Sitting of 8 April 1971

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    R.A.F. Training Command (Aircraft)
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence from what aircraft types a selection will be made of the trainer to succeed the Varsity for pilot training in the multi-engined stream in Training Command, Royal Air Force; when will the choice be made; and when is the new twin-engined trainer expected to enter service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): We are considering possible replacements for the Varsity for pilot training but I have no statement to make at present.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first tasks to which his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have to address himself—and I welcome him on the Front Bench in his new position—is that of finding a replacement for the venerable Varsity, the "Super Pig" as it was affectionately known to whole generations of post-war aviators in the Royal Air Force? Is the type of aircraft he is envisaging something of the King Air type?
    Mr. Lambton: As my hon. Friend says, the Varsity has been in R.A.F. service for 20 years, and it is, therefore, obviously necessary that it should be replaced. As to the type of replacement, the number of aircraft required is too small to justify special development, and we are, therefore, thinking in terms of adapting existing civil aircraft.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the re-juggling of
    656
    aircraft that has taken place in the Royal Air Force there will be no increase in the total money available for R.A.F. equipment?
    Mr. Lambton: The costing has been considered.

    Pay, Allowances and Pensions
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now compare the sum total precentage of the defence budget devoted to pay, allowances and pensions for regular servicemen, reservists and civilians, together, in the financial years 1961–62 and 1966–67 with that percentage projected for 1971–72.
    Mr. Lambton: I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to my hon. Friend in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 25th March.— [Vol. 814, c. 993–1000.]
    Mr. Wilkinson: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I say that I seem to recall that the sum in question was 54 per cent. Does this not mean that we shall have to examine more thoroughly the value for money that can be derived from a citizen force or reservist concept and move towards a system of having a fixed target in terms of percentage of G.N.P. for defence spending over the years ahead?
    Mr. Lambton: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend taking half an hour the other day.

    Civil Marine Science Programme (Royal Navy Rôle)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rôle of the Royal Navy in the British Civil Marine Science Programme.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): The British civil marine science programme is co-ordinated by the Natural Environment Research Council and falls, therefore, within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Hydrographer of the Navy and the Royal Naval Scientific Service co-operate with the Council at every level of its activities.
    Mr. Dalyell: Those of us concerned about the legitimate career aspirations of

    657
    naval personnel are aware of the considerable expertise that resides in a naval establishment such as Alverstoke. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that the Admiralty, with the experience of the Hydrographer behind it, is not the best agency to run a co-ordinated programme?
    Mr. Kirk: I do not think it would be appropriate for the Naval Department to run the civil side of this programme but we do co-operate very fully in hydro-graphic surveys, oil pollution investigations and that sort of thing. I think that this is the best way of doing it.

    Married Quarters
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Minister of State for Defence what is the average length of time on the waiting list for married quarters for naval ratings in the United Kingdom, Army other ranks in the United Kingdom, Royal Air Force other ranks in the United Kingdom, and naval ratings in Portsmouth, respectively.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The length of time spent on a waiting list depends on a wide variety of factors and it would be both difficult and misleading to give an average waiting time for each Service in the United Kingdom as a whole. At Portsmouth the waiting time for naval ratings at the moment varies from three to eight months.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: As the problems of family separation are obviously of especial difficulty in the Royal Navy, could the Minister say what steps are being taken to reduce waiting time in Portsmouth and for naval ratings as a whole?
    Lord Balniel: In the town of Portsmouth 700 quarters are under construction and due to be completed between now and early 1972. There are plans to acquire a further 500 by 1975. In so far as the Royal Navy as a whole is concerned, there are plans to provide approximately 3,000 additional married quarters by 1975.

    Mombasa and South African Ports (Naval Visits)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of State for Defence how many British warships in 1970 called at
    658
    Mombasa and South African ports, respectively.
    Mr. Kirk: The number of British warships which called at Mombasa and South African ports in 1970 was 16 and 46, respectively.
    Mr. Digby: Do not these figures show the dependence of the Royal Navy on South African ports? Will the use of Mombasa be discontinued once the Beira patrol is allowed to face the other way and watch the Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean?
    Mr. Kirk: We need both these facilities, and I doubt whether we shall want to give up either in the near future.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm the statement of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) that the Beira patrol is to cease very shortly?
    Mr. Kirk: I think that policy is made by Her Majesty's Government.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hospitality of South African ports and of Mombasa to Royal Navy ships throughout the periods of office of successive Governments in recent years?
    Mr. Kirk: Certainly. They are very hospitable in both cases.

    Committee on Headquarters
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he intends to issue a White Paper on the findings to date of the Committee on Headquarters under the Chairmanship of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State of the Ministry of Defence; and what subject the Committee is now examining.
    Lord Balniel: The main recommendations so far made by the Committee have already been set out in the Statements on the Defence Estimates 1970 and 1971. The Committee is continuing its activities over a wide range of areas, including, in particular, the management methods and techniques used at Headquarters and the relationships between the Ministry of Defence and the Command Headquarters.
    Mr. Digby: Will the recommendations of the Committee effect a saving of civilian manpower in the command structure? Was the Committee consulted over the new procurement plans for the Ministry of Defence, and particularly the advice of the staff divisions, who are apt to change their views about the requirements for a particular weapon?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend will know that major changes have already been made in the command structure of the Navy and the Royal Air Force, and next year Army Strategic Command—Southern, Western and Northern Command—will be replaced by a single command at Wilton. This will result in improved efficiency and a saving of about 250 military personnel and 1,000 civilian personnel.
    Turning to the changes about procurement which were announced yesterday, Mr. Rayner's Committee did not technically fall within the remit of the headquarters organisation Committee, but Mr. Rayner had a very full consultation with the members who participate in that Committee. It will, I believe, achieve a major improvement in the procurement of all weapon systems within the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. John Morris: While, obviously, we shall want to debate yesterday's White Paper later, may I ask how far the finding announced yesterday by the Government is in accordance with any finding of the P.U.S. Committee?
    Lord Balniel: There will be a debate on the transfer of functions Order in Council in due course, when the matter can be debated at length. It was not the purpose of the previous Administration to wind up the Ministry of Aviation Supply. This was declared policy of Her Majesty's Government, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is welcomed by the Ministry of Defence as being a major reform in the procurement of all weapons systems.

    Non-Polaris Submarines (Armament)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the armament of British non-Polaris submarines.
    Mr. Kirk: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. and noble Friend
    660
    on 14th January, 1971.—[Vol. 809, c. 233–4.]
    Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say what is being done to replace the present semi-obsolete anti-ship torpedoes in these vessels, and what progress is being made in the development of a submarine-mounted missile.
    Mr. Kirk: We hope that the Mark 24 torpedo will be in service in the early 1970s. We are studying a submarine-launched missile. If it proves to be a worthy concept, its introduction into service will come somewhat later.

    Fleet Air Arm (Royal Air Force Pilots)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the special training given to Royal Air Force pilots who are to operate aircraft from Her Majesