes, he is breathing freely and his eyes, although still streaming, are open. Five or so minutes later the excessive salivation and pouring of tears stops, and quarter of an hour after exposure, although, naturally, shaken, the man is substantially back to normal. The number of persons who, after experiencing severe symptoms, had gone back repeatedly into the struggle provides some indication of the speed and degree of recovery".
It is fair to say that while the immediate short-term effect is very unpleasant, certainly incapacitating, once the individual moves out of exposure to the gas, he recovers quite quickly.
There have been allegations that the toxicity of C.S. is comparatively high. All the evidence we have, and it is considerable, is that C.S. is not significantly harmful to man other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, such as very high C.S. concentration suffered for some time in a small space and with little or no ventilation.
Although C.S. gas has been used in a large number of countries for many years, we know of no authenticated case of death or permanent injury resulting from its use. Allegations that it caused the death of an Australian corporal serving in Vietnam are untrue. It has been concluded that the toxicity of C.S. gas was about three times less toxic than C.N., which was the agent it replaced. It has always been recognised that it

819
could be dangerous in a confined, unventilated space from which escape is difficult or impossible, and British troops are warned of this danger. It is, however, very unlikely in practice that concentrations dangerous to health could either be built up or become built up to that extent. Even low natural ventilation would reduce concentration to low levels within a short time.
Having first of all considered the short-term medical effects, the committee is now considering the longer-term effects. For example, it is studying the possible effects on the young, including embryos, the elderly and those with impaired health, together with any other possible long-term effects. In addition, the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton worked on toxicity and effects of C.S. gas long before the committee was set up. We find no evidence that dosages of C.S. gas which would be made in normal use would cause any long-term effects. The second report of the committee will go further into the question of long-term effects. Paragraph 38 of the first report says that the committee knows of no evidence—and this deals with one allegation which has been made from time to time, but not by my hon. Friend—which suggests that C.S. might fall into the category of substances which produce cancer as a result of only brief exposure.
In addition, a paper on the toxicology of C.S. gas has been prepared at Porton. It could have been published towards the end of last year, but it was decided to amplify it with new, additional material. We hope to publish it within a month or so. Again, we believe that this report, too, will show that C.S. gas can be harmful only in wholly exceptional circumstances.
From the manufacture and toxicity of C.S. gas, I turn to its use and particularly the way in which it has been used by the Army in Northern Ireland. The use of C.S. gas by the Army in riot control is based on the principle of minimum force—that is to say, that every effort must be made to deal with a situation by lesser means before it is used and the availability of C.S. gas should be taken into account before any stronger measures are adopted.
820
When the Army is called in to deal with or prevent a serious disturbance, a number of situations can arise in which the use of C.S. gas may have to be considered. In the first place, it will be one of the options available for preventing serious risk to life and property. It may also be, in the judgment of the commander on the spot, the only way of keeping two hostile crowds apart or of preventing a hostile crowd attacking his troops. It may also be necessary to prevent riotous acts against people or property.
In all cases, the use of C.S. gas must be considered in the light of all the lesser options which are available. I repeat that the principle of minimum force is the one which is used. Naturally, the commander on the spot is the only person in a position to decide whether C.S. gas should be used and whether it will produce the necessary effects. Indeed, I can envisage that he would consider such things as the size, disposition and temper of the crowd, whether he should use it before the actions of the crowd endanger persons or property which must be protected, and such things as the ground, whether the crowd might panic, whether there are sufficient exits and so forth.
Last September, for example, troops in Northern Ireland used C.S. gas to disperse Protestant and Catholic crowds. It was used because the officer in command considered that the mere presence of the soldiers and police were insufficient to prevent the clash between the two rival crowds which, in his judgment, was imminent. He gave warning three times that unless the crowd dispersed he would use C.S. They did not, and he then ordered its use. No one can be sure what the crowd would have done if they had not been dispersed in this way, but the risk of bloodshed was averted and the minimum force principle was applied in what proved to be a relatively harmless way of dispersing the crowds. In the first weekend of October there was a violent series of disturbances in east Belfast. The violence can be judged by the fact that one soldier received a gunshot wound and another a fractured skull. But on the two occasions that C.S. was used, it was only after all other methods used had failed to disperse illegal crowds and after proper warning had been given to the crowds that it would be used.

821
I must, speaking on behalf of the Ministry, tell my hon. Friend frankly that C.S. is a very valuable addition indeed to the armoury of weapons at the disposal of the Army when faced with a difficult problem of crowd and riot control. It is used with care and must be used with care and only when necessary. I should have thought that my hon. Friend, the House, and the country would consider it preferable that a person should suffer the effects of C.S. rather than perhaps face the effects of a bullet.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject tonight. It was well worth, even at 3 o'clock, having a debate on C.S., and I trust that I have been able to clear up at least some of the misconceptions in people's minds.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Committee this day.

THE AVENUE, SOUTHAMPTON (SPEED LIMIT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Handing.]
2.46 a.m.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: This is the debate the House has been eagerly awaiting for the last four weeks. We are not discussing just the question of a speed limit on a road. I was asked on television the other day whether I thought it right that Parliament should discuss one road in one town, and my reply was that this would be a poorer place if there were no opportunities for hon. Members to raise matters of vital concern to their constituents.
But this is not just a question of a speed limit on a road. It involves an important principle: the relation between national and local government. It is the old argument of whether Whitehall knows best. The proposal to increase the speed limit from 30 m.p.h. has become a decision since I lost the original Adjournment debate. We are talking, therefore, about a decision rather than a proposal and an example of bureaucracy at its worst. I will outline the events which led me to having to raise this tonight.
It started with the Green Paper, "How Fast?" It is a good document but deals in general terms and could not take account of individual circumstances in individual areas. Arising from that document, in April, 1969, a meeting was held at the request of the Ministry at the Civic Centre, Southampton, when the Ministry put forward the view that the statistics available at that time indicated that there should be an increase in the speed limit in the Avenue and in Burseldon Road in Southampton. Arising from that, the city engineer reported to the public works committee meeting on 12th June, and that meeting, while agreeing to the proposed increase in Bursledon Road, resolved that no action be taken to raise the speed limit to 40 miles an hour along the Avenue.
The first point I want to make is that this was not merely a decision taken by councillors: it was taken on the professional advice of the city engineer and his department.

823
On 2nd September last year a letter was sent to the town clerk saying the Minister had in mind making an order raising the speed limit to 40 miles an hour. This was considered by the public works committee at meeting on 11th September. The council decided to disagree with the proposal and wished the limit to remain at 30. Eventually, however, it called for objections from organisations, and it received over 20 objections. The objections came from all sorts of organisations as widely diverse as the Chamber of Commerce and the Trades Council. If one can get a chamber of commerce and a trades council to agree to anything, then I am sure it must be right. So the council obtained a large number of objections.
Indeed, I understand that the only letter which it received in favour of the proposal was from a motoring organisation—or perhaps two motoring organisations. In passing I may say I am a member of one of the motoring organisations, and it certainly did not consult me before it wrote to the council that letter supporting the increased speed limit.
Anyway, the position now is that against the wishes of the city council and of the local residents and of the local organisations the Minister has gone ahead and made the order to increase the speed limit from 30 to 40 miles an hour.
There are three points I wish to emphasise very strongly. The first is this. I know the road extremely well, for I have lived in the town all my life, and I personally strongly believe that the decision is a wrong one. I know that the Minister in his reply will say that the speed limit along the Avenue is not properly observed and that the average speed on the road is not 30 miles an hour but something like 38. I would not dispute that, but what I would argue very strongly is that now that the speed limit has been raised to 40 miles an hour the average speed will rise to something like 45 or 48 miles an hour, and an average speed of 45 or 48 miles an hour on that road is positively dangerous.
I know that it will be said that statistics prove that a speed limit raised to 40 miles an hour leads on the average to an actual speed of 41 or 42 miles an
824
hour. But that is a general statistic. It does not take account of local circumstances.
The local circumstances here are that the Avenue, that stretch of it of which we are talking, goes through the Common, which is Southampton's Hyde Park. In a built-up area where there is a limit of 40 miles an hour motorists have to be careful and, naturally, they do not normally travel at 50, because they know the dangers, but when they come to what looks to them to be a glorious open space the temptation is to put the foot down. I argue very strongly that the average speed on the Avenue will now become in the region of 48 miles an hour. Is this dangerous? Well, again, the officials who advised the Minister about this, and the Minister himself, do not have the local knowledge which the city council has, and so they have not appreciated the dangers.
The Common can be described as a children's playground. As a child I played cowboys and Indians there, and other games—but that was when I was a little older—and nearby is a school, which I had the honour to attend. Many children cross the Avenue four times a day on their way to and from the school, and they would be in additional danger if the speed limit were increased.
Even if I were not utterly convinced of the case I am putting forward, I would still oppose the Ministry's decision because it would be wrong for Whitehall to impose its will on the local council against the wishes and advice of local organisations. The decision cannot have been taken with the idea of speeding up traffic, for the time saved in travelling at 40 m.p.h. down this stretch of the Avenue instead of 30 m.p.h. would be about seven seconds. It is simply a desire by Whitehall to achieve conformity. Having produced a document containing general criteria, the Ministry insists on everybody falling in line and conforming to those criteria.
The only argument that carries any weight is that put forward by the police, who say that they cannot enforce the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. But I do not believe that they would be able to enforce a 40 m.p.h. limit either. The police were recently asked to provide a crossing patrol at certain hours on that part of the Avenue which extends a little further north, called Bassett Avenue, which at

825
present has a 40 m.p.h. limit. The police replied that, in their view, it would be too dangerous to provide a police crossing patrol on that stretch of road. This is an indication of what will happen if the 40 m.p.h. limit is extended in the way proposed.
Even if the Minister still thinks that the speed limit on this road should be increased to 40 m.p.h. and wishes to overrule the virtually unanimous view of every local body—there is no political dispute over this; both sides of the city council are agreed in this matter—he should at least be prepared to hold a public inquiry so that every local organisation which wishes to object can state its case.
Several years ago the then Minister wanted to remove the speed limit altogether from the Avenue. A public inquiry was held, a large number of objections were submitted and the independent inspector came down on the side of the objectors, and the 30 m.p.h. limit remained. I recall several organisations to which I belong giving evidence on that occasion. The Minister has said that, having considered the objections, he is not prepared to hold a public inquiry because, in his view, the objections are based on misconceptions. In my view the misconceptions are firmly on the side of the Minister and his advisers. This is because they have not got the local knowledge of the councillors, the professional advisers to the council, and local organisations.
I hope that, even at this late hour—I know that the Order has been made, but the council still strongly object to it—the Minister will be prepared to withdraw the Order that has been made.
3.1 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am well aware of the concern which my hon. Friend feels about the speed limit on this road, and I am grateful to him for raising the matter today. I should have been more grateful had he been able to raise this matter a fortnight ago, because we would then have been in our beds at this hour of the morning.
I have not, I am afraid, been able to meet all my hon. Friend's wishes, but I hope I shall be able to persuade him that we have not taken the action we
826
have taken lightly, and that, above all, we do not think that it will be against the interests of the citizens of Southampton whom he represents.
I think that it will help to put the matter into perspective if I relate it to my right hon. Friend's general policy with regard to speed limits. In July, 1968, the Department issued a Green Paper called "How Fast?", to which my hon. Friend referred, which dealt with the whole subject of speed limits and which led to a very full discussion with more than 30 interested organisations. These organisations included the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which Southampton City Council is a member.
After these discussions my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) made a statement on speed limit policy in this House in which he said that the Government proposed a package of measures to ensure that limits were set and kept at realistic levels. Within this broad policy he proposed a greater use of 40 m.p.h. limits in towns on roads carrying main traffic flows.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that speed limits depended on enforcement and that realistic limits should themselves make enforcement easier. Also he said that the Department proposed shortly to issue to local authorities new criteria for all levels of speed limits, and that we would ask them to keep their limits under review to ensure that they were reasonable and accepted as such by drivers. These criteria and advice on implementing the new speed limit policy were contained in a circular issued to all speed limit Order-making authorities in April of last year.
I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said about the judgment of local authorities on these matters, and no one can argue that we do not delegate as much as possible to local authorities. But speed limits, which are mandatory and whose infringement can lead to severe penalties for drivers and even to the loss of their livelihood, must be based on a nationally-agreed and nationally-accepted policy. That is why, although we have delegated to local authorities within the last year complete Order-making powers over non-principal roads, we still keep the right to give consent to proposals made by these

827
authorities on principal roads. Similarly, my right hon. Friend retains within the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act what are known as default powers; that is, the power to issue a direction to a local authority to make an Order and, if the local authority refuses to do so, to make the Order himself.
The reason for this is obvious. Speed limit policy must be national and it must be consistent. The new policy was worked out after many months of discussion with all the interests concerned and represents a consensus of opinion. We would be lacking in a sense of responsibility towards those authorities who do co-operate in our policy and who are trying, as many are trying, to make their limits reasonable, realistic and enforceable, if we were not prepared, on the rare occasions when we have to do so, to exercise this power, and I stress that it is on rare occasions that the Minister exercises this power.
I now turn to the road in question. The Avenue, Southampton is a principal road, and the Southampton City Council, subject to the Minister's consent, is the speed limit Order-making authority for it. It carries the main volume of traffic to and from the north into the city. It is wide and well-lit, and it runs, as my hon. Friend said, through one of Southampton's main amenity areas, the parkland known as the Common. At the moment this road is legally restricted to a limit of 30 m.p.h. Immediately to the north it becomes Bassett Avenue. This length has a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. It is an interesting fact that speed readings on both these roads show that the speeds at which vehicles travel on them are virtually the same. A high proportion of cars travel along both stretches at approximately 40 m.p.h., and my hon. Friend has conceded this.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern that raising the limit on the length through the Common will cause the speed of vehicles to rise sharply. I understand it, but I am sorry that I cannot share it. Studies which we have made in the Department show that this does not happen. We have found that where speeds are well in execess of the legal limit of 30 m.p.h., raising the limit to 40 m.p.h. does not cause any significant rise in speeds on the road, and often results,
828
contrary to popular belief, in speeds decreasing. Raising the limit gives the police a reasonable chance of enforcing it. At the moment the 30 m.p.h. limit on the Avenue is disregarded by between 72 per cent. and 95 per cent. of drivers on different stretches of the road. In other words, only one car driver in four at the most is observing the limit. I cannot believe that these drivers, most of them local people, are all driving dangerously.
My hon. Friend referred to the request by Southampton for a public inquiry. We have carefully considered this request, but we have come to the conclusion that it would not be likely to bring any new material evidence. The proposal has been duly advertised locally and nationally, and the citizens of Southampton have had an opportunity to express their views. Only a relatively small number have done so. The question has also had a very full airing in the House today. We think that the time has now come to bring this lengthy procedure to an end, and to make the Order.
The situation has completely changed since 1957, when a public inquiry was held. Then the Minister was legally obliged to hold an inquiry before de-restricting a local authority road. There is now no such obligation. Secondly, in 1957 the only alternative to 30 m.p.h. was complete de-restriction. We now have 40 m.p.h. limits intended for precisely this sort of road. It is significant that the 1957 public inquiry recommended that the road should be de-restricted. There were five public inquiries in Southampton at that time. Four roads were de-restricted, but the Avenue was not, for reasons best known to the Minister at that time.
Because we are confident that raising this limit will not cause any significant rise in speeds, and thus will not increase danger on the road, the loss of amenity to which my hon. Friend has referred so movingly will not, we are confident, take place.
My hon. Friend mentioned special facilities for pedestrians. Naturally, in reaching our conclusion, we did take full account of the problems of pedestrians. But, as I have said, we do not expect that raising the limit will lead to any significant increase in speeds. Therefore, it should not lead to any increased difficulties for pedestrians. It would be for

829
Southampton to consider, if it wished to, whether the flows of pedestrians justified any special facilities.
There is another point and I think that it is important. A 40 m.p.h. limit must be signed throughout with small 40 repeater signs, and these remind drivers that they are in a limit, whereas a 30 m.p.h. limit, where there is street lighting, cannot legally be signed with repeaters. It may well be that it is the use of these repeaters themselves which often lead drivers to respect the higher limit better than the lower. On an open stretch of road such as this a driver might believe that he was in a de-restricted area. But, whatever the reason, we have found that where speed readings show that drivers are disregarding the 30 m.p.h. limit flagrantly, a 40 m.p.h. limit often, in fact, reduced speeds on the roads concerned; and because we have found that speeds do not rise in these cases, we have no reason to expect any increase in the accident rate—which, at 2·2 per million vehicle miles, is I am glad to say, below the average for a Class A road. I hope I have now done something to allay my hon. Friend's fears. I can assure him that after careful study of the case I am satisfied that they are unnecessary fears.
It is now nearly two years since we suggested to the Southampton City Council that this unrealistic limit should be raised. Since then the proposal has been thoroughly examined, by our own divisional road engineer, by the Southern Road Safety Unit and by the Hampshire Police. From all of these the proposal received support, and the police believe that they can enforce the new limit satisfactorily.
My right hon. Friend has specifically consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department about this and he has been in touch with the Hampshire Constabulary. They have assured him that they will give this road the same attention as other restricted roads having regard to its accident rate, complaints of excessive speed made by the public, and their assessment of its hazards in the light of its importance as a principal radial route.
When eventually, after we had issued them with a direction to do so, Southampton advertised the proposal, it received 23 objections—not a very large number for a city of that size. We examined these objections very carefully.
830
They were all based on the understandable—but mistaken—belief that if the limit went up by 10 m.p.h., so would speeds. As I have said all our experience is that these fears are groundless. We shall, of course, keep the operation of the new limit under close observation, but we do not expect it to have any harmful effect either on accidents or on amenity.
My right hon. Friend has the power, which I have already referred to, to revise speed limits himself if he considers it necessary in the interests of nationally agreed policy. We have done our best to explain this policy to Southampton but it has declined to change its view and has refused to make the Order to raise this limit itself. This must, therefore, be one of the rare occasions when my right hon. Friend steps in and requires an authority to conform to national policy. He would not be acting rightly towards the great majority of local authorities which co-operate with him in implementing this policy if he did not do so in this case. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, himself made the Order which will raise the limit on this road to 40 m.p.h. I am sure my hon. Friend will not think it discourteous that the Order has been made before this debate. My right hon. Friend would not have taken such action had the debate taken place when originally arranged. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that this is the right decision, not only in the interests of the users of the road, but also in order to increase respect for speed limits in Southampton and elsewhere as a real road safety measure.
I have already in correspondence told my hon. Friend that we will keep the operation of the new limit under constant review. Police enforcement with a 30 m.p.h. limit simply was not a practical proposition whereas the new limit is enforceable. Finally, I repeat the assurance I have already given that after a reasonable period of time—say 12 months—if the facts prove Southampton right and the Minister wrong, then, of course, we would not be so hidebound as not to concede the point and revert to the status quo.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Three o'clock a.m.

EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Motor Industry (Disputes)
  Motor Industry (Disputes)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Mexborough and Wombwell Careers Offices (Young Persons)
  Mexborough and Wombwell Careers Offices (Young Persons)
  Bank Employees (Overtime Rates)
  Bank Employees (Overtime Rates)
  Prices and Incomes Board (Banking Industry Reports)
  Prices and Incomes Board (Banking Industry Reports)
  Industrial Training Boards (Levy)
  Industrial Training Boards (Levy)
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industries (Self-employment)
  Construction Industries (Self-employment)
  Industrial Productivity
  Industrial Productivity
  Temporary Staff
  Temporary Staff
  Building Site Safety
  Building Site Safety
  Construction Industries (Unemployed Persons)
  Construction Industries (Unemployed Persons)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Stamp Committee
  Stamp Committee
  Police (Trade Union Rights)
  Police (Trade Union Rights)
  Fit Person Orders
  Fit Person Orders
  Criminal Offences (Young Persons)
  Criminal Offences (Young Persons)
  Mental Illness (Supported Families)
  Mental Illness (Supported Families)
  Police, Cheshire
  Police, Cheshire
  Afro-Asian Immigrants
  Afro-Asian Immigrants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank Charges
  Bank Charges
  Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (Investment Restrictions)
  Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (Investment Restrictions)
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Trustee Savings Banks (Personal Loans)
  Trustee Savings Banks (Personal Loans)
  Purchase Tax (Reply-paid Cards)
  Purchase Tax (Reply-paid Cards)
  Royal Mint (Llantrisant)
  Royal Mint (Llantrisant)
  Construction Industry (Self-Employment)
  Construction Industry (Self-Employment)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland (Incidents)
  Northern Ireland (Incidents)
  Mine Detection, Nigeria (Afikpo Area)
  Mine Detection, Nigeria (Afikpo Area)
  Portugal (Supply of Arms)
  Portugal (Supply of Arms)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turks and Caicos Islands (Telecommunications)
  Turks and Caicos Islands (Telecommunications)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Diplomatic Consular, Trade and Administrative Missions
  Diplomatic Consular, Trade and Administrative Missions
  Aircraft Security (I.C.A.O. Conference)
  Aircraft Security (I.C.A.O. Conference)
TRANSPORT
  Road Works, West Midlands
  Road Works, West Midlands
  Travel Concessions
  Travel Concessions
  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council
  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Woking Town Centre (Revelopment)
  Woking Town Centre (Revelopment)
  Housing Subsidies (London Boroughs)
  Housing Subsidies (London Boroughs)
  Council Houses (Costs and Rents)
  Council Houses (Costs and Rents)
  Old People's Homes (Rents)
  Old People's Homes (Rents)
  Housing Subsidy (Brighton)
  Housing Subsidy (Brighton)
  Rent Discrimination
  Rent Discrimination
TECHNOLOGY
  Electricity Service Terminals (West Surrey)
  Electricity Service Terminals (West Surrey)
  Electricity Transmission Construction
  Electricity Transmission Construction
  Power Stations (Fuel)
  Power Stations (Fuel)
  Chapelcross (Electricity Generation)
  Chapelcross (Electricity Generation)
  Departmental Staff (Disabled Persons)
  Departmental Staff (Disabled Persons)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Redundant Mineworkers (Payments) Scheme
  Redundant Mineworkers (Payments) Scheme
SCOTLAND
  Local Education Authorities (Bus Strikes)
  Local Education Authorities (Bus Strikes)
  Primary Schools (Ancillary Staff)
  Primary Schools (Ancillary Staff)
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Science Research Council (Boards)
  Science Research Council (Boards)
  Teachers (Recruitment)
  Teachers (Recruitment)
  Gaelic Language and Culture
  Gaelic Language and Culture
  Secondary Schools (Staffing)
  Secondary Schools (Staffing)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Glasgow Physiotherapy Hospital
  Glasgow Physiotherapy Hospital
  Primary School Classes
  Primary School Classes
  Schools (Clerical Assistants)
  Schools (Clerical Assistants)
  Teachers (Colleges of Education)
  Teachers (Colleges of Education)
  Salmonella
  Salmonella
  Murder (Life Imprisonment)
  Murder (Life Imprisonment)
  Hospital Nursing (Management Standards)
  Hospital Nursing (Management Standards)
  School Building Allocations
  School Building Allocations
  Bull Exports (Testing Laboratory)
  Bull Exports (Testing Laboratory)
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Teachers' Strike
  Teachers' Strike
  Agriculture (Transport Act)
  Agriculture (Transport Act)
  Secondary School Improvements (Expenditure)
  Secondary School Improvements (Expenditure)
  Fishing
  Fishing
  Farms (Net Income)
  Farms (Net Income)
  Rating and Valuation
  Rating and Valuation
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Forth Park Hospital, Kirkcaldy (Maternity Unit)
  Forth Park Hospital, Kirkcaldy (Maternity Unit)
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS)
  INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS)
  STAFF, No. 10 DOWNING STREET (PRODUCTIVITY)
  STAFF, No. 10 DOWNING STREET (PRODUCTIVITY)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEMBERSHIP)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEMBERSHIP)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine (Report)
  Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine (Report)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Educationally Subnormal Children
  Educationally Subnormal Children
  Stubbs Painting (Purchase)
  Stubbs Painting (Purchase)
  Pre-School Play Groups (Expenditure)
  Pre-School Play Groups (Expenditure)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Lesotho
  Lesotho
  Jackson Report
  Jackson Report
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Middle East Countries
  Middle East Countries
  India
  India
  British Dependent Territories
  British Dependent Territories
  Nepal
  Nepal
  Malawi
  Malawi
  South Yemen (Former Public Servants)
  South Yemen (Former Public Servants)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Serial Tendering
  Serial Tendering
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Psychiatric Patients (Day Centres and Hospitals)
  Psychiatric Patients (Day Centres and Hospitals)
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Psychiatric Patients (Housing)
  Psychiatric Patients (Housing)
  Psychiatric Patients (Outpatient Clinics)
  Psychiatric Patients (Outpatient Clinics)
  Outpatient Psychiatric Clinics (Doctor Sessions)
  Outpatient Psychiatric Clinics (Doctor Sessions)
  Children (Deficiency Diseases and Malnutrition)
  Children (Deficiency Diseases and Malnutrition)
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Psychiatric Patients (Hospital Admissions and Community Care)
  Psychiatric Patients (Hospital Admissions and Community Care)
  Social Workers (Mental Cases)
  Social Workers (Mental Cases)
  Suicides
  Suicides
WALES
  A4223 (Pontypridd)
  A4223 (Pontypridd)

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

LONDON POSTAL DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the misconception that the designation of London postal districts as E.17, E.11, E.10 and E.4 indicates that they are in East London whereas they are in the North-East, an approach could be made to the Post Office to redesignate those districts correctly.]
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords. I am advised that the designation of these postal districts derives from postal operational requirements, with which the Government would not wish to interfere.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for giving that part of the reply which I heard? I did not quite hear the whole of it. May I ask him whether he would agree that these designations are very confusing? One frequently finds in the Press references to "East London" which include Woodford and Wanstead, which was represented by the late Sir Winston Churchill, who surely never sat for an East London constituency. In those circumstances, will not my noble friend make an approach to the Post Office to consider this matter?
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords. The decision of the Government is not to do so, but my noble friend can certainly do so himself.
LORD SORENSEN: I thank my noble friend. I will read the full reply tomorrow.

FOOTPATHS: INSPECTION AND RESTORATION
3.7 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to ensure that county councils and other authorities periodically inspect traditional footpaths and where it is discovered that those footpaths have been ploughedup or obstructed, to ensure that they be restored to public usage or nearby alternatives be provided.]
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, measures to safeguard footpaths, and to assert and protect public rights of way, are the statutory duty of the highway authorities. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a circular to local authorities in 1968 advising them, in the absence of any action by the occupier, to take action themselves, under their new powers, to restore paths after ploughing. My right honourable friend has received very few complaints about the way in which local authorities are carrying out their duties, but he will of course look into any cases which my noble friend likes to send to him.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that in some cases county councils and similar authorities have put up signposts? Since they are of a permanent nature, and therefore extremely valuable in preserving these very valuable byways, could she not at least see that the various authorities responsible for this service to the community are acquainted with their powers?
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think that they are acquainted with the position. Indeed, all the evidence which the Ministry have is that there are very few complaints about their not carrying out these duties. But, of course, if my noble friend has specific instances, I shall be very glad to go into them.

RHODESIAN CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 propose to take any steps to remove from the Roll of Her Majesty's Privy Council the Chief Justice of the so-called Republic of Rhodesia.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Sir Hugh Beadle took an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown when he was admitted to the Privy Council. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place on March 2, those who continue to serve the illegal regime after the purported assumption of republican status can no longer be regarded as serving the Crown. We are waiting to see whether Sir Hugh Beadle intends to take any step to resolve this contradiction.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that very satisfactory Answer, may I ask him what steps the Government propose to take if Sir Hugh Beadle does not take any steps to resolve the contradiction?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at the present moment I should regard that as a hypothetical question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask this supplementary question? All of us realise the complexity of the present situation which has been created by the proclamation of a Republic, but do not the Government feel that, whatever may be their opinion of the present Government of Rhodesia, there is no suggestion in the Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, of any reflection on the personal integrity of Sir Hugh Beadle? I fully understand that as the situation develops certain decisions may have to be taken, but I rather got the impression from the Question of the noble Lord,
1234
Lord Beaumont, that there was a reflection on the integrity of Sir Hugh Beadle.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I want merely to ask a question.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not being long about it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Sit down.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I think the House will take so much discussion on a Question, and no more. It would be helpful if the noble Marquess would now put his question. I think he has already got his argument across.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I will rapidly put my question. Is there in the Government's mind any suggestion of a reflection on the integrity of Sir Hugh Beadle, or is it merely something which must happen owing to the changed situation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Marquess that this is a complex subject. I should have thought that we had a stark fact: that Rhodesia is in rebellion with the Crown. That means that any members or supporters of the regime are in fact seeking to deprive Her Majesty of her authority over one of her Dominions. Therefore any act by anyone has to be considered not only by the Crown itself but also by that individual. As to anybody's personal integrity, I think that is for each individual himself to judge.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the easiest way to deal with this problem is never to invite these people to Privy Council meetings, but to let them keep the symbol?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend able to give the House any indication of the reasons which induced Sir Hugh Beadle to waive his Oath of Allegiance?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that as a Privy Counsellor you take an Oath of Allegiance on being

1235
admitted to the Privy Council. You are not required to repeat it. At the present moment I am not aware of the intentions of Sir Hugh Beadle in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, has Sir Hugh Beadle repudiated his allegiance presently?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, here the matter is complex. If Sir Hugh Beadle were to continue to give support to, and serve in, a rebellion, I should have thought that that was a direct contradiction to the Oath of Allegiance as a Privy Counsellor.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, without wishing in any way to deny the difficult and complex questions that may be involved, may I ask whether the Government are suggesting that they wish the judges in Rhodesia no longer to carry out any judicial functions in that country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is another question. If the noble Lord wishes for an answer, perhaps he would put the question on the Order Paper.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is it possible to be a rebel and at the same time maintain allegiance to the Crown?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should have thought that the two things completely contradicted one another.

NAVY RECRUITING
LORD ASHBOURNE: 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 important steps they are taking, apart from advertising and the recent substantial improvement in pay, to improve recruiting in the Navy.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, we are constantly examining how the recruiting organisation can be made more effective. We seek too to enhance the long term appeal of the naval career by improvements in the whole field of conditions of service apart from pay. I would draw the atten
1236
tion of the noble Lord to two examples, which have recently been made public. Discussions are going well on the introduction of an InService Degree for young General List Officers in the seaman or supply and secretariat specialisations; and for ratings we shall later this year be introducing the warrant officer rank.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not think that if the paying off of the carriers was postponed, it would demonstrate to everybody that the Royal Navy has passed the bottom of a dangerously low curve, and that this in itself would have a marked and beneficial effect on recruiting?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that is way outside the ambit of the noble Lord's Question. There are many fields in which new developments are coming and which are much more significant than the carrier question. I think that the retention of the carriers would have no effect on recruitment at all.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, may I put the question in another way? Would not the Minister agree that apart, perhaps, from the Polaris submarine, the carriers axe easily the largest and most powerful ships in the fleet; that their paying off is bound to result in a lessening of pride and enthusiasm for the Navy, and that this in turn will be bad for recruiting?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should have thought that the Royal Navy was a forward-looking organisation and not a backward-looking one. After all, the carriers have played their part during their timespan in the Navy and I think that they are now becoming obsolete weapons of war.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and I do not think that their retention would affect recruiting. In fact, their retention would adversely affect the manning of other types of ships.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, carriers apart, would not the noble Lord agree that the fewer ships we have, the

1237
less likely it is that the recruiting figures for the Navy are going to be satisfactory?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, so long as we can match men to ships, the object of the exercise is satisfactorily achieved. We shall not be able to match men to ships if we retain the carriers.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, carriers and controversy apart, would not the noble Lord agree that the best way, the surest way, of improving Naval recruiting is for Her Majesty's Government to manifest their determination to maintain (his country as a major maritime nation of the first rank?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can see no evidence to the contrary.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought it might be helpful if I said something about the proposed arrangements for the Whitsun Recess. If it is possible for us to take only a week's Recess, subject to business we should rise on May 21, returning on a date in the week beginning June 1. If business enables us to take a somewhat longer Recess, I shall make a further statement in due course.

SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS MEASURE
3.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliafor the purposes of the Measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. At a late
1238
late hour last night in another place similar Motions were passed to those which it is my duty to move in your Lordships' House today. They went through another place with a rapidity which might well have been matched here had they been in the charge of someone higher up in the "batting order" on these Benches. Indeed, my Lords, I hope that it may be acceptable if I move the second Motion with the minimum number of words of commendation; but I now ask your Lordships' customary indulgence if the first of these "twin maiden speeches" is a little longer.
The Sharing of Church Buildings Measure is designed to dovetail with the Sharing of Church Buildings Act, which received the Royal Assent last summer. That Act permits a number of Churches, of which the Church of England is one, to enter into a sharing agreement whereby a building owned by one Church may be used by the partners to such an agreement, or may be owned and used by them jointly. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury introduced the Bill in this House and explained then some of the legal difficulties it was intended to overcome. He pointed out that certain problems would still remain for the Church of England in cases of consecrated buildings and of official parsonage houses. Sections 5 and 7 of the Act provide that authority to make such agreements on behalf of the Church of England must be given under a pastoral scheme made in accordance with the Pastoral Measure 1968, as extended for this particular purpose by a subsequent Measure. The Measure before the House today is that subsequent Measure. While, in a sense, it is domestic to the Church of England, it is a necessary supplement to the Act, if the Church is to cooperate with others in making the kind of agreements for the sharing of buildings which are envisaged in the Act.
Clause 1 of the Measure extends the Pastoral Measure of 1968 so as to enable proposals for the joint ownership of consecrated churches and parsonage houses to be included in pastoral schemes. This will mean that when the ownership of a consecrated church is to be changed to a joint ownership with another church, then all the interested parties—clergy, laity and patrons—have

1239
to be consulted and their views considered, both by the pastoral committee of the diocese and then by the Church Commissioners. Indeed, there is a final appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an aggrieved party. Clause 2 of the Measure deals largely with financial and technical matters relating to Church of England buildings. The most important provision here is that this will enable the Church Commissioners to make grants for joint projects in the same way as they help to provide opportunities for Anglican worship and for the pastoral care of the whole population.
It was my privilege for eight years to be in the service of all the Churches of these islands associated in the British Council of Churches, and it is therefore a special pleasure to me today to be involved in the very last stages of the enactment required to make the sharing of church buildings legally possible. The aim of the Act was most certainly not to encourage the Church of England to opt out of any of its responsibilities but to undertake them where possible in partnership, avoiding any unnecessary expenditure because of overlap or duplication of buildings. This Measure offers the way for such opportunities to be taken up, where there is the necessary will to do so. It is not only in new towns and housing estates where this can be done to the advantage of all but also perhaps in old communities where a large part of the population has moved away.
In welcoming the original Bill on behalf of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was quick to point out that where such opportunities are seized, not only will duplication be avoided and economies effected but a sense of a united community purpose will also be inculcated. This Measure is a small contribution towards1 the large efforts that all the Churches are seeking to make in fulfilment of their common obedience and in the furtherance of their common task. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.— (The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would like me to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for explaining so briefly and eloquently the purpose of this Measure. And I am sure that the House would still more wish me to congratulate him upon his maiden speech. It gives me particular pleasure to do this, because some years ago we were both members of the same diocese, the Diocese of St. Albans. I would add that I look forward very much, as I am sure we all do, not only to hearing his speech in introducing a next Measure but to his joining our debates on wide issues in the weeks and months ahead.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I would crave the opportunity of joining with the previous speaker in felicitating my right reverend friend on the first part of his maiden speech and saying, as a Nonconformist, how much we welcome his facilitation of a Measure which otherwise would have been inoperative in some cases. As I shall be a beneficiary of this Measure, it is all the more imperative that I should express, on behalf of many like myself, the pleasure we have at the prospect that lies before us. Nobody very much wants to share Methodist church buildings—anyway, not for ecclesiastical purposes—and therefore we ought to make it quite clear that we are going to be the beneficiaries in large measure of this particular enactment. I hope very much that this is the kind of ecclesiastical sprat that will catch a more spiritual mackerel. In the last analysis, if we cannot come together on theological grounds in the first instance, the fact that we geographically assemble in the same places may ultimately help us to that wider unity. I welcome this very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COLLEGIATE CHURCHES (CAPITAL ENDOWMENTS) MEASURE
3.27 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it

1241
is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I now beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Measure is designed to correct an omission from the Cathedrals Measure 1963. That Measure repeals certain provisions in the Ecclesiastical Commission Act, 1868, which enables land to be transferred by an Order in Council to the Dean and Chapter of a cathedral or collegiate church. But the 1963 Measure enables similar transfers to be made to the Dean and Chapter of cathedrals. This Measure now makes similar provision for the two collegiate churches, Westminster Abbey and St. George's, Windsor.
As it hardly seems necessary for such a transaction to be authorised by Order in Council today, the Measure provides that it may be done with the consent of the Visitor. In the case of Westminster Abbey, this is Her Majesty The Queen, and in the case of St. George's, Windsor, it is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. At no stage in the consideration of this private Measure has there been any objection, and the Ecclesiastical Committee is of opinion that it is expedient. The effect will be to make these two Royal peculiars slightly less peculiar in this one particular respect.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bowles.) On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Group insurance business]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 36, after ("employer") insert ("or such other group of persons for the time being approved for the purposes of this section by the registrar ").
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take this Amendment and Amendment No. 2 together. The purpose of the Amendments is to enable some latitude to be given in defining the group of persons to whom a group insurance scheme may apply in the context of Clause 7. As it stands, the clause applies only where the group consists of employees of a particular employer. Representatives of the friendly societies have submitted that this wording may be unnecessarily restrictive, because a group who otherwise might be suitable might contain persons who were not employees in the strict sense or who might not all be in the service of one particular employer. A football team provides an example of a suitable group which might not come within the present definition. There is no objection as a matter of policy to the widening of the definition, but to provide against possible abuse of the intention of the clause it is desirable that there should be a measure of control over the scope of groups which are outside the present definition. This is secured by requiring the registrar's approval. These Amendments have been agreed in principle by the representative body of the friendly societies. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BOWLES: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("employees") insert ("or other persons").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert—
("() In applying the limits set out in paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 41(1) of the principal Act group insurance business approved in accordance with this section shall be disregarded.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This clause defines group insurance business for the purposes of the Friendly Societies Acts for the first time. In fact, however, employers have already been arranging group life insurance with friendly societies on behalf of their employees, but individual proposal forms have been required in each case. Maximum limits for both tax exempt and taxable sums assured apply to such policies under Part II of Schedule 8 of the Finance Act 1966 for each individual; that is to say, £500 untaxed and £2,000 taxed, or £3,000 if the entitlement includes any mortgage protection policies.
This has mean that an individual employee who was already a member of a friendly society might not be entitled to participate fully in the employer's scheme if he already had life cover. The employer making the proposal would thus have to find out whether each employee proposed to be covered was already covered with a friendly society. A common form of life cover, I understand, for death in active service benefits is twelve months', eighteen months' or two years' salary. In such a case, each employee would have to be asked at the time the group insurance contract was being negotiated, or when he entered the scheme, what holding he had in any particular friendly society.
If the particular employee had already covered himself for £750 with another friendly society, it might be that group life benefit could not be provided for him. In any case, the need to make this sort of inquiry can be embarrassing, and that for two reasons: in the first place, the employee might not wish to disclose to his employer his private insurance arrangements; and secondly, the employer might not be able to offer the
1244
same benefits, in consequence, to all his employees. Apart from the embarrassment, having to make these inquiries and any necessary adjustments greatly complicates what would otherwise be a simple and straightforward proposal. This Amendment is designed to remove these difficulties and complications and takes group insurance right outside the scope of the maximum limits.
It would, of course, be possible to draft the Amendment the other way round, so as to disregard any benefits which the individual was already providing for himself, but retain the maximum for the purposes of the group insurance policy. This would mean that under a group policy no individual employee could be covered for more than the maxima laid down in the 1966 Finance Act, but any policy an individual had taken out for himself with a friendly society would be disregarded. But given the level of current earnings, on the one hand, and, on the other, the likelihood that in most cases the benefits would be taxable anyway, it would seem more sensible, I suggest, to exempt group insurance from statutory limits altogether. That is what the Amendment seeks to do. If the business is to be taxable, the question is: is there any occasion for a limit for group life business?
There is a precedent for not having a limit, for in 1956 friendly societies were allowed to operate retirement annuities for the selfemployed without limit up to any amount which a man could provide by the permitted percentage of his income. This Amendment has been suggested by the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee representing the four Associations of Friendly Societies—the Association of Collecting Friendly Societies, the Association of Deposit Societies, the National Conference of Friendly Societies and the National Union of Holloway Friendly Societies. I understand that it has been put forward to the chief registrar, and that discussions have taken place.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment, but if the discussions have not yet been concluded. I hope that at least he will be able to indicate that the Government are favourably disposed to some Amendment along the lines proposed, and that he will himself move an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BOWLES: In our debate a fortnight ago, the noble Lord raised this point—he had only just heard of it, and so had I—and I then undertook to have the proposals examined in consultation with other Departments. The present position is that these consultations are well advanced. The registrar is favourably inclined to the proposals in principle, and it would appear that they are unlikely to meet with objection elsewhere. It is hoped that a firm decision may be reached in the next few days, and assuming it to be favourable an Amendment which should be acceptable to all sides can be put down in time for the Report stage of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, on the strength of that suggestion, will agree to withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I willingly agree to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Sections to be substituted for section 77 of principal Act]:
3.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("or suspension").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point, and I am informed a somewhat academic one, because the circumstances seldom, if ever, arise. Subsection (3) of the new Section 77 contained in Schedule 1 provides:
"Subject to subsection (4) of this section, not less than two months' previous notice in writing specifying briefly the ground of the proposed cancellation or suspension shall be given to a society by the chief or assistant registrar before its registration is cancelled or suspended."
What this Amendment does is to question the usefulness of putting in the words "or suspension". I should have thought that, if it was necessary to suspend at all, it would be necessary to suspend immediately, so that there could be some sort of investigation into the circumstances, and not to give two months' notice of the reason for the suspension.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt with the next Amendment, which seems, on the face of it, to be contradictory, but it is intended to bring out the
1246
options open. Subsection (5) of the new Section 77 goes on to say:
"Where before the expiry of the period of notice under subsection (3) of this section of the proposed cancellation of a society's registration the society duly lodges an appeal against the proposed cancellation under section 77A of this Act, the chief or assistant registrar, as the case may require, may by writing under his hand suspend the society's registration from the expiry of that period until the date of the determination or abandonment of the appeal."
I should have thought that if the word "suspension" is to remain in subsection (3), then the word "suspension" should go into subsection (5), so that there should be an opportunity to appeal equally against the suspension within the period.
I am sorry that this is a complicated point, but if the noble Lord will look at what is now to be Section 77A of the Act, he will see there that:
"A society may appeal, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, against—(b) the renewal under subsection (2)(b) of that section of a suspension of a society's registration."
This would mean, in effect, that there would not be an opportunity to appeal against suspension until the time came to renew that suspension. It seems to me that it would be easier to give an opportunity to appeal straight away as soon as the suspension is made, if a suspension is needed at all. I am told that there has never been a suspension—I am not sure about this. If there is to be a suspension at all, then it should be dealt with logically, and one or other of the suggestions I have made here would be more logical than the Bill as it at present stands. I beg to move.
LORD BOWLES: The purpose of the proposed Amendments is not entirely clear, and it is possible that the noble Lord may have misunderstood the scheme of the new Sections 77 and 77A. These two new sections lay down the circumstances in which the registration of a society may be cancelled or suspended. Section 77 also provides for the procedure for cancellation and suspension, and Section 77A deals with appeals.
The registrar may, in the cases specified in Section 77(1), cancel the society's registration. Alternatively he may in certain of those circumstances suspend the registration for a period not exceeding three months. He may also thereafter renew the suspension from time to time for a like period. Section 77(3) requires that

1247
the society shall be given at least two months' written notice, with reasons, of the proposed cancellation or suspension. It seems right and reasonable that this notice should be given, both in the case of cancellation and in the case of suspension. The effect of the first of the Amendments would be to delete the requirement to give such notice in the case of suspension. I cannot therefore advise the Committee, in these circumstances, to accept the first Amendment.
The second Amendment relates to Section 77(5). This provides that where a society has lodged an appeal against cancellation under the new Section 77A before the expiry of the two months' notice already referred to, the registrar may suspend the registration until the termination of the appeal. The Amendment apparently seeks to extend this provision to the case where an appeal has been lodged against a proposed suspension. The short answer to this is that there is no appeal against a proposed suspension: Section 77A(1) provides for appeals only against cancellation and renewal of suspension, where the suspension is to continue for more than six months.
There are good reasons for not giving a right of appeal against the initial suspension. First, the suspension cannot be for more than three months, and any appeal procedure could therefore hardly be completed within the time available. That means it has to go to the High Court. Secondly, it is desirable that the power of suspension should be available to be invoked without delay in those cases where some further investigation by the registrar is required in order to decide what more permanent action, if any, may be desirable. There is, as already mentioned, a right of appeal against a proposed renewal of the suspension and this, I submit, is a sufficient safeguard to the society itself.
A further objection to this Amendment is that Section 77(5) provides that where there is an appeal against a proposed cancellation of registration, the registrar may suspend the registration pending the determination of the appeal. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands would be to provide that where the appeal is against a proposed suspension the registrar could sus
1248
pend the registration pending the outcome of the appeal. The position would, therefore, in substance be unaffected by the Amendment. I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think the noble Lord has really answered the point I made. I would ask him to have a look at it between now and the next stage. I am certain that any suspension would have to remain in being during the period when there was an appeal against the suspension. That is a point he might look at further to make certain that it is covered. The objection of the suspension would obviously be to enable an investigation to be carried out in the meantime. This is rather like Board of Trade procedures. I should have thought it would be right to allow an appeal against the suspension, certainly after the investigation had been carried out. The Amendments I propose may be defective in that regard. I am not altogether sure that the Bill is entirely in logical form, as it is at the present time, so I would ask the noble Lord, in the light of my remarks, to have another look at it between now and the next stage.
LORD BESWICK: I should not like the noble Lord to think that this has not been looked at already, and looked at very carefully. I can understand to some extent what the noble Lord is saying, but I think he has muddled himself up over this matter. In the first place, he asks that the possibility of suspension—
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I think his noble friend started by saying that he did not quite understand the purport of my Amendments. I took the two Amendments together and made it quite clear they were alternatives. I think he is about to argue on the basis that they were both intended to be made. That is not so.
LORD BESWICK: Probably the noble Lord will allow me to put my own argument. There are two Amendments before us and I suggest that they are not alternatives. The present positions are complementary, one to the other. In the first place it is proposed that a right should be vested in the registrar both to cancel and

1249
suspend. I am suggesting to the noble Lord that there should be this right to suspend. The noble Lord says that the two months' notice in the case of the suspension should be removed. It is not possible administratively to suspend immediately. You are not suspending the operation of a society; you are suspending only the registration. There is only value in suspending the registration if members of the society know that the society no longer has the respectability of registration. Therefore, a certain amount of time is necessary in order for members of the society to be acquainted with the fact that they are liable to be suspended as from a certain date.
The noble Lord then goes on to say that although there is no need to give notice, there should be the right of appeal in the case of suspension as well as in the case of cancellation. That would not be in the best interest of the societies themselves. What would happen at present is that if the Registrar has reason to believe that certain of the society's affairs are not in the order they should be, he gives notice that from a certain date he proposes to suspend. In the meantime there will be discussions and careful consideration of the point of view of the Registrar. I have no doubt that the matter would be gone into carefully by the society. In the case of suspension it would not be a really serious matter, otherwise cancellation would be considered by the Registrar. It is much better to have this period for discussion, consultation and further consideration, rather than to put upon the society the onus of having to go to the High Court in order to lodge an appeal against a proposed suspension. The present proposals are for an informal appeal, not through the expensive processes of the High Court but by negotiation, by discussion as between the society and the Registrar. This would be much better for the society and much better for its members than for the necessity, which the noble Lord would put upon the society, of having to go to the High Court if they wished to appeal against a proposed suspension. I assure the noble Lord that this matter has been considered very carefully, as has his Amendment, and I think that if he were to have another look at it he would feel that the present position is better covered by the proposals in the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, which has gone a long way to meet the misgivings I had. I am sure he is right in saying that the suspension does not mean suspension of the operations of the society; it means suspension of any rights or privileges that may flow from registration. It occurred to me that it was not a bad thing that those should be suspended right away, if it appeared that there was something wrong; and this would be more likely to be the Board of Trade procedure. With more experience at the Board of Trade than of the Chief Registrar's activities, I was thinking in those terms.
I do not want to press this Amendment. I think the noble Lord has explained the matter quite well—one could do it with two months' notice, or without; this is a matter of judgment. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in saying that, although I did not give much time for this Amendment to be considered (and for that I apologise) it has been considered—in fact, I believe the point was considered even before I put down the Amendment. That being so, I am quite happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Other Enactments]:
3.52 p.m.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, leave out from beginning of line 15 to ("Where") in line 18 and insert—
("12. For section 53 (discharge of mortgages by endorsed receipt) there shall be substituted the following section:—
53.—(1)").
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the next two Amendments together. The purpose of paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 is to bring the special provision for the discharge of mortgages (contained in Section 53 of the 1896 Act) into harmony with the provisions of Section 115 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Section 53 of the 1896 Act does not extend to Scotland or the Island of Jersey. It has now been ascertained that

1251
the provision in fact also has no application in the Island of Guernsey (the mortgage is something unknown in Guernsey law) or in the Isle of Man, which has its own procedure and does not use the endorsed receipt procedure.
In consequence, therefore, Section 53 is needed only to apply in England and Wales. By these Amendments paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 accordingly replaces the whole of Section 53 and a subsection (replacing the present subsection (5)) is added saying that the section extends to England and Wales only. I beg to move No. 6.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BOWLES: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, at end add—
(" (3) This section extends to England and Wales only.").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: This Amendment concerns a drafting error and corrects a mistake that has been in operation since 1896. It was in the Friendly Societies Act 1896. We propose that this error should now be removed. I should say that there is an intention to consolidate this field of legislation, and it is obviously desirable to make it as tidy as possible before consolidation takes place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("in").— (Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 46, leave out paragraph 19.
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment merely to obtain an explanation. It seemed to be the easiest way of obtaining it. Paragraph 19 says, referring of course to the principal Act:
"In Section 78(l)(d) (dissolution of registered societies and branches by award of the chief registrar or assistant registrars) the words 'or assistant registrars' shall be omitted."
As I understand it and on the face of it, it looks as if there is to be withdrawal of jurisdiction from the assistant registrar in Scotland; and, if there is one in Wales (I am not sure), from him also. This affects only dissolutions, but the
1252
same seems also to apply to amalgamations and transfers of engagements, where now it is the Chief Registrar only who is to be allowed to deal with these matters. I move this Amendment merely to obtain an explanation of the reasons.
LORD BOWLES: The purpose of paragraph 19, which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to delete, is not to change the effect of the law but to correct a mistake in the 1896 Act. The effect of accepting this Amendment would therefore be to perpetuate the mistake. Paragraph 19 provides that the words "or assistant registrars" in Section 78(1)(d) of the principal Act shall be omitted. In fact, those words should never have been there, because the assistant registrars have no power under the 1896 Act to make an
"award (for the dissolution of registered societies) in the cases specified in this Act."
The cases specified in this Act are set out in Section 80(3) of the 1896 Act, and in that subsection it is provided that the Chief Registrar may make the award. There is no reference anywhere to the assistant registrars' making the award for dissolution. Clearly, therefore, the reference to "assistant registrars" in Section 78(l)(d) was a mistake, and opportunity is now being taken to correct it. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I looked up the 1896 Act, and, I think, with special reference to amalgamations, and so on. I wonder whether he can answer the point about amalgamations, too. Why is it now proposed that the assistant registrar should not be allowed to deal with the amalgamations of branches and of societies?
LORD BOWLES: This applies only to dissolution awards.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I made it clear at the beginning of my remarks that I was not really concerned with the content of this particular paragraph, but I was asking for an explanation of the reason why this is done. The noble Lord has amply explained that it is in fact not being done, because it never was the case so far as dissolution is concerned. I am merely asking him, as a matter of information, whether I am right in thinking

1253
that the power is being withdrawn from the assistant registrar in Scotland so Ear as amalgamation is concerned.
LORD BESWICK: Probably I can help the noble Lord. I think that if he turns up the 1896 Act again he will find (I believe in Section 3, but I am speaking from memory) that there are powers of delegation, and it is under the delegated power of the Chief Registrar that the assistant registrar in Scotland operates. He will continue to operate with those same delegated powers because that power is not affected by this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lords for their explanations. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Procedure in schemes and orders for special roads and trunk roads]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BURTON: If I may raise a point on Clause 1(3), I wonder whether the Minister could explain the rather contentious matter in relation to the 50 metres deviation. The Bill does not appear to contain any right of appeal against this deviation, and deviating 50 metres could even remove a house. If there are no grounds for appeal, I think
1254
that we should put down an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid that without taking a little too long I could not answer the noble Lord's question at the moment, but I will take the opportunity later on, with the permission of the Committee, to interpolate an answer to that.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power of local authority to contribute to street works]:
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("() The local authority may. if they think fit. at any time contribute the whole or a portion of the expenses incurred by a person in connection with the improvement, after the passing of this Act, of any such road as may be regarded as a Public Way.")
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this point on the Second Reading of the Bill. Since then our county council has discussed this question and it is most anxious that something should be done along these lines. I am not at all certain whether my wording is correct, but as the clause is framed it would appear that streets can be improved but so far as rural roads are concerned it seems that the wretched district council, probably with very little funds, would have to bring up a road to what I believe are called "county standards" before it could be taken over. I appreciate that probably this will be changed once the Wheatley report is implemented, or something on those lines, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment would enable county councils to contribute towards the improvement of "public ways" by district councils. I would suggest that there is a material difference between the works which are referred to in Clause 4(1) of the Bill and works done under Section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894 by district councils. The private street works to which a local authority may contribute under Clause 4 are works on private streets and private footways which local authorities may compel frontagers

1255
to carry out. This enables local authorities to impose a heavy financial burden on private persons, who may be unable to afford it, and this has always been the main reason for allowing local authorities to contribute. Secondly, before taking over a private street—and adding it to the list of streets which are publicly maintained—a town council may require frontagers, under Section 134 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, to make it up: the council cannot simply decide to take over the street as it stands. Thirdly, the local authority, under the powers listed in Clause 4, can ensure that private streets and footways continue to be maintained to a proper standard.
In relation to public ways, however, the position is quite different. The district council cannot be obliged by the county council to bring such a road up to any particular standard, or even to do any work on it. Moreover, the county council already have ample powers to take over such a road as it stands and add it to the list of highways. The remedy for the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, refers is therefore to press the county council to take over a road, which may have become busier, and not to encourage them to try to put the burden of repair on a district council. If the road is important enough to warrant a high standard of maintenance, it should be taken over by the county council: if it is not important enough to warrant a high standard of maintenance there is no reason why they should be involved. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will take advantage of the remedies to which I have drawn his attention, if he is interested in any particular case. I would invite him to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BURTON: I thank the Minister for his reply, which makes it amply clear. It was a very different reply from that which I received from the county clerk. I rather think there must be some misunderstanding here, but in view of what the noble Lord has said (and no doubt on good advice), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to divert waters when constructing or improving highway]:
4.6 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEmoved a manuscript Amendment:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert
"excepting such waters as are designated as waters for salmon or trout fishing by the Secretary of State for Scotland."
The noble Lord said: I apologise for imposing a manuscript Amendment upon your Lordships in Committee. I will explain in a moment why I had to follow this procedure. The Amendment refers to the very wide powers contained in Clause 7, which we debated upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and which in fact give local authorities a blank cheque to divert waters or to carry out any works they consider necessary on inland waters, if such works are necessary for the construction or improvement or protection of a highway.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I was so bold as to point out that the Bill as drafted gives powers to the local authorities which, if used in the extreme, could divert the main rivers of Scotland —the Tay, the Tweed, the Dee, the Spey —which are valuable to Scotland's economy beyond any figure that I would hazard to submit to your Lordships, both in terms of money and employment. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replied to my point by saying, in effect, that it was the old excuse which we all know so well—"it is only a little one". The noble Lord said:
"This is a new power which is being given to local authorities."
He then said that he thought I was looking on this as something much vaster than the purpose for which it was intended. He went on:
"The local authorities have asked for this power, because, for instance, they may find that in having to build a bridge over a fairly narrow stream, the existing course of the water may mean that the bridge will have to be built at an angle—a skew bridge, which becomes a nuisance…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/3/70, col. 509.]
I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said as regards the intention of using the powers, but I have a grave constitutional distaste, which I think is shared by Members on all sides of the Committee, of giving the Executive, whether it be the central Government or local government, wide powers—far wider

1257
than are required—and then having to rest on an assurance that such powers will not be used.
After the Second Reading of the Bill, I had the benefit of some conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I suggested that I should put down an Amendment, but he said that he would look at the matter and would write and let me know if he could do anything. He suggested that I could then table an agreed Amendment. A very admirable procedure. It is fourteen days since the Second Reading. I have looked at each post as it has arrived at my house, or at your Lordships' House, with anxiety and with hope. Day by day I have waited for the noble Lord to come forward with a constructive suggestion such as he gave me to understand might come about. But I have had nothing. That is the reason I am forced now to put forward this manuscript Amendment, which I think meets Lord Hughes' point that the powers are expected to be used, and only required, for small works. My Amendment would exclude waters designated as waters for salmon or trout fishing by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would in fact protect these valuable economic units about which I have spoken and would protect trout fishing, a simple pleasure enjoyed by very many who support all Parties in this House. I hope that my Amendment will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and if the wording is imperfect I shall be very glad to withdraw it if he will undertake to put forward better words at Report stage. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry if I raised the noble Lord's hopes too high but, if I remember rightly, the quotation he attributes to me was that if I could find an Amendment which he might put down, or I might put down, I would let him know. As I did not find one, and I did not find the need for one, there was nothing that I could let him know. I expected that he would raise the matter on the Question, That the clause stand part, in order to have an opportunity of ventilating it further. However, he has chosen this way of doing it, and I find it an equally acceptable way of explaining why the Government do not want any amendment of the clause.
1258
In the first place, the Amendment suggested would be quite unworkable. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has no existing powers, so far as we have been able to find out, to designate waters as being waters for salmon and trout fishing. I take it that what the noble Lord has in mind is that waters which are salmon or trout fisheries should be exempt from the provisions of Clause 7. It depends what one means by waters which are trout or salmon fisheries. The rivers which the noble Lord has named quite obviously fall into that category, but there are many other rivers in Scotland in which there is trout fishing; in fact it is very difficult to think of any rivers in Scotland which could not be regarded as trout fishery rivers. So that if we accepted the Amendment as it stands, or anything which attempted to convey the sense of the Amendment, we should completely frustrate the operation, because there would hardly be a river in Scotland where the power would be capable of being exercised by the local authority.
The noble Lord said that what I had done was to advance the usual excuse that this is only a little thing and not in fact intended to be used for any major purpose. Obviously, it is at least theoretically possible that we could use Clause 7 to divert the course of the River Forth, the Clyde, the Tweed or Dee. But remember what the purpose of the clause is: it is to enable authorities to make a road safer in an economical way, and very often the most economical way would be to have a minor diversion of a stream to enable a bridge to be carried out in a straighter, and probably therefore simpler and cheaper, manner. If a major diversion of a river or a diversion of a major river were being contemplated, the cost would be so fantastic that it could not possibly come into the category for which the clause is being laid down.
The noble Lord objected on Second Reading to the Secretary of State's being the judge in his own cause, and referred to the special procedure under which a water scheme, the Cabrach river scheme, was in fact rejected after the Secretary of State had indicated his intention to approve it. If there were to be a scheme, a diversion of the type which the noble Lord has in mind, I suggest that it is really stretching imagination far beyond

1259
any reasonable limit to expect that such a diversion would be on a minor road; it would obviously be worth while to do something of a major nature only on a motorway or trunk road. The noble Lord will be relieved to know that the procedure to which he refers as being protection against the Secretary of State's being the sole judge in his own cause is in fact the procedure which would operate on a trunk road or motorway, because the Act lays down at the present time that in such schemes the Special Procedure can be resorted to. So that if, contrary to the expectations of everybody concerned with the seeking and framing of these powers, a major operation of this kind should ever be required, the Special Parliamentary Procedure, which the noble Lord has invoked as providing the right safeguard, would come into operation. I hope, that with the assurance that his major point is bound to be covered in exactly the way in which he put it forward, as the best possible safeguard, he will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
4.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the noble Lord quite appreciates the points he himself made on the Second Reading. In the first place, this is an entirely new power and, that being so, the Government have to justify it up to the hilt. Secondly, the noble Lord said that this power is more than will be required. I think this is quite true. He said on Second Reading that these powers extend beyond what are ever likely to be used. Further, there is laid down here a very foreshortened procedure for examination. The noble Lord talks about stretching imagination. But we are not dealing with imagination: we are dealing with what will be an Act of Parliament. We are perfectly happy to give the Government powers for the sort of small schemes the noble Lord has in mind, but this power is very much wider: as the wording stands it covers a very much wider sphere. It seems to me that the noble Lord ought to try to bring it in line with the sort of situation he has just mentioned.
The only restricting words here—and I do not know what they mean—are that the "highway authority may divert", and
1260
so on. I do not know whether in certain cases the Ministry of Transport is the highway authority, or whether this wording inevitably confines the diversion to secondclass or thirdclass roads. Otherwise, it would cover any road anywhere. The noble Lord said that this procedure would come into operation, but I am not clear how he makes that out. Here we have a separate power being given, and I am not entirely clear why the fuller procedure should not come into operation, or how he can say that it will come into operation here. I have in mind that a big scheme may go forward, and something may be pushed on with a very foreshortened procedure. I do not think we should give any Government power to do that.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry if I have not persuaded the noble Earl. In the first instance, the highway authority may be the local authority or it may be the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is the highway authority for special roads, motorways and trunk roads, and the appropriate local authority is the highway authority for principal and nonprincipal roads. The simplest way in which they can be distinguished is to look at the type of road on which the proposed work will be carried out. I have pointed out that for motorways and trunk roads the Special Parliamentary Procedure applies. The Special Parliamentary Procedure is complicated; indeed, during the discussion of this Bill in another place a principal Opposition spokesman on this matter criticised the Special Parliamentary Procedure as being unduly cumbersome, and did not want to see it invoked. Nevertheless, the Special Parliamentary Procedure applies.
There is no way in which we can lay down in an Act of Parliament that certain types of operation would be regarded as minor operations which would go under the procedure in Clause 7, and that other types of operation should be regarded as operations to which the Special Parliamentary Procedure would apply; because inevitably a point is reached where there is doubt as to whether an operation goes under one side or the other. The obvious remedy, therefore, is either to confine the Special Parliamentary Procedure to that narrow scale of important roads to which it presently applies or to apply it over the whole field. Obviously, to apply the

1261
Special Parliamentary Procedure to the whole field, sometimes in an operation which would be so minor in its nature that it would be an absolute farce, rules out the extension of the Special Parliamentary Procedure to the whole operation. It would be a complete waste of time. But in fact the opportunity exists in regard to any river where a diversion formed part of a trunk road scheme or a motorway scheme.
This can take place in addition to the public inquiry. The Secretary of State will undoubtedly cause a public inquiry to be held even in regard to a small scheme to which there is opposition. It may be argued that a public inquiry is not a suitable method of dealing with these minor schemes to which there may be objection, because the Secretary of State in the end is going to be the judge. I would remind your Lordships that in most of these cases he is not in fact being the judge in his own cause, because he will be adjudicating finally on roads which are principal or nonprincipal roads for which he is not the highway authority. So he is a proper appellant authority there. Lord Balfour of Inchrye's objection was to his being the final judge in a case where he would be the principal interested party—where the Secretary of State is the highway authority. I have pointed out, possibly ad nauseam, the fact that Parliament has provided a remedy against the Secretary of State's doing this. I cannot possibly go beyond this. To attempt to do anything else would mean that the clause was a complete waste of time and that authorities would have to carry on doing the job in the wrong way because Parliament had declined to give them the opportunity of doing it in the right way.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I make one suggestion to the noble Lord? I think that what he was seeking to do was to draw a distinction. Would it not do to say something of this sort: that the highway authority may divert in cases where the Special Procedure does not apply? So far as that is concerned, I should be perfectly happy. I have no objection to the Secretary of State's deciding in minor cases; it is only of the major cases that I am speaking. I do not think we are far apart. It is only a question of wording and making it quite clear that in major cases this procedure
1262
could not be applied. There may be Secretaries of State less well disposed to the world than is the present one, and one has to provide in Parliament for that stale of affairs.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit the possibility that there may be Secretaries of State less well disposed than the present one. That is obvious. Therefore it is difficult for me to resist completely a plea based on that ground. I doubt whether the answer which the noble Earl has suggested is the right one, but I should not like to reject it at this stage, because, obviously, I have made my case on the fact that this is a distinction. If what is suggested can be done without its appearing to the draftsman and to similar people to be a legal nonsense, then I should be happy to look at it; and on this occasion, as I am being invited to look at an Amendment along a particular line, I will undertake specifically to write to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, before the Report stage, telling them whether I will put down an Amendment or whether I would oppose such an Amendment if it were put down by them. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD FERRIER: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, if that is his intention, may I say that the problem which he raised at the end of his speech really arises because the Committee stage is following so soon after the Second Reading. I had expected to see an Amendment to this clause, and I am only too glad that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says that he will think again over the matter. After all, this is the first time we have had this subject debated in Committee terms. From something that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, I think that it might be well to include in the first line of Clause 7(1) the words "temporarily or otherwise". In bridge building often the diversion of a stream need be only temporary if the alignment of the bridgework is going to be altered. Perhaps that might be given consideration when this matter is thought of again.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his kindness in replying,

1263
although I cannot thank him for the substance of his reply to me. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Selkirk advanced a possibility which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has been good enough to say he will consider. Had the noble Earl not made his suggestions, and had the noble Lord not responded to it, I think I would have persisted in my Amendment, even to the point of dividing the Committee, on the broad principle that I dislike the Executive's having wide powers which, we are told, they never use. I do not think that we should have to rest on such an assurance. On that ground, I would have divided the Committee. But the noble Lord has been good enough to say that he will look again at this matter. Let us hope that at a later stage we shall find some accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Further powers of highway authorities to construct highways over or under navigable waters]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 17, at end insert—
(" (3) Any work authorised to be done by a scheme made by a highway authority under this section shall, for the purposes of section 7 of the Telegraph Act 1878 (provisions as to work which involves alteration in telegraphic line), be deemed to be work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament and the highway authority carrying out the work shall be deemed to be the undertakers.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives the Post Office protection under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act 1878 where a scheme is made by a highway authority for the provision of a bridge over, or a tunnel under, navigable waters. Section 7 of the 1878 Act provides that where works carried out by undertakers would involve altering a telegraphic line, the Post Office must be notified and given an opportunity either to carry out the alterations themselves or to supervise them, in either case at the expense of the undertakers carrying out the works. Section 7 also prescribes penalties for failure to notify the Post Office.
Under Section 20 of the Special Roads Act 1949 the Post Office have similar protection in relation to schemes for bridges and tunnels forming part of special roads. Clause 9 of the Bill is modelled on Section 3 of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961, which gives similar powers to highway authorities in England and Wales, and the Postmaster General is safeguarded, in relation to such works, by Section 300 of the Highways Act 1959. The provision proposed by the Amendment is, therefore, precedented in England. The Post Office asked for this Amendment after the Bill had passed through another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Drainage of highways]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FERRIER: When this subject was debated on Second Reading, I made some reference to the problem of increased volumes of water being discharged into agricultural land from an enlarged road. In discussing this matter with certain parties interested in the subject, a new point has arisen which I thought it might be your Lordships' pleasure for me to mention at this moment. It is that in areas of the country which have a hard winter a large volume of salt is used in deicing the roads. As a result, the effluent from roads at certain times of the year contains very high concentrations of salt. This point might have some bearing on the considerations dealt with in this clause in regard to drainage from roads into agricultural land.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, with his faculty for diving into strange waters, has produced a point which had not previously occurred to me. It is one which I should like to consider. I am fairly certain I shall not be able to find a solution to it, but I may at a later opportunity give the noble Lord, if no more, what he would regard as possibly an unsatisfactory answer.
LORD FERRIER: I am obliged.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
4.33 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Liability for maintenance etc. of roadside retaining walls
" .—(1) Where the subsoil of any highway or any land adjacent to or contiguous with a highway is supported by a retaining wall the highway authority shall be responsible for the repair, maintenance and renewal of any such retaining wall.
(2) In this section "retaining wall" means, a wall which serves or is intended to serve as a support for earth or other material on one side only."
The noble Lord said: I hope that Amendment No. 3 is quite clear. When a road has been made and has required in its construction a retaining wall, it would seem obvious that that wall should be the responsibility of the highway authority. Until now there appears to have been some dubiety as to who in fact is responsible, whether it is the adjacent proprietor or the road authority. Some authorities have been maintaining these walls, and others have refused to do so. However, I hope that this Amendment makes it quite clear and puts the responsibility fairly and squarely where I feel it should lie. I beg to move.
LORD FERRIER: I should like to support the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Burton and to put forward as an additional reason the provision of Schedule 2 on page 29 where, among the enactments repealed, is Section 94 of the Act of 1878. This section deals with the responsibilities of the road authority in supporting highway construction, and it seems to me that it might be well worth having another look at the section to be repealed in the light of my noble friend Lord Burton's proposed new clause, which I should like to see in the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: May I deal first with the point which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. The section to which he has referred in the 1878 Act which is being repealed is in fact reenacted in a more modern form in Clause 5 of the Bill. The section to which he refers relates to the necessary works being done on the tops of bridges or embankments, and so on, where there is an element of danger. If he will look
1266
at Clause 5, he will see that in fewer words and in more modern language we have continued that power.
Coming to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I am afraid that he has rather oversimplified the matter when he suggests that he places the responsibility where it properly lies, on the highway authorities. This is a matter which has been before the courts on a number of occasions, and one thing which has emerged is that there is in fact no such clear pattern that responsibility will always lie in one particular direction. It is because this Amendment is far too sweeping that I must ask your Lordships not to accept it.
Let us look at what the Amendment would do. It would make the highway authorities entirely responsible for the repair, maintenance and renewal of all retaining walls which support highways or land near highways, without necessarily relating this to benefit to the highway. The question of legal responsibility for such retaining walls is a difficult one to which, as I have said, there is no single answer such as the Amendment proposes. If there is a general rule which is fairly generally recognised, it is that the owner of the land which is supported is normally liable for the upkeep of the retaining walls, and highway authorities are often prepared to maintain walls which support the road. But to this rule there are a number of exceptions. There may be an agreement or a condition in a document such as a feu charter—the noble Lord will delight in reference to a feu charter—which allocates responsibility in some other way. Even where responsibility is not allocated in any such document, the circumstances may be such as to suggest that it would be inequitable for responsibility to rest entirely on the person whose land is supported. A wall may, for instance, serve other purposes, such as screening, as well as retaining land, and the land it screens may not be the land it supports. In such a case it could be arguable that responsibility for a single wall should be divided.
In cases which have come before the courts, they have tended to deal with each case having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and have been reluctant to lay down anything but general guidelines. The Amendment does not take account of these complexities and

1267
is, because of the simplicity of its solution, an inequitable solution because it would make the highway authorities responsible for many retaining walls which, in no circumstance of common sense or fair play, could be regarded as their responsibility. A wall which in part supported the adjacent land need not be preventing it from falling on the highway. Even if it served that purpose, it might be that it does so only in part, and that to a larger degree it served the function of a boundary wall.
We have also to consider that a wall supporting contiguous land might be erected at the request of the owner of the land in preference to a cutting, because the cutting would take away a great deal more of his land. In these circumstances, it would be quite unreasonable to expect the highway authorities to undertake responsibility for the maintenance of such a wall. In addition to this, there are many existing agreements between highway authorities and adjoining proprietors about the upkeep of retaining walls near the highway. The proposed Amendment would overrule all these, and it seems wrong that this should happen since agreements take full account of local circumstances.
I did not entirely ignore what the noble Lord said at Second Reading, and as I have found from past experience that a concession to the noble Lord is not bread thrown idly upon the waters, I have tried to do what I can to help him. I have put down an Amendment to Clause 19 which goes part of the way that he asks, and by which we would allow highway authorities to contribute towards costs incurred by others in the repair of retaining walls. In doing so we recognise that circumstances might arise in which, whatever the legal position, such a contribution would be equitable. I think this is as far as we can reasonably go in legislation, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will therefore feel that he has got something out of his Amendment, even although it lands at another part of the Bill, and that he can at least go back home proclaiming that he has got half a loaf although he has not got all the bread.
LORD FERRIER: Before the noble Lord, Lord Burton, withdraws his
1268
Amendment, if he has it in mind to do so, another point which occurs to me, which arose out of the discussion on Second Reading, is the problem of injury to retaining walls, fences and the like caused by road accidents. I also made the point, as did other noble Lords, that the enormous increase in heavy traffic on some of the roads in hilly areas causes vibrations which demand in retaining walls a strength which is not really necessary merely for the retaining of an embankment. Perhaps it is proper to point out now a problem which is becoming very serious in the area from which I come, of walls and fences being damaged by vehicles which drive off without trace, when the expense of repair, certainly in the case of fences, falls to the riparian owner.
LORD HUGHES: On the noble Lord's second point, I am sorry that I could not undertake to accept that it is the responsibility of the highway authority to take over a liability which, in more honest circumstances, is accepted by the driver who causes the damage and which in due course is presumably paid for by his insurance company. It all depends on how bad the accident is. If the driver is there long enough to be found out, then the damage would be paid for in that way. If he is able to get away without being detected, presumably he does so.
So far as the former point is concerned, I think that the Amendment that I shall be moving will enable that sort of case to be taken into account. That could be a change of circumstances which, although there is no legal obligation, is just the sort of case where it could be equitable for the local authority to make a contribution towards the cost of repairing a wall. There may well be circumstances in which it is quite obvious that it is the tremendously increased traffic on the road—vibration or something of that kind—which is causing damage to the wall which requires repair. Those are the kind of circumstances where I think it would be very desirable that a power such as I propose in due course to confer should be there, so that the responsibility should not fall entirely on the owner of the wall. I hope, therefore, that when we come to that Amendment the noble Lord will feel that what I shall be doing will meet that point.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must agree that the Amendment goes a little far at the present time. When I read it, I had it in mind that it referred particularly to the creation of new roads. As I understand it, when a new road is created there is clearly a different situation. At that time, either by an inquiry or by private agreement, the highway authority may well become liable for the maintenance of certain parts of a retaining wall. But beyond that, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, prefers to stand on the Common Law of Scotland, as interpreted by the courts. He does not want to go very much further than that, except for the Amendment which he has put down, though I presume that the powers under Amendment No. 8 must already to some degree rest with the local authority. Perhaps we shall come to that in due course and I will not press the point. But, as I understand it, at the present time there is no difficulty about compensation so far as new roads are concerned.
LORD HUGHES: I do not think there is any difficulty, and when one looks at the sort of roadworks that are going on one can see the different way in which agreements have been reached. For instance, work is going on at the present time on the Stirling bypass and there is an enormous length of new stone wall being constructed, similar to the one which exists at the present boundary of the estate. Obviously, that is part of the arrangement which has been made in connection with that scheme, and I must agree with the noble Earl that with new roads the problem does not arise.
I think he has also correctly stated my view in relation to existing roads, that we must rest on the position as it stands, improved, as I suggest, by the Amendment to be moved later on. But if it is accepted, and I think I am accepting, that it is inequitable to say that in every circumstance the responsibility should be placed on the owner of the land or the owner of the wall, then it must be equally inequitable to place the responsibility in every case on the highway authority. The truth will vary between those two extremes, and in many cases the answer may well be a joint responsibility, which is what I wish to facilitate in every possible way.
LORD BURTON: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply, because I think he has strengthened my case much better than I should have been able to do. I think he has pointed out how very diverse the position is. But the fact remains that if you have a hillside and cut a road through it which requires a retaining wall, the road provides the necessity for that retaining wall and therefore the responsibility should surely fall on the roads authority. I quite agree with the noble Lord about the compensation for new roads, but that is a very different matter. I am not talking about compensation. What I am talking about is the responsibility for maintaining these walls.
The noble Lord mentioned a feu charter, but we have been told in the Government's White Paper that this is going to be done away with. This is one of the things I object to. Here we may have a feu charter which is quite firm, which is to be swept away by the Government. That is all the more reason why we should legislate now on a term which may come up later. It is no use merely allowing a highway authority to contribute. I think there is a little doubt about this, and the authority should be told that it must contribute. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, pointed this out, and made some very good points. I really cannot see that this Amendment is too sweeping.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Damage to roads]:
4.48 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4, with which is associated Amendment No. 18, are drafting Amendments, the effect of which is to take the definition of "traffic sign" out of Clause 17 and put it in Clause 49, the interpretation clause. The reason for this is that the words "traffic sign" were inserted in Clause 17(b) and (d) as an Amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill, and a consequential definition was inserted as subsection (2) of Clause 17. However,

1271
there is also a reference to a traffic sign in Clause 19(1)(b), and it is therefore more appropriate to define "traffic sign" in the interpretation clause, Clause 49. This Amendment paves the way for the substantive Amendment in Clause 49. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Removal of accidental obstructions from roads]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("in the removal of the object")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 5, 6, and 7 go together. These Amendments will enable highway authorities to recover expenses which they have incurred in lighting and guarding an accidental obstruction pending its removal. They can recover expenses either from the owner of the object causing the obstruction, or from the proceeds of disposal of the object.
Clause 18(1) empowers a highway authority themselves to remove an obstruction from a road, and Clause 18(3) enables them to recover the cost of doing so from the owner of the object causing the obstruction. Subsection (2) enables the highway authority to fence and light an obstruction pending its removal, but in this case there is no power to recover the cost of fencing and lighting. There is no reason for different treatment of the cases. The first Amendment extends the power of recovery to all expenses incurred by the highway authority under the subsection, and not only to removal expenses. The second Amendment is consequential. Clause 18 enables a highway authority to sell an unclaimed object and use the proceeds for expenses. The third Amendment ensures that these expenses may include lighting and fencing. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I have no objection to this Amendment at all, but I should like to ask a question. How long must the ownership of an object remain in doubt before the local authority can sell it? It may be that it will be sold and that the owner will turn up after a fortnight to claim it back.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid I could not answer that question offhand, but I am quite certain that there are reasonable provisions on it. In some cases it may well be determined by the nature of the object. In the unlikely event of anyone dropping, for instance, a dead elephant on the road, presumably it would be very difficult to dispose of it, but it could not be kept in custody for any great length of time pending the appearance of the owner. Other things, obviously, could be kept for an unlimited period without any harm. I am quite certain that the authorities responsible will not place themselves in the position of acting too hastily if it is an object which anyone is likely to claim. I should think that in most cases the resale value of the object may be very little. If people have abandoned an obstruction, it is probably because it is not worth very much to them, and probably it will not be worth very much to anyone else, either.
LORD BURTON: I am a little worried about this Amendment. If the roads authority cut up a tree into unsaleable lengths, it becomes valueless. It is rather important, when a tree falls, that it is cut into the right lengths. I wonder whether this point might be looked at?
LORD HUGHES: I should have thought that if a tree of potential value had fallen and had become an obstruction, it would be quite an easy matter to acquaint the owner of the tree of that fact; and if it was going to be worth more to him cut up than the expense of removing it, the local authority would not be involved in removing the obstruction—he would do it himself. But he is much more likely to abandon it to the local authority if he thinks that the expense is going to be more than the bother is worth.
LORD BURTON: In other contexts the noble Lord has been very quick to explain to me that it is sometimes very difficult to find the owner. In fact, I think there was another place in this Bill which I mentioned on Second Reading as to which he said that it should be the tenant who should be notified and not the owner because you might not be able to find the owner.
LORD HUGHES: I should have thought that in the case of any land on which a

1273
tree grew it was likely not to be difficult to find either the owner of the land or the owner of the tree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, leave ("it's") and insert ("the").—(Lords Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("in the said removal") and insert ("under this section"). —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Dangerous vegetation and fences near roads]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("() The highway authority may make such contribution as they think fit towards any expenses reasonably incurred by a person in carrying out necessary work in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I have already referred. The Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union made representations that the cost of pruning, lopping or removing trees, or maintaining walls, and so on, in the interests of roadusers could be a burden on many owners or occupiers, and that the highway authority should accept some of the financial responsibility. The Scottish Landowners' Federation based their argument on several grounds. The first was that in many cases the trees or walls were there before the road was built, so that it is the road that is the real cause of the danger. The second ground was that, especially in the case of retaining walls, the damage is caused largely by the vibration of heavy traffic, which should therefore bear the cost; and the third was that since, in the case of retaining walls, the construction or widening of the road interfered with the natural support of the land, the responsibility ought to be that of the highway authority.
I do not want to go over all the ground that we have already covered. I have found out that the argument on the question of who is responsible for retaining walls has been going on for at least a hundred years, with many legal opinions being obtained. The legal position is obscure unless there are records of ownership which assign responsibility for maintenance. With many older retaining walls there are in fact no such records. Difficulties are less likely over walls built in more recent times, because nowadays roads are normally constructed in cuttings or on embankments, and retaining walls are built to support the land above only where there is a special need to save land or to protect property. In such cases, agreements would be negotiated about ownership and future maintenance of the retaining walls; and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has agreed that the problem does not really arise in connection with new roads.
Where records are lacking or deficient, each case has to be considered on its merits. It is not uncommonly accepted that responsibility for a retaining wall rests with the person whose land is supported, and where the wall supports a road at a higher level than the adjoining land the highway authority will often accept responsibility for full maintenance on the basis that the wall was probably built as part of the road. Even this, however, cannot be taken as the invariable rule; and even where the highway authority accept responsibility for the part of the wall which actually retains the road, there may still be a dispute about any part of the wall which continues above the level of the road.
More difficult cases arise where the wall retains land above the road level. A highway authority would normally be reluctant to accept responsibility in such cases, and there are circumstances in which it would seem inequitable that they should. As I indicated, it might be there because the landowner preferred to have the wall rather than give up more land so that a cutting could be made. Sometimes an estate has continuous walls around it, part of which retain the land above the road; and in urban areas, where roads were originally formed for housing or other development purposes, retaining walls supporting both the road and the land above the road would normally be the developer's responsibility.

1275
On the other hand some highway authorities have accepted responsibility for retaining walls supporting adjoining land, usually because of danger to roadusers and the difficulty of getting owners to repair the walls, either because they do not have the money or because they are just being plain awkward.
The Amendment does not attempt to define responsibility for the upkeep of retaining walls; and this, in the light of the variety of circumstances which exist, it would be very difficult to do. It does, however, recognise that there may be circumstances in which the highway authority could reasonably make a contribution towards costs which would normally fall on the owner of property, without prejudicing the question of legal liability. Much of what I have said has been related to retaining walls, but broadly the same considerations apply to trees, fences and so on. As a result of the discussions with the Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union we had discussions with the local authority associations, and they have indicated that they would be prepared to concur in an Amendment along these lines, going part of the way to meet the case which the Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union put forward. For those reasons, I beg to move.
LORD BURTON: I do not suppose one should object to a ha'porth (or perhaps I should say a pennyworth) of bread rather than no bread at all, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has once more pointed out how this dispute has been going on for over a hundred years, and it seems that this Amendment, although I should not like to object to it, will only further confuse the issue. I hope that he will look further at the whole problem. I feel that there is a legal difficulty which, as the noble Lord himself said, has not been resolved. I hops that on Report stage he may manage to strengthen the position.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.0 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert ("after consultation with the local planning authority provided that in the event of the highway
1276
authority invoking their powers under the proviso to subsection (2) hereof the highway authority may dispense with consultation with the local authority.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from something which I said on Second Reading. As your Lordships will see, Clause 19(6) gives untrammelled power to a road authority, without the proprietor, or any party, having recourse to amenity organisation. I agree that power should rest mainly in the hands of the road authority, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Second Reading, pointed out that occasions may arise when a tree might well be a danger. No one feels more strongly than I do about the importance of road safety, but there is a point at which amenity should be considered regarding a tree, or even trees; because first one tree may be taken down, and then another, until, one by one, quite an important line of trees, or clump of trees, may be destroyed at the sole discretion of the road authority. I think it would be reasonable to include the addition to the clause which I have put forward so as to make it incumbent on the road authority to consult the amenity people before taking down a tree which is covered by an order. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: There are two points about this Amendment on which I have some doubt. In the first place, it seems desirable that notice should be given to the planning authority by the highway authority and not, as the Amendment would seem to suggest, by the person ordered to lop or fell a tree. Secondly, on the analogy of Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, I think it would suffice for the highway authority to give notice to the planning authority. In this context the difference between "notice" and "consultation" does not seem significant. The change would keep Clause 19 in line with the basic provision relating to tree preservation orders. Nevertheless, I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view of the noble Lord, and if he will agree to withdraw his Amendment now, I will undertake to consider, before Report stage, the terms of a Government Amendment which would achieve his purpose.
LORD FERRIER: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I fully rely on him,

1277
and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FERRIER: I have one or two comments to make on Clause 19. I am inclined to welcome the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in regard to the general acceptance of liability on the part of the road authority for a share in the cost of retaining walls. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made a rather bitter complaint about Amendments not being received in time, and the same applies in my own case in respect of this clause.
Noble Lords will recall that on Second Reading I drew attention to subsection (2) of the clause where the authority can require an occupier to carry out work on a wall in 10 days. I pointed out that this is not always possible. The noble Lord agreed that there was something in what I had said, and I had hoped to see an Amendment put forward. But with the Committee stage coming so quickly after the Second Reading it has meant that, because the post was so "tricky", I did not see any of the Amendments— except my own—until yesterday: I was travelling South when they were going North. For that reason I put forward no Amendment to subsection (2) over the question of the period of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in supporting his Amendment, pointed out that the legal position is obscure. The point I want to make about this clause, and about the Bill generally, is that the expression "obscure" is perhaps not quite the right term. It might be "not yet determined". There are problems, which have been mentioned today, regarding the additional weight of traffic, the vibration caused by heavy traffic, and also the damage caused to road boundaries by impact in the case of accidents. I should like, to develop, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said a few minutes ago, the point. The real trouble comes from accidents involving big vehicles which can do damage and which are driven off and cannot be identified. Such accidents are a cause of serious loss to riparian owners. This is
1278
a matter which at least should go on the Record.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to say something about the matter of the 10day period to carry out the work on a wall. Winter weather, holidays and the like might make that period insufficient in respect of a wall, though it might be adequate in the case of the removal of a tree or hedge. If the period is not lengthened it may necessitate a reference to the sheriff, and my object is to save trouble for the sheriff in a case where a period of 10 days would not be sufficient in which to have the work carried out.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, prefaced his remarks about this clause by again referring to the short time between the stages of the Bill. I cannot agree that the time has been short. It is a fortnight since we had the Second Reading, and this is the customary period. So I do not quite understand his reference to the time being short.
LORD FERRIER: It is due to the deteriorating postal service. The noble Lord's Amendments did not reach Edinburgh until Monday. I left home on Tuesday, and I did not get them until I got here on Wednesday. They should have come earlier.
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Lord wishes to have a debate on the postal services, the Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill is not the right place to have it, even with the latitude of which I shall seek to take advantage in a minute.
LORD FERRIER: I was trying to defend the noble Lord against the criticisms he received from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye.
LORD HUGHES: I am finding strange allies these days. On this question of notice, I indicated to the noble Lord, when he raised the point on Second Reading, that obviously there could not be a lot of argument about whether 10 days was good and 14 days was bad, or 14 days was good and 10 days was bad. But the period of 10 days was applied in Scotland under Section 87 of Schedule C to the 1878 Act. and since that time

1279
nobody has complained that it is inadequate. Therefore to alter the period from 10 to 14 days would almost seem to be making a change for the sake of change. I should hate to place the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in that sort of position, which would be the complete opposite of the sort of thing that he would normally want to do.
I would point out, too, that in many cases the period of 10 days may be a preliminary. If it was unreasonable, the sheriff would not fix a period of 10 days. He could fix a longer period, and in many cases it might well be a month. Where there is potential danger—not immediate danger, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has pointed out, in such cases action can be taken right away—obviously it ought to be dealt with as quickly as possible. If the nature of the operation means that it will require a month for it to be carried out, the less time spent on the preliminaries the better. In these circumstances, we do not think that even in the case of danger it is reasonable to increase the period beyond the 10 days, which has stood the test of time for nearly 100 years. I do not think that we would be justified in adding four days to the preliminary period, because if it turned out that things went wrong because of the additional four days, we should all be sorry that we did it.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Deposit of mud or liquid from vehicles on roads]:
5.11 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert—
("(1) A person who, being in charge of a vehicle on a road, allows such quantity of mud, clay, lime, farmyard manure, or other material from the vehicle, or from anything carried on the vehicle, to drop or be deposited on the carriageway of the road so as to create or be likely to create, a danger or substantial inconvenience to persons using the road and who fails to remove the material as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter, and in any event before the next occurring sunset, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20.")
The noble Lord said: This is the first Amendment of substance that stands in
1280
my name. I indicated on Second Reading that I should table an Amendment to make Clause 21 more flexible in operation. I would remind your Lordships that the clause as originally drafted made it an offence to take a vehicle on the road without taking all reasonable practical steps to remove mud, and so on, from the vehicle. We have had a number of representations on this matter, and we fully recognise that it might in certain circumstances be difficult to clean a vehicle and would be onerous to do so when vehicles were making repeated journeys. The National Farmers' Union have been very helpful to us on this, and have drawn our attention to local authority bylaws which they think would be effective in keeping mud off the roads. These bylaws take the line that dangerous materials should be removed from the road rather than from the vehicle, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. They also say that where mud is deposited on a road in the course of agricultural operations it will be a defence in any proceedings to show that it has been removed by the next sunset.
The Amendment I am proposing proceeds on broadly similar lines, but the reference to cleaning the road by sunset has been altered a little. First, there is no justification for confining the reference to farmers. Building and roadworks contractors may also be making repeated journeys across or along a road, and on the Second Reading the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, referred to forestry operations. We also think that sunset of the same day should be the last possible time for removing mud from a road, so that undesirable conditions will not be aggravated by darkness or by a drop in temperature during the night. The new clause will make it possible to require the removal sooner in the case of dangerous conditions—for instance, where a wet substance is dropped on a road during hard frost.
I think it is fair to remind your Lordships that we do not envisage that this clause will be rigorously applied to every single instance of a vehicle dropping mud on the road. At present, highway authorities try to reach agreement on the control of such operations, and this is usually achieved amicably. However, it is necessary to have in reserve powers to ensure compliance in difficult cases. The

1281
new subsection (1) refers to operations causing danger or "substantial inconvenience" to persons using the road. The references to inconvenience were criticised in another place, but we have information about a major building scheme where the contractors have deposited mud, clay and other material on the road, footways and garage sites, to the considerable inconvenience of the neighbouring householders. So we have come to the conclusion that it is right that the word "inconvenience" should remain.
It was represented to us that the clause as originally drafted related to the use of the vehicle and, as such, was more appropriate for Construction and Use Regulations under the Road Traffic Acts. The Amendment now proposed relates to the road and not directly to the vehicle, and therefore it is in a form more suited to this Bill. There have been successful prosecutions in Scotland under the Construction and Use Regulations in connection with herring bree spilling on to the road from lorries carrying fish. Subsection (2) therefore appears to be unnecessary and has been dropped. Subsection (3) is omitted, purely as a matter of drafting, because the substance is incorporated in the proposed new subsection (1).
We do not envisage that this power will be applied rigidly all over the country on every strip of road where mud may be left. Obviously, it must be related to the circumstances. In my own area, when I was a member of the local authority we obtained local powers in this connection. We did not apply them in every case, but where the conditions created an obvious nuisance the attention of the contractors was drawn to the bylaw and the city engineer made it clear that the bylaw would be enforced. One would see at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, halfanhour before the men were due to stop work, three or four men with shovels clearing away evidence of the day's operations, and that was perfectly satisfactory. There were other circumstances when the mud created no danger or hardship, where it was left to the tyres on the vehicles to remove all evidence by spreading the mud more generally over the whole area so that there was no danger.
I think that this Amendment provides a satisfactory solution, and I should
1282
like to express our gratitude to the organisations who have helped us and have drawn our attention to particularly useful local authority provisions. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of this Amendment. I must say that I think that this is the right way to tackle this problem; in other words, the emphasis must be on cleaning the roads and not on cleaning the vehicles. The noble Lord has explained clearly how he envisages that this Amendment will work, and I do not have any great quarrel with that. My one worry is what I might call the "sunset" paragraph. I appreciate that it is unwise to allow mud and other obstacles to remain on the roads all night, but I see difficulty, when mud is dropped on the road by a farm vehicle just before sunset and it is physically impossible for the mud to be removed at the time. I take a little heart from the fact that the noble Lord indicated that the authorities would be reasonably flexible in this matter, but I am not certain whether it is right to have so definite a period in the clause. Apart from that, I should like to thank him. It looks as if this problem, which has taken a good deal of Parliamentary time, may at long last be solved.
LORD HUGHES: If I may reply to the point, it is conceivable that circumstances such as the noble Marquess suggests might arise. I think this is a case of exercising reasonable discretion. If a vehicle is going to make a dangerous mess on the road in one single journey, it seems to me that there is an obligation on the operator to consider whether he ought not to defer the journey until next day, if he cannot remove any possible danger that results from it. If he cannot do so, and it is impossible to remove the dangerous material, it means that he has acted wrongly in creating a hazard, I think he must face up to the responsibility for having made the wrong decision. If he must make a journey in these circumstances, then I think there is an obligation on him to do it in a way which will enable him to remove the resulting hazard; and if he cannot remove the resulting hazard, then he should wait until a more suitable time to make the journey. Personally, I should not suspect that a journey of this

1283
kind would create a hazard which anybody would worry about. It is the continuing operations over a period that are more likely to cause the problem, and in these circumstances it is reasonable to expect a man to deal with it before sunset.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: If the farm vehicle drops something on the road during the hours of darkness, does it mean that the farmer need not clear the object from the road until the next sunset, or does it mean that he has to clear it straight away? After all, summertime is to be continued next year, a great deal of farming has to be done in the dark in the mornings, especially in the northern parts of the country.
LORD HUGHES: I think that the answer is quite simple. The "next occurring sunset" must mean the next sunset. If a fanner starts operations at one sunset, he is governed by the following one.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that the Government have made a great improvement to this clause. It is not an easy matter to say when dirt from a farming implement or from a building site becomes a hazard. But having said that, I am a little worried about what the noble Lord said. He said that it is not envisaged that this power will be used up to the limit, but he thinks it is a good thing to have a reserve power. That is all very well with administration. But this is criminal legislation, and one cannot talk about reserve power when dealing with crime. This is not the way to approach the subject. It is quite true that we do not have much private prosecution in Scotland; it has more or less fallen into desuetude nowadays. I do not like that approach very much.
This leads on to the point that it is "likely to create, a danger or substantial inconvenience". We heard yesterday something about being "as clear as a Delphic Oracle". The words "substantial inconvenience" could mean almost anything. If the noble Lord was keen on roller skating down the highway, for instance, pieces of mud would be a substantial inconvenience. I should very much prefer to use something nearer the original word, like "obstruction" or "danger". "Substantial inconvenience"
1284
is very vague, and I wonder whether it is not too vague to put in as a ground for criminal prosecution. I should like the noble Lord to look at that suggestion. I know that he has strengthened the clause beyond the word "inconvenience", which of course was too soft, by putting in the word "substantially". We do not know how the courts or those responsible for prosecutions will interpret this. I would suggest that the noble Lord might consider whether those words could be strengthened.
LORD HUGHES: I do not see how we can possibly strengthen these words. Either we make it "inconvenience" purely and simply, or we attempt to qualify the inconvenience; and this is what we have done. In another place they were strongly opposed to the convenience element being removed, because, particularly in the towns, the most objectionable part of this sort of thing does not cause any danger to people, but it can make life exceedingly unpleasant if children or even adults bring the results of these operations into the house on their boots and shoes. To remove convenience from the clause in any form would mean that these people, who have a strong and legitimate grievance, would have to put up with such things in perpetuity if they could not show that there was danger or obstruction being caused. I think that the other place were right in doing this.
The noble Earl has objected to giving a power which is not always going to be used. But not all legislation which is passed by Parliament in which penalties are imposed for doing particular things is passed in the firm belief that every possible infringer is going to be prosecuted. If we were so to operate there would be a real danger of having more policemen than all the rest of the population put together. The powers of the local authorities, which I quoted, are contained in private legislation to which Parliament has given its consent. In giving those powers to local authorities, Parliament did not visualise that the town clerk and the city engineer would be running round the city, making certain that every 100 yards or so of street on which mud was deposited would be the subject of a criminal prosecution.
It has been shown—and this is why we have accepted this proposal—that over

1285
a period of years it is a power which has been exercised with discretion. We are conferring the power on all local authorities because of the way in which those who have had the power have exercised it. To suggest, as the noble Earl has, that because we do not expect it to be operated in every conceivable case this is the wrong thing to do is, I feel, a legal objection to which ordinary common sense should not pay much regard.
On the example which the noble Earl gave of the possible difficulties about the term "substantial inconvenience", may I say that if it will ease his mind I will give him a firm assurance that I have no intention of roller skating on roads either covered with mud or totally free of mud. I would go even further and say that I have no intention of roller skating anywhere.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: For the sake of the record, I must say that I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord's interpretation of criminal law. If Parliament passes a criminal law, it expects it to be fulfilled. A criminal law is not to be held in terrorem over the citizens of this country and not to be utilised to the full. If the noble Lord thinks lightly of the criminal law, I do not.
LORD KILBRACKEN: May I mention a point? It seems that if anyone who is in control of a vehicle allows mud, and so on, to drop from that vehicle, it is an offence; or if he allows it to drop from anything carried on that vehicle it is an offence. It occurs to me that this provision does not include anything that is dropped from a muckspreader or from the trailer that is drawn by a muckspreader. Very often nuisance of this sort is caused by some farm equipment that is drawn behind a tractor or something of that kind. Therefore it might be advisable if the subsection read,
"from anything carried on the vehicle or drawn by the vehicle".
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. It is a point that I must consider and, if necessary, come back to on the next stage. If I may have what I hope will be the final word on the disagreement with the noble Earl, it seems to me that common sense is something which it is worth while preserving.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I should like to make one small point. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, upon the customary thoroughness with which he has gone into this matter. It is difficult, and I think he has made his point that the leniency of this Bill lies in whether or not a prosecution is laid. But I agree with the noble Earl that the courts are going to interpret this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as it is written. I do not think we can have any sort of direction to the courts to read it in a lenient way. The leniency must come, surely, from whether or not a prosecution is laid.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, I must accept that. That was the whole tenor of my remarks: that the local authorities would exercise discretion. They want to have powers to deal with a situation which is needlessly unpleasant or dangerous. I do not think they would want to go beyond that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Use of builders' skips on road for non-building operations]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 19, leave out ("in order to use it") and insert ("to be used")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 22(1) is intended to ensure that the person who actually deposits a builders' skip on a road must apply for the permission of the highway authority unless the skip is to be used in connection with building operations, when the buildings authority give consent under Section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. It is common practice for builders' skips to be hired out by their owners to firms which use them, the owner afterwards removing them. In such a case, Clause 22(1) could be interpreted to suggest that neither the owner nor the hirer need obtain the consent or the highway authority. The owner could contend that since he is not himself going to use the skip he need not obtain the consent: the hirer could contend that since he does not actually deliver the skip he need not obtain permission. The Amendment makes it clear that the person actually depositing the skip is to obtain

1287
the necessary consent. He can of course enter into an agreement with a hirer whereby the latter will make himself responsible for the implementation of any conditions attached to the permission and such agreements are recognised in subsection (3). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Obstructions and excavations in roads without consent]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 15, line 40, at end insert (";and that person shall maintain an excavation filled in by him in pursuance of this subsection for such period, not exceeding 6 months from the completion of the filling in, as may be specified by the highway authority.")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 are necessary to achieve a single purpose; namely, to ensure that a person who fills in an excavation which he has made in a road will maintain the surface for a further period specified by the highway authority, up to a maximum of six months. The Amendments result from representations by local authorities. After a hole has been filled in, the filling tends to sink, with the result that the surface of the road becomes uneven. When statutory undertakers break the surface of a road they are required, under Section 7(6) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, to reinstate the surface and to maintain it for six months. Similarly, when Edinburgh, Glasgow or Dundee Town Councils give a person authority to make an excavation, they can require him under local Act powers to reinstate the surface and maintain it for a further period: six months in Edinburgh and Dundee, and three months in Glasgow.
There is a very real practical problem here. It is not at all uncommon to find, a few weeks after a trench has been filled in, that it has subsided, leaving a depression in the road which may be dangerous. It is obviously equitable that the person responsible should make good the damage, especially if the original excavation was made without the consent of the highway authority. The first Amendment provides for a maintenance period of up to six months. The other
1288
three Amendments are consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("on being required to do so under") and insert ("or to maintain an excavation which has been filled in by him, as required by")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 4, after ("so") insert ("or if he fails to maintain an excavation which has been filled in by him as required by subsection (2) of this section ")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 5, after ("in") insert ("or maintain")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 19, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) This section and subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the next following section shall not apply—
(a) in any circumstances where any of the following enactments applies—

(i) section 29 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1903 (penalty on unauthorised occupation of street),

1903 c.33.

(ii) section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (occupation of parts of road for deposit of building materials),

1959 c.24.

(iii) section 19 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (penalty for unauthorised dumping of motor vehicles etc.),

1967 c.69.

(iv) section 22 or 23 of this Act, or

(b) to any works to which the street works code as contained in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 applies.")

1950 c.39.

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that Clause 24 and subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 25 will not apply to deposits or excavations which are controlled under

1289
the five enactments listed, and that these enactments will continue to apply to these deposits or excavations. The clause, as drafted, could be interpreted as requiring a double control, under Clauses 24 and 25, as well as under the existing enactments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 26, line 19, at end insert (""fences" includes: cattle grids; ")
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this Amendment on Second Reading. It seems to me that where a side road comes in on to a trunk road there is no paint in leaving a gap in the fence, because it will require a cattle grid. This has already occurred in at least one instance known to me, where a road comes out on to the A.9 and the trunk roads authority have refused to install a cattle grid, on the ground that it is not part of the road authority's responsibility. I hope that it will be possible in the definition to maintain that the fencing which must be put in for safety reasons will also include cattle grids. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: As I understand this Amendment, it is to enable highway authorities responsible for main roads to install cattle grids on side roads from which stock may wander on to the main road. I find it difficult to picture the situation which the noble Lord has described, where a main road is fenced for its whole length, but cattle can wander on to an unfenced side road and then on to the main road. I am sure that in these circumstances the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the main road, would not fence the main road. What is the point of putting a fence on the trunk road if there are no fences on the side road, and the cattle can stray on to the main road in that way? The obvious remedy, if the Secretary of State is going to fence the trunk road, is that the owner of the animals or land must accept responsibility for fencing the side road, otherwise the fencing of the main road serves no useful purpose whatsoever. The
1290
noble Lord shakes his head; if he can give me some illumination I shall be happy for him to elaborate further.
LORD BURTON: I am thinking in particular of where the Shennachie Road conies out on to the A.9, near Moy. It is also quite possible in other cases that I know, where roads meander across hill country for miles. It would be quite unreasonable to ask the owners of the ground to fence the roads. On the other hand, it may be that the road side is fenced. It may be there is a field alongside the road and that the field is fenced, but beyond that the road is open. I think it is essential that the actual mouth of the road is safeguarded in some way. To install a cattle grid is often beyond the pocket of the small owner of ground, particularly in the case of the type of grid required by the local authorities, which are considerably more elaborate than the cattle grids that an ordinary proprietor might consider to be necessary to hold stock.
5.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: This is exactly what I thought the noble Lord, Lord Burton, might have in mind. He is saying that it is necessary to keep the cattle off the main road. He envisages that the Secretary of State may accept his responsibility by fencing the main road but says it will not in fact accomplish its object because the owner of the land or cattle cannot face up to his responsibility of fencing the side road and so achieve the object of keeping the cattle off the road. In these circumstances the placing of a grid in the side road is a cheap method for the owner to accomplish perhaps exactly the same purpose as would be accomplished by fencing the road. I can see no reason in these circumstances for placing responsibility for that grid on to the highway authority. It seems to me that if this can be done as a cheap substitute for a fence, then it is an obligation which the owner ought to be prepared to shoulder.
In fact, this is done in various places. I myself use an old farmhouse in an Angus glen where one of the hazards of getting to it is negotiating the cattle grid which the owner has placed on the side road for exactly this purpose. The mile or so of very indifferent road which I then have to travel to the house has not

1291
a fence anywhere along it. But by placing this cattle grid a short distance from the main road, and then fencing from there to the main road, he achieves the purpose at comparatively little expense. I can see no reason for placing this responsibility on the shoulders of the highway authority. I am very sorry: I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
LORD BURTON: May I elaborate a little further on the probability, or possibility, in this particular case? The side road is a county council road; it is nothing to do with the farmer concerned. He is concerned only with the land on either side of this road. There are other cases which occur like this. The local authority will in fact put up a cattle grid only where there is an existing gate. Whether this is a rule of the local authority or whether it is a general rule, I do not know; but this is the ruling which exists. Here is a case where stock can wander out on to the public road, causing danger to people using the main road; yet it appears that it is impossible to have some fencing erected.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord is quite right. He has correctly pictured the circumstances in which the responsibility for providing a grid is placed on the highway authority—that is, to provide a better substitute for the gate which otherwise would have been across the road. In these circumstances it is in the interests of the road that the grid should be provided. But even in the circumstances which the noble Lord envisages, where the side road is a public road and is not the responsibility of the landowner, there is provision in the Act of 1950 for a grid to be placed in such a road, not for the benefit of the highway authority but for the benefit of the livestock.
Section 9 of the Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids) Act 1950 empowers a highway authority to enter into an agreement with anyone having an interest in land whereby that land may be used for the provision of a cattle grid; and Section 10 of the same Act provides for agreements whereby the highway authority can receive financial contributions towards providing cattle grids. I am quite certain that if there were cases of the kind which the noble Lord has in mind, and the owner of the cattle decided that this was a much more economical way of ensuring
1292
the continued safety of his livestock than by fencing the whole of the side road, the authority would be quite happy to have such a grid provided, so long as they were reimbursed the expense from the owner to whose advantage it was going to be to have the grid put there.
LORD BURTON: We must come back to this: that the danger lies on the main road. Therefore, surely it should be the responsibility of the main road authority to safeguard against this danger. This is what the fencing is for. One is allowed to put up fencing to stop children from being endangered when they run out of school. I do not think the obligation is placed on the school; it is placed on the authority. Surely this is the object of the exercise. But because stock can run out, it is being said that the poor farmer must be responsible. It is nothing to do with the farmer. It is safeguarding people on a public road.
LORD HUGHES: Not at all. I am pointing out that if the highway authority, the Secretary of State, in the case of a trunk road, or special road authority, has accepted the responsibility for fencing the trunk road, there the responsibility ends. I have pointed out that he would not fence such a trunk road if there were other means of preventing the animals from getting on to the trunk road. That obviously requires the owner to accept his responsibility other than on the trunk road. If he has not fenced, or if he has not provided a cattle grid, I can assure your Lordships that there will not be a fence on the trunk road.
LORD BURTON: In the particular case that I have in mind the fencing has been put round arable fields by the farmer himself. He then has a gap on a road which is a county council road. The county council say that it is not their responsibility; it is for safeguarding the public road. There are other cases like this. Therefore I feel it must be the main road authority's responsibility for safeguarding the public.
LORD HUGHES: Did the noble Lord say that the owner has fenced his land?
LORD BURTON: He has fenced around his fields, yes; and beyond the fields is open countryside. The stock walk down the road and out on to the main road.
LORD HUGHES: He has put his fence in the wrong place. What is the point of putting a fence in one place and the cattle somewhere else?
LORD BURTON: To keep the stock off his arable ground; but it is not worth his while to fence miles of the old ground beyond.
LORD HUGHES: In that case, if he wants to save money in one direction, he must accept responsibility in the other. After all, the public purse is not there merely as a means of enabling people to avoid their own legitimate responsibilities.
LORD FERRIER: May I put it another way? Will the noble Lord agree that a "fence" includes a gate?
LORD HUGHES: Maybe the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is the proper one to answer that question. I am no legal expert. Of one thing I am quite certain, however, and that is that I am not prepared to say that a "fence" includes a cattle grid.
LORD FERRIER: That was the point of my question. This seems to me to be rather a storm in a teacup. If it falls upon a road authority, either in part or in whole, to fence a main road, and there is a side road in which, if it were not a side road there would be a gate, then that gate would be paid for, either in whole or in part, by the highway authority. If that is provided with a subsidy in the form of a cattle grid, then it is only reasonable that it should be paid for in the same way.
LORD HUGHES: May I say that that is a noble effort, but I am not convinced.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HUGHES: I have already referred to this Amendment, No. 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 22, at end insert ("' traffic sign' has the same meaning as in section 54(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967;").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 29, line 26, column 3, after ("sections") insert ("LXXX").
The noble Viscount said: As we have seen, this Bill confers on highway authorities new discretionary powers to carry out work on roads, with consequential powers to acquire land and to pay compensation. My object in putting this Amendment down is to delete Section LXXX in Schedule C of the Roads and Bridges Act 1878 so as to bring everything appertaining to the acquisition and compensation for land or materials acquired for road-making in Scotland into line with modern conditions. I have the requisite Section LXXX from the Act of 1878, but I will not bore your Lordships by reading it because it is rather long.
I should like to mention some of the salient facts which affect us in this Amendment. Section LXXX of the Act of 1878 enables the local authority or the highway authority—they are referred to as "the trustees" in the Act, but that means the local authority or the highway authority—to authorise any person to quarry or mine for any materials necessary for road making, for the building of road bridges, for building a toll house, or for any other work connected with road making. This applies to common or open uncultivated land—in other words hill land. Under this section the authorities are also allowed to deposit mud or rubbish thereon. The extraordinary thing is that under this section the authority does not have to pay any compensation for the surface damage done, or in fact for the materials quarried. The only exception is in regard to stone which is to be used for building.
Where does the Act draw the line? In fact the Act is not explicit, because as I have already pointed out, under Section LXXX stone can be taken for building any bridge or toll house or any other work connected with such road. Does this include building a house for the road surveyor, or perhaps for the foreman, or indeed for any of the workers engaged on the construction of a road? This is not made at all clear. There is no doubt that when this Act was passed in 1878 the hills of Scotland were very wild and lonely places and were of little value. In addition, they had few and small roads.

1295
However, the whole position is now changed, and when Parliament passed that Act it could not have envisaged the vast increase in the population of the United Kingdom, with hundreds of thousands of tourists going to the Highlands of Scotland and also to the hill areas in the Lowlands.
There has been a great rise in the value of these hill lands. Today we have roads in the Highlands which are great carriageways. There are motorways and main roads all over the Highlands and the amount of material that is now used in the construction of these roads is far greater than was ever contemplated in 1878 when this Act was passed. The authority can now take away millions of tons of material and under this Act it need pay no compensation. Material can also be dumped on one's land without compensation being paid.
At this point I should declare an interest, because this fact has been brought home forcibly to me recently. The local authority has constructed a new road through a glen of mine and has compulsorily acquired land for quarrying. Hundreds of thousands of tons of gravel and rock have been taken away and no compensation has been paid. Apart from that, of course, it is a great scar on the landscape. It is possible to take away half a hill in the carrying out of these operations.
It seems quite illogical that, whereas the authority pays compensation for any land taken for the actual road, it does not compensate for any land taken for the quarry, or for the material it has taken out of the quarry. There must be something wrong here. Possibly my Amendment is not worded quite correctly to have the effect of deleting this section, but I see in the Bill that the Government are repealing many of the sections under that Schedule. I should have thought that if this section were deleted another clause could then be put into the Bill to ensure that the authority cannot compulsorily take land for quarrying without paying some compensation, though in fact the deletion of Section LXXX would presumably do just that.
Another question which arises is that when these scars have been made on the landscape, under the Act the authority does not have to eradicate them in any
1296
way—it does not have to fill in the quarry or to cover it over. This has to be done on enclosed land, but not on hill land. I should have thought that it would be perfectly simple to make compensation under the usual procedures for the payment of compensation for land taken for roads apply to land taken for quarrying and also for the materials taken out of the quarry. I should have thought that compensation for materials taken could have been fixed either under the usual commercial practice or by means of a royalty laid down by Statute. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, will forgive me if I do not follow him through all these highways and byways of compensation law. Perhaps I should be straining the patience of my colleagues a little too much if I were to do so. However, I would say that all that is wrong with this Amendment is that it errs on the side of simplicity: it takes everything out and puts nothing else in its place. My first inclination was to say that I could not accept the Amendment for that reason, but I should like to astound the noble Viscount by saying that I will accept the Amendment, although on the understanding that at Report stage I will put in the substitutes.
The Committee will recollect that when the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to the deletion of another section of this Act—Section 94—I pointed out that it was reenacted in more modern form in Clause 5 of the Bill. This is what we shall have to do in this connection. In fact we had not overlooked this point, but the advice I had was that this was the sort of thing which could be remedied in the subsequent Consolidation Bill. The main defects are the archaic language in which the section is couched, and we could accomplish our object in consolidation. However, we accept that there are three things which are wrong with Section LXXX of the 1878 Act. The first is that it distinguishes between enclosed and unenclosed land. That seems to us to be neither necessary nor justifiable. The second is that it does not provide for the highway authority to give notice in all cases that they propose to take materials; we think they should. Thirdly, it provides for compensation on a rather odd basis related to the distance the materials are transported from the site. That

1297
throws a rather peculiar light on the way in which Parliament thought in 1878: that the question of compensation should be related to whether it was moved more than three miles or less than three miles and that in the one case compensation was paid and in the other it was not.
On reflection, therefore, we think that perhaps these alterations might be considered as alterations of substance and not merely consolidating. I therefore propose to accept the Amendment deleting Section LXXX, and to table Amendments substituting new provisions which will deal more equitably with the three items to which I have referred. I must express gratitude to the noble Viscount for having raised the matter, although I believe I saw the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, whispering to him shortly after I came in and I thought he had been given an indication that I was going to be helpful, and that therefore he would have been more brief. But I am grateful to him.
May I trespass on the time of the Committee by giving an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on the point he raised about appeals on the limits of deviation? I intended to give the answer on the last Amendment but I got into such an argument with the noble Lord that he might have thought that the rather favourable nature of the answer was an effort to buy off his opposition. The 50metre deviation is part of the proposals which would be published in a trunk road or special road order, and which could be objected to. The proposals as published would show the limits of deviation which might be claimed in the particular case, and the opportunity to object therefore arises there. There thus is a right of appeal on the general, which would include this item, so there is no need to repeat a special right of appeal. Having said that, may I say that the answer is, briefly, that the man can appeal against a 50metre deviation.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment. If this question had not been brought home to me so forcibly in practice, I having had my own rock and gravel taken, I probably should not have thought of it. But I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his attitude to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 20 is consequential on an Amendment made in another place, when Clause 26 was amended to enable highway authorities to control the installation of overhead bridges. This was an extension to all highway authorities of an existing power available to town councils in Section 132 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892. The present Amendment repeals the 1892 Act power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 2, column 3, at end insert ("In section 132(3) the words "or bridges over", and in the proviso to that section the words "on bridges".").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

DOCKS AND HARBOURS (VALUATION) ORDER 1970
6.5 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, in moving, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Kennet, that this Order be approved, may I say that it has been examined by the Special Orders Committee of the House who report that it does not raise any matters of policy or of principle; that it is founded on precedent, and that it may be passed by the House without special attention. Unless, therefore, noble Lords have any special points to raise, which of course I will happily try to answer, I will not detain the House further. I beg beg to move.
Moved, That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1970, be approved.— (Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for that brief introduction? This particular Order looks very formidable, but am I right in thinking that in actual fact it applies only to one harbour, and is designed to apply only to one harbour—I gather that the answer is, Yes. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she really thinks that 7·5 per cent. of the relevant receipts will be anything like the normal rate charge? It seems to me to be formidable

1299
indeed. I hope it will not be taken as any kind of precedent. I should think there are few docks and harbours making that as profit on their turnover. A rate of 7½ per cent. seems very formidable.
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, this has been agreed by all the people concerned—the local authorities, the ports side, the Steel Corporation and so on. I agree with the noble Lord that it looks very formidable, but in fact one has to pick something for this one year, as it will be, that would look reasonable alongside the other assessments which it has to live with before the new formula comes out, which my right honourable friend hopes will be in 1971.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1970
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE rose to move, That the Material Development (Amendment) Regulations 1970, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Regulations which I am about to move, though simple in intent, appear a little complicated in the Statutory Instrument. May I therefore outline, as briefly as possible, the broad intention? May I first say that these Regulations, like the previous Order, have been considered by the Special Orders Committee of the House, who report that they can be passed without any special attention. The Regulations make some relatively minor changes to the original Material Development Regulations, 1967, which were of course approved by your Lordships' House. At present the projects at which the Regulations are directed are generally exempt from the levy for other reasons; nevertheless, they still need to be notified to the Commission. The Regulations are designed to remove the need for notification. It is obviously important to alter a situation which is wasteful of time and effort, and this is what these Regulations seek to do. In these circumstances I hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Material Development (Amendment) Regulations 1970 be
1300
approved.—(Baroness Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation, which seems to us quite satisfactory. I am much obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL MILK) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NERVE GASES AND GENEVA PROTOCOL
6.10 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will refer to the Geneva Disarmament Conference a definition of how far nerve gases and defoliants come within the provisions of the Protocol of 1925.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not imagine that the Minister who will be replying to the debate will object in any way to my raising this issue tonight. It was clear when we had exchanges and questions on this subject that there was great uneasiness on all sides of the House. This was indicated by the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, from the other side of the House, and by a series of questions put from these Benches. I think this disquiet arises from two sources: first, concern about the development and the use of chemical weapons, particularly as evidenced in Vietnam; and secondly, the reversal of British policy in regard to the scope of the Geneva Protocol.
I think it desirable that the facts about British policy should be placed on record. The Protocol itself prohibited,
"the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices."
There is no doubt at all that the British Government took the view that the Proto-

1301
col ruled out all gases, including the less lethal lachrymatory gases, the tear gases. This was the view of Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and National Governments over the period of the last 45 years. Mr. Hugh Dalton was questioned in 1930 on the extent of prohibitions under the Protocol. He replied (Hansard, February 18, 1930) that tear gases were included. Arthur Henderson gave a similar reply as recorded in Hansard of November 24, 1930. At the League of Nations Preparatory Disarmament Commission held in 1930, Lord Robert Cecil for the National Government then in office, went further. Arguing that lachrymatory gases were included in the terms of the Geneva Protocol, he said that the prohibition extended even to those gases which are not dangerous to health.
This rule of "no gas" was accepted because it was the only positive and simple standard for agreement about where to draw the line. It was recognised that when harassing gases were used in order to enhance the lethal effectiveness of conventional weapons, the distinction between the lethal and the incapacitating chemicals lost any essential meaning. This comprehensive definition was also urged because of the danger that a Government might justify their use of a particular gas on the ground that it was harmless when in fact there were doubts about it.
This is exactly the situation which has now arisen by the Government's decision to regard the CS gas as not prohibited by the Geneva Protocol. My noble friend Lord Chalfont said on February 26—I quote from column 161—that CS gas is not
"significantly harmful, except in exceptional circumstances."
I think I can show that the evidence from Vietnam indicates that it is "significantly harmful".
In regard to his statement, that,
"If, for example, this substance were used in very high concentrations in enclosed spaces over long periods, this would be an exceptional circumstance,"
I think I can show that a prolonged period is not necessary for it to be lethal. In my experience, it is now fairly well known—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can clarify a point for me which may be useful when I come to reply? I understood him to suggest that exposure to CS gas over a long period might be lethal. Was he really intending to suggest that?
LORD BROCKWAY: Well, my Lords, I thought I was reading the noble Lord's exact words. He said in this House on February 26 (column 165) when he was explaining the exceptional circumstances:
"If, for instance, this substance were used in very high concentrations in enclosed spaces over long periods, this would be an exceptional circumstance."
I am trying to show that the experience in Vietnam indicates that it is not necessary to be concentrated over long periods.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must get this clear because it is a most important point. In his original remarks my noble friend said—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to address the whole House?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry. The point I am trying to make is that in his original remarks my noble friend said that it is not necessary to have a long period for this gas to be lethal. As that suggestion will appear on the Record I am most anxious to know whether that is what my noble friend meant to say, because it is a most important point.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I want to say that it is not necessary for CS gas to be used for a long period in order to be lethal. I say that, and I will give the evidence for it. We have had more than one report from Vietnam that when containers of CS gas are thrown into dugouts in which villagers have taken refuge, women and children have been suffocated while the men, on emerging, have been shot down, which has been the object of the exercise. More than that, much more impressive than that, I want to quote the judgment of someone who is universally respected, an elder statesman in the best sense of that term, an authority who does not use words lightly and

1303
one unrivalled in his study of armaments, for which, indeed, he was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize; I refer to Philip Noel-Baker. In his letter to The Times on February 12 he used these words, and I hope the Minister will listen:
"In Vietnam CS gas is used by United States forces almost daily, and in enormous quantities. Delivered by six-inch shells on the trenches and bunkers of the N.L.F. soldiers, it makes a concentration that can be lethal, and which is wholly intolerable, if the soldiers stay in shelter; if they come out, they are killed by concentrated artillery or machinegun fire. Directly or indirectly, CS has been among the biggest killers in the Vietnam war."
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that so far as Britain is concerned,
"if it were ever necessary for British troops to use this substance, it would be used to save lives and to take prisoners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/2/70; col. 162.]
I have no doubt at all that that would be his wish; but does he really believe that in circumstances of battle crisis, if the gas were available and could be used offensively, as it has been in Vietnam, its use would be limited to saving lives? That would be stretching our credibility too far. It is the nature of war conditions which makes comparison with the use of CS in riot control unreal. Its use in containing demonstrations is to limit violence; it may be to save lives. But war is violence; its means of victory are to kill.
My question also deals with defoliants. I do not propose to go into detail, partly because it is the CS gas which the Government have legalised and also because there will be some controversy whether the Geneva Protocol covers defoliants, though it does prohibit not only gases but all analogous liquids, materials, or devices. I was able to indicate in the exchange of questions regarding herbicide 245T on March 11 that researches in the United States had been so frightening in what they revealed of deformities caused in births from infected pregnant animals, that President Nixon had prohibited the use of 245T in America and limited its use in Vietnam to unpopulated areas. I regard this latter decision as very significant indeed.
It has been suggested that our Government's decision to exclude CS from the provisions of the Geneva Protocol was made to encourage the United States
1304
to sign the Protocol, with the reservations involved in the use of gases in Vietnam. My Lords, I hope that that is not true. There is deep concern and debate in America on these issues, with influential figures pressing for further decisive action on chemical and biological weapons. Our influence should be used to encourage those tendencies, not to compromise with them. We have reason for some optimism. President Nixon has banned the production in America of biological weapons, and their use; he has banned the production of toxins for germ warfare; he has banned the distribution of the herbicide 245T in America; he has supported the British proposal for an ininternational Convention outlawing biological weapons. We should be encouraging this tendency in America instead of retreating from it. So far from taking a step which limits the international prohibition of chemical agents, we should be seeking to extend it.
I turn to the proposal in my Question that we should refer this issue to the Geneva Disarmament Conference for decision, rather than insist on our unilateral interpretation. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, misunderstood my references on February 26, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to the Convention on Biological Warfare. I did not suggest that they had anything to do with CS in their contents; I did suggest that if we unilaterally decided that a particular gas was not within the terms of the Geneva Protocol, a precedent would be set for other Governments to decide exceptions when they signed international agreements, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Biological Warfare Convention.
When it was proposed that the Geneva Disarmament Conference should define the scope of the Geneva Protocol the noble Lord said:
"… in any international instrument of this kind it is up to the individual signatories to interpret the Treaty they have signed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/2/70; col. 163.]
Does the noble Lord realise that even in this disinclination to accept an international interpretation of the Treaty he is going back on British precedent? When there were previous doubts about the scope of the Protocol, the British representative, Lord Robert Cecil, sought the opinion of other Governments in the

1305
League of Nations Preparatory Disarmament Commission in 1931.
On this matter—again, I am sure, unintentionally—the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, slightly misrepresented me. I did not say that opinion was unanimous on the Commission. I said that it was the general view that lachrymatory gases came within the terms of the Protocol. In fact, all the 12 delegates who spoke on that occasion, with the exception of the United States delegate, endorsed the view that these gases do come within the terms of the Geneva Protocol. The U.S., which had not signed the Convention, was the only dissenting Government on that occasion. The question which I wish to ask is this. Why, if we could consult the Preparatory Disarmament Commission in 1931, cannot we consult the Disarmament Conference today?
I sincerely regret becoming engaged in controversy with the noble Lord. I believe we agree fundamentally. If I may say so, his speech yesterday was magnificent. I was thrilled to the depths by what he said, and I am going to quote it now. He said that we spend,
"… nearly one-tenth of the world's resources on the means of destroying each other when two-thirds of the world's population do rot get enough to eat.
Young people simply do not understand this … and they believe, as I do, that we shall be looked upon in the future as some kind of barbaric society. They will want us to move away from that … we can move from it".—[OFFFICIAL REPORT, 18/3/70, col. 1214.]
Old as I am, I believe that in making this appeal I am expressing the mind of the youth to whom the noble Lord referred.
I want to be helpful. The Government have taken the decision to legalise CS gas in war, and I recognise that it is difficult to go back on a decision of that kind. But surely it would not be inconsistent for the Government, in view of the disquiet which has now been expressed, to say that they will stats their view to the Disarmament Conference but seek the reactions of the Disarmament Conference. The noble Lord suggested that the Conference had more important matters to deal with, and I recognise the part that he has played in the discussions. But the Conference is now discussing the most relevant issues—the Biological Warfare
1306
Convention, its extension to chemical agents and its relationship to the Geneva Protocol. Surely nothing would be more logical in this context than to consider the scope of the Protocol as I have suggested.
I do not ask the Minister for a decision today. I ask him only not to turn down this proposal. I ask him to take it to his colleagues and to say to them how wide is the support and how deep is the concern.
6.35 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and to speak particularly to that part of his Question connected with CS gas, I would say that I hope your Lordships will not judge it as a sign that I do not regard this matter as of the deepest importance if I do not detain you long. There are two basic reasons for this. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his very thorough and wholly admirable speech has covered so much of the ground. The second reason is that, while it is easy to get involved in the juridical and scientific arguments about this matter, it seems to me that the fundamental point is a simple one and not very involved in queries about who did what, when or why.
The basic assumption, ever since 1930 when we signed the Protocol, has been that gas has been included in the Convention. It has been the assumption of the British Government; it has been the assumption of other countries involved. International opinion has always viewed it so, and continues to do so, finally reaching a peak in the United Nations debate at the end of last year. In my view, international opinion is right to have taken that line. The broader such a Convention is, or the larger ground it can cover, the better and happier we must all feel; and, indeed, there is a very strong case for saying that this is the only line which can be drawn, the line which bans all gases.
I cannot accept for a moment the idea that in war, even with the best will in the world by the best Government in the world, this gas could or would be used only to save life. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, war is a much more savage matter than that, and the

1307
experience that we have already had of CS gas in the hands of one of the civilised countries of the West shows us that the danger is quite enormous.
It seems to me that there would have to be a very good reason for us to disagree with world opinion on interpretation in this matter; and no good reason, except the one which I think has been shown to be fallacious—the one that it might save lives in war time—has been given for taking it on ourselves to interpret the Convention in this way. If anything, this is a case for rethinking. I know that everyone in this House joins in the most tremendous admiration for the work that Britain has been doing in Disarmament Conferences. It is one of the things we can be very proud of over the last few years, and to no one does more credit go than to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I think it would be very sad indeed if we were now to spoil this record.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in asking not for any kind of hasty answer to the Question, but that in a matter as important as this the Government should go back and think again, and take into account and consult, if necessary unofficially rather than officially, with other countries so that we may not act unilaterally in such a dangerous and difficult matter.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I usually try to take the view in any debate that if the ground has been covered before I speak (and, if so, it has usually been covered very well) I should try not to repeat the same arguments. On this occasion, however, I fear that I shall have to go over some of the same ground in speaking to the Unstarred Question raised by my noble friend Lord Brockway, because it seems to me a matter of such importance and such concern to the people of this country; and I do not think that what the Government have decided to do has received as much publicity or has been as clearly understood as it should be.
On February 3, in another place, the Prime Minister referred to CS gas as "smoke". I would only say that a gas by any other name smells just as bad. However, on looking up the word "smoke" in the Oxford Dictionary one finds the following interpretations:
1308
"The visible volatile produce given off by burning or smouldering substances".
I do not think that is what we are discussing. Then:
"A mist, fog or miasma. Fume or vapour caused by the action of heat on moisture"—
and may I say that I understand from experts who know much more about the technical side than I do that in any case the substance we are discussing, CS, is too thin ever to be called a smokescreen.
My noble friend on the Front Bench was very anxious to get quite specifically what it was that my noble friend Lord Brockway was saying when he referred to the effect of CS gas in concentrated doses in enclosed spaces, and whether or not this was lethal. I do not think we are discussing whether it is lethal: we are discussing whether this obnoxious substance should be made legal and whether, in doing so, we should break the legality of a Convention which we entered into and in fact promoted for very many years. But on the point of whether it is lethal or incapacitating, it does not seem to me, with great respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, that this is very relevant—although I appreciate the difficulty facing anybody speaking for the Government on this matter, since it must be extremely hard to find any arguments at all for the decision. A group of consultants working on behalf of the World Health Organisation recently reported that:
"No sharp line of demarcation can be drawn between lethal and incapacitating agents used in chemical and biological warfare, because incapacitating agents can be lethal or permanently disabling in certain circumstances (e.g. in the presence of malnutrition or preexisting disease; in infants or the aged …). For similar reasons, no sharp demarcation line can be drawn between harassing agents and other antipersonnel chemical agents ".
That quotation comes from Health Aspects of Chemical and Biological Weapons, W.H.O., page 12.
Now I take the view that for us to make a decision of this sort is a completely retrogressive and retrograde step, so far as disarmament is concerned; and it has a rather unfortunate irony in that my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to answer this Question did have (I do not know if he still has) the title of Minister for Disarmament. To argue also that CS gas is O.K. if taken in small doses is really like saying that a girl is

1309
just a little bit pregnant. What we are all concerned with, of course, is not to argue whether it is a little bit worse here or a little worse there.
My noble friend Lord Brockway dealt with the question of its use in warfare to flush people out in order that other weapons could be used to make quite sure that they are killed. This must mean an escalation in the whole field of weapons, whether they are chemical, biological or nuclear. Once we do a thing like this, we cannot be surprised if the floodgates of armaments are opened, because we ourselves are driving a coach and horses right through a Protocol which we were very instrumental in bringing about and which we have been promoting for many years. What we are doing—and this is really, I think, the core of it—is abandoning the standard of "No gas". This, I think, is the most important point, and this is something that people—the general public—can understand quite clearly and quite simply.
It also seems to me to create a moral problem over and above the one which faces all of us as individuals. Take the case of the scientist who feels that he has a responsibility to society and is concerned not just with the scientific results of his work but also with the social results. If he is working on a gas like this, having taken the trouble to read up the Protocol of Geneva and to read the different comments of support that we have made over the years, he can be put in the position of actually helping to produce something which, in his opinion up to that point, was not going to be used in warfare and was simply outside the bounds of involvement in warfare, but which he suddently finds has now been included as a weapon of war by his own Government. These, I think, are some of the problems that face the individual.
Here, I really must take up some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Chalfont when answering my noble friend's Question in the House on February 26. He said that it was up to the individual signatories to interpret the Treaty. My Lords, this seems to me an extraordinary way to go on. We do not allow somebody who is up before a court for breaking some law to say: "I find it very difficult and I do not accept the legal
1310
argument. I did not interpret that as stealing; I was borrowing it according to my lights". This, evidently, is in fact what we are going to do. I think it is quite clear that that part of the Protocol dealing with the use of chemical weapons in war is a declaration of customary international law. It is not contractual; and even if it were, we could withdraw only if a fundamental change of circumstances had occurred. This has not happened; and in my view—and, I think, in the view of most Members of this House—it was a declaration to which we were a party and which we should still be keeping.
My noble friend on the Front Bench also said that developments since 1925 and 1930 have led us to the view that a different interpretation can now be made. To save time I am paraphrasing my noble friend's words, but I think he will see that this is what he said. I should have thought that what had happened in the last 40 years would surely lead us not to loosen the bonds of the Protocol but in fact to tighten them. In any case, CS gas, as I understand it, was synthesised in 1928, which was two years before Hugh Dalton, in another place, promoted the Protocol.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont also suggested—in fact, he did not suggest: he said—that when it was proposed that tear gas should be excluded the reaction was not unanimous, and it was not true that only the United States was not prepared to go along with us. Of the 13 countries taking part in that particular debate, all except the United States agreed that to use tear gas in war was forbidden. In my view, there is no evidence to show that the other half-dozen silent countries were opposed to this. Indeed, if one is opposed to something one is much more likely to get up and speak about it than if one is in sympathy with it. What I think is very significant is that so far not one Member of your Lordships' House, whose name was on the list of speakers has spoken in favour of the Government's decision.
The noble Lord made a further point: that he did not see why our interpretation of the Geneva Protocol should have any effect on our draft Convention on biological weapons. If I may say so, with respect, this seems a curiously naïve attitude. Moreover (we do not know but

1311
it may have been true when he was last in Geneva because they had not then realised the implication of what we were doing), I doubt whether this will hold water for very long. Even if it could be argued on that basis, what price is our credibility worth when, on July 2 last year, U Thant appealed to the members of the United Nations to affirm once again that gas and chemicals and biological weapons should not be included in any form of warfare? Then in December of last year there was a vote in the United Nations Assembly, and by 80 votes to 3, with 36 abstentions, it was again affirmed that international law forbade the use in war of any chemical agent which had direct toxic effects on man. This must include tear gases.
Another curious point, it seems to me, is that, again in answering my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out that the Himsworth Committee were studying in greater depth the problem of the use of CS gas in Ulster and that there would be a long-term report. If the Government are going to take notice of this report, why not wait until the report is produced before going ahead? The experience, as I understood it as a nonscientist, from reading the short report on Ulster, makes quite clear that unless people can emerge very quickly from the enclosed surroundings, and come out into the open air, they are bound to be affected.
It was also stated in the report that people who are bronchial or asthmatic, or who have other complaints which are responsive to this gas, can suffer effects as bad as if they had naturally had a bad attack of the ailment from which they suffer. It seems a rather curious thing if it is to be said, as an argument to support the use of CS gas, that if it makes people as ill as they might naturally be, it is not too bad. Does it mean that even when we use this gas in riots at home, or in any civil war, in order to be absolutely fair there would be some people who would be licensed to be gassed and others who would not? We should get ourselves into a most tremendous tangle. Whether we use it or whether we do not, in Ulster or in any other place, when we are not involved in international warfare, is, to me, quite irrelevant in this debate. We come back to
1312
the principal point: that we entered into an agreement under international law, and we have broken that agreement.
So far as the war in Vietnam is concerned, I support entirely what has been said by my noble friend Lord Brockway, and by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I would only add that in 1965, when it was decided to use CS gas in Vietnam, it was stated that it would be used in order to save lives. That, in fact, is on the same basis as it has been put to us in this House and in another place. Yet at the hearing before the Committee of the United States House of Representatives from November 18 to December 19, 1969, Han Swyter, who was on the staff of the Assistant Secretary for Defence, said that about three-quarters of the 6 million pounds of CS gas used in 1968 was used essentially to kill people. So, my Lords, let us get rid of that "fairy tale" right away. I do not know whether it will make any difference now—possibly not—but there are some occasions when, even though one may be repeating what others have said, even though one may be doubtful about the outcome of one's words and the words of one's colleagues, one has to stand up and be counted. I feel deeply upset and ashamed that the Government which I normally support should have made such a decision.
6.55 p.m.
LORD RITCHIECALDER: My Lords, I apologise for intervening without notice. I did not expect to be able to be present, but if I had known that I should be present I certainly would have put my name down in support of the Question put by my noble friend, Lord Brockway. I agree with everything that has been said. As one who has been involved in international work for many years and has defended and justified British decisions, I have a sense that it is almost impossible to defend this situation; not just on the question of expediency but because we have set a deplorable example of what we are capable of doing unilaterally in a situation which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been challenged, except perhaps on some basis affecting not what we were going to do but what other people were doing.
I wish to point out that this gas is not smoke, despite what was said by my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister.

1313
It can be a heat vapourising principle. By any definition, or however you like to qualify what you say, or defend or excuse its use in riot situations, and so on, I can assure your Lordships that under war conditions, for example in Vietnam, its use is biological and not chemical warfare. The very nature of tear gas is progressively to exhaust the tear ducts of the eye. As your Lordships will realise, the eye is probably the most vulnerable portal of the body, yet we never get heavy infection through it because we are defended by the tear ducts. If in such a situation as that in Vietnam, in a jungle situation of that kind, you exhaust the tear ducts, you are exposed to the invasion of biological infection.
My Lords, a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the fact that we can qualify the meaning or uses of gases. I would go even further and oppose its use even in civil disturbances, and the ultimate abuse of it in civil disturbances. We could be very bighearted and say that it is used to avert more serious circumstances. But let us choose the situation that we are trying to avert and see what would be involved. I say with some hesitation, because I do often accept objective evidence, that I have not seen objective evidence to satisfy me about what happened in Ulster. Incidentally, the report of the World Health Organisation referred to by my noble friend, Lady Birk—I am subject to correction because I have not had a chance to check the reference—was endorsed by Sir Solly Zuckerman or by Britain's representative on that Group.
This means, my Lords, that we are spelling out the things which in fact we are allowing; we are spelling out what is wrong with it and in the next breath we are justifying its use. There is one ultimate in this matter which has nothing whatever to do with the scientific or any other justification. By destroying—and I mean destroying—the credibility of the British Government on the Protocol, we have done immense damage to the power of initiative and our sense of direction in our disarmament negotiations.
6.59 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I also apologise for intervening without giving notice? I want only to express the deep sympathy which I think all on
1314
these Benches have for my noble friend, Lord Chalfont, on the Front Bench who has to reply on this matter. I think he is in the unfortunate position that he has no support from his own Back Benches.
7.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I do not envy the role of the Minister on the Government Front Bench. All the more so when I think of the work he has done to scale down these horrible engines of war. If my intervention is brief, it is not because I or any of my noble friends on these Benches do rot attach great importance to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. If I may say so, I thought that his speech was very moderate in tone, and I support him. He said that we should be encouraging this tendency. Surely there will be no doubt about that. He also said that we should be seeking the reaction of the Disarmament Conference.
I am not going into, nor am I qualified to do so, the technical details of whether CS gas is smoke or whether it is a vapour. This is something quite beyond me. But it is not beyond the comprehension of the Geneva Conference, and it is for this reason that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again. I know perfectly well that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, in replying to the question which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was replying perfectly sincerely when he said that perhaps CS gas was less horrible than bullets. That may be so but, as has been pointed out, CS gas, of course, can be used as a means of smoking people out like fillets (if I may use the expression), bolting them out, and then killing them by some other means. There is, I think, no comparison between the use of CS gas for riot control and the use of CS gas in war.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I can well see that if this gas is allowed for civil uses, it will also be allowed in war. I beg Her Majesty's Government to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and refer this matter back. It would not be an undignified thing to do. I think that it would be something of which we could all be proud, and certainly we on these Benches would not crow or in any way

1315
be jubilant if Her Majesty's Government had to submit to a little humiliation.
7.3 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising it, though I must confess that a good deal of what has been said has nothing much to do with my noble friend's Question. If your Lordships look at the Order Paper, you will see that the Question refers to nerve gases and defoliants, and we have spent a good deal of this evening talking about other things. However, the Rules of your Lordships' House are elastic. In the course of the few remarks I have to make I shall try to answer some of the extremely powerful and, to my mind, valid, points that have been made, valid in the sense that I think it is right that they should have been raised. Before I do so, I should like to express my gratitude to noble Lords for some of the remarks they have made about the role that Her Majesty's Government have played in disarmament negotiations. I am particularly touched by some of the remarks that have been made about my own modest contribution.
I should like first to answer my noble friend's Question, because even though it is an Unstarred Question, I think it deserves an answer. The short answer, I am afraid, is, No. This may seem unequivocal and unaccommodating, but what my noble friend asked was whether we will refer the question of nerve gases and defoliants to the Geneva Conference. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, nerve gases fall clearly into the category of chemical methods of warfare covered by the Geneva Protocol, of which we are a party. I know of no controversy about this and I see no reason to refer it to the Geneva Conference. On the subject of defoliants, we have never regarded defoliants and herbicides as being covered by the terms of the Geneva Protocol nor do I know of any Power which does. I think again that there is no point in referring this to the Geneva Conference. So the answer to the Question on the Order Paper is, No.
However, I think that it would be right to take up the point that has been made by most noble Lords who have
1316
spoken this evening, referring to the Government's recent decision on CS gas and the Geneva Protocol, but which was not mentioned (I hope I am not labouring the point) in my noble friend's Question. This subject has already been exhaustively discussed in both Houses and I do not propose, obviously, to go into the matter in any great detail here. The Government's view on this and the reason for taking this decision were made plain both by me in this House on February 26 and by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place on February 2.
However, I think there are a number of points that have been made that are so important in their implications that I should try to reply to them. The first point I would make is that references to the way in which the substance CS has been used, or is alleged to have been used, by United States Forces in Vietnam are not entirely relevant to the decision which Her Majesty's Government have taken. I am not going to be drawn into a debate here on what American troops are doing in Vietnam. However, I would say that to match the document which has been adduced to show one way in which the Americans can use this gas in Vietnam, there is adequate documentation to show that it has also been used very considerably to facilitate the taking of prisoners and the saving of lives in Vietnam, both of noncombatants and of American forces. I beg my noble friend Baroness Birk not to dismiss this entirely as fairy tales. This substance has been used by the Americans in many different situations. As I said, this is not entirely relevant to our own decision but I think it right to point out that there is more than one side to this particular question.
My noble friend Lord Brockway has rightly said that we should be encouraging any tendency in the United States towards arms control, particularly in the field of biological warfare. I think that at the time he was referring to President Nixon's historic denudation of the use of biological weapons on behalf of the United States. I know that my noble friend, who is an expert in these affairs, must have noted the exact United States position. I will not labour this point, but I think that he will have read President Nixon's statement and he will know

1317
the American position not only on biological warfare but also on the Geneva Protocol.
The only point I want to make in your Lordships' House is that there is no sign whatsoever that anything we have done in our interpretation of the Geneva Protocol has had any kind of discouraging effect upon the United States in their search for a multilateral agreement on biological warfare. Although the United States have made this unilateral renunciation, they have over and over again, in various places, given the fullest support to the British attempt to reach a multilateral agreement on this issue.
Can I assure my noble friend Lord Brockway that there was no misunderstanding in my answers to him in your Lordships' House on another occasion. I did not misunderstand his reference to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I merely said that in my view our action was not relevant to any interpretation that we or anyone else may make of any other treaty. I think this is a valid point to take, although I understand fully what his argument is about.
I think there is some misunderstanding in our minds about the whole question of interpretations of international instruments—and both my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lady Birk referred to this. It is indeed the case that signatories to international instruments are entitled to make their own interpretations and reservations about an internationally agreed instrument. That has been done on many occasions: indeed, noble Lords will recall that in the case of the very Protocol about which we are speaking the United Kingdom Government made two clear reservations in the period between 1925 and 1930 when the Protocol was signed and ratified. These reservations were to do with the use of weapons in retaliation and the use of weapons against non-signatories of the Protocol. Those were unilateral reservations entered about the Protocol, and it is quite normal and customary for Powers signing international agreements to do this.
If I may diverge for a moment to the analogy of my noble friend Lady Birk, I do not think her legal analogy is a particularly good one. Like most analogies, it falls down if you attempt to
1318
follow it to its logical conclusion. She said that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 was a declaration of customary international law. That may be her opinion, but it is not universally agreed. So far as I am aware, the Geneva Protocol is an international agreement arrived at by agreement among the signatory Powers. Whether it is a declaration of customary international law is another matter, and that is something about which lawyers have different views.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? The British Government did have reservations; but is it not the case that those reservations were made during the discussions of the Protocol, rather than after it had been ratified? And were they not part of the negotiation for its ultimate ratification?
LORD CHALFONT: That is indeed the case. This is another example of where comparisons and analogies fall down if they are ruthlessly followed to their logical ends, as my noble friend has done. It is true that these reservations were made in the course of negotiations; but they were unilateral negotiations. It is true, also, that it is possible to make unilateral interpretations. After all, although the Protocol is dated 1925, we made an interpretation of the meaning of that Protocol in 1930. We have now reaffirmed that interpretation with the change that is now the subject of this debate. However, I do not want to labour the point, because I do not think it is the substance of our argument.
Nor do I think we need to make too much of another point that has been raised and which I should like to dispose of at this stage; namely, the question of whether CS is a smoke or a gas. That, frankly, is a matter of no importance. As a matter of scientific fact, my best advice is that it is more accurately described as a smoke, because it is delivered by aerosol in solid particles. But there may be different views about that. I do not think it worth while in your Lordships' House or anywhere else to argue whether the substance is a gas or a smoke, because its effect is very much the same, whichever it is.
LORD RITCHIECALDER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will now define it as a gas?
LORD CHALFONT: I do not think it would be for me to define this substance; it is a matter for scientists. The definition that I have been given is that it is an aerosol of solid particles and therefore might be described accurately as a smoke. If people want to describe it as a tear gas, I should not argue with them. It has always been called a tear gas, and I am happy that it should go on being called a tear gas.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has intervened on this subject, and I think he may have created some confusion in people's minds by suggesting that it might be called a biological weapon. As I understand it, a biological weapon depends on the definition contained at any rate in the Secretary-General's Report on this matter; that is to say, it depends on its ability to reproduce in the living organs: and whatever effects CS gas has on the human body, I do not think that it has such an ability. I think we should be doing clarity and lucidity a disservice if we suggested that this was a biological and not a chemical weapon. Again, I think this is no more than a debating point.
To come back to the substance of what my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, of course we shall, as he has asked, look constantly at the implications of this problem. I cannot promise him or noble Lords that there is likely to be any change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government about this subject. The matter was given long thought; it was the subject of a great debate and a decision was made. It is right that criticisms on it should be put forward and views should be expressed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere; and I certainly promise— this is all I can promise—to bring to the notice of my colleagues the views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House.
In order to set this question into some kind of perspective, may I say a few words about what exactly our policy is in the field of chemical and biological weapons? As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, I think Britain has every reason to be proud of the role that she is playing in this particular field. It was the British Government who in 1968 took the lead in advocating new arms control measures specifically to strengthen the 1925 Geneva Protocol. That was a fairly
1320
controversial measure at the time. As noble Lords may recall, it was a measure to deal with biological weapons. But although controversial at the time, I think it is fair to say that it was largely responsible for arousing the present worldwide interest, which is now very intensive, in the field of arms control and disarmament in relation to chemical and biological weapons.
I think we might recall, too, that the report of the United Nations Secretary-General on this matter, which was published in July, 1969—it has been widely acclaimed throughout the world, and quoted often in this debate in your Lordships' House—had its origins in the suggestion by the British Government. It was we who put the idea forward, and the report sprang from that idea. But I think we have done more than simply arouse interest. We have put forward some real proposals for negotiation. We have put forward as the best way of strengthening the 1925 Geneva Protocol the proposal to ban all use, production and possession of biological agents for hostile purposes. I and others have explained on many occasions the reasons why we thought it right to tackle biological weapons first and separately from chemical weapons, and I do not want to go over that again. It is sufficient to say that we tabled in July, 1969, at the Conference in Geneva, our Convention for the prohibition of biological weapons of warfare. That document is now one of the basic documents in the discussions in Geneva on chemical and biological weapons, and it has, since we tabled it, aroused a great deal of support, which is increasing all the time, for its practical and workmanlike approach to the problem.
This gives the lie to suggestions that any interpretation we might have made of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 in terms of CS gas has undermined our disarmament position in Geneva. On the contrary, our biological warfare Convention is gaining increasing support. I do not disguise the fact that there are a number of countries who want to deal with chemical and biological weapons together, rather than seeking progress first in the biological field. We took the step for sound, practical reasons. It does not mean that we regard the question of chemical weapons as being of any less

1321
importance. As I made clear recently in Geneva, if the other countries there want to discuss the prospects for progress on chemical weapons and biological weapons together, we are ready to do so. I am bound to add—and this is going to become an important point in the negotiations—that there are compelling practical reasons why we should deal with biological weapons first and not try to combine our attack upon the two together.
I have taken a little of your time, my Lords, briefly to set this question in what I believe is its right context. The question of the use of CS (and perhaps if we call it that we shall avoid the sterile debate about whether it is a smoke or a gas) is a problem to which the Government gave very deep thought for a very long period. I assure my noble friends, and noble Lords in all parts of the House, that this was not a decision lightly taken. We took it after deep thought, after seeking advice in all quarters, and the Government believe that the decision taken was the right one. Whatever my noble friends may think about that, I ask them to believe that in our view the main consideration is that there should continue to be progress in the main field of chemical and biological weapons. There should continue to be effective attempts to reach international multilateral agreement on the whole field of chemical and biological warfare. Nothing that has been said tonight, nothing that the Government have done, can alter the fact that we have played, and shall continue to play, a leading part in seeking this progress.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put a question? He referred to consultations in all quarters. Does that include international quarters, our allies in NATO and other countries at the Disarmament Conference? Also, does it include sounding opinions at United Nations, or does it mean just in this country?
A NOBLE LORD: NO.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, although my noble friend behind me has just said "No", the answer is, "Yes". In the course of the debate on this matter, I personally was at both the Disarmament Conference in Geneva and at the General
1322
Assembly of the United Nations. I can assure the noble Lord that while I was there I consulted many representatives of many countries and organisations about this problem—not only Governmental representatives, but nonofficial organisations as well. There are very few countries and organisations in the world that I have not talked to about this.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS BILL [H.L.]
7.24 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision, as respects England and Wales, for discontinuing the classification of handicapped children as unsuitable for education at school, and for supplementing awards under Section 1 and restricting awards under Section 2 of the Education Act 1962, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,— (Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NORTH RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  MENTAL DISORDERS: RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
  MENTAL DISORDERS: RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
  LEPROSY CONTROL AND RESEARCH
  LEPROSY CONTROL AND RESEARCH
  PROBATION AND AFTER-CARE: TRAINING COST
  PROBATION AND AFTER-CARE: TRAINING COST
  BRITISH FORCES AND S.E.A.T.O.
  BRITISH FORCES AND S.E.A.T.O.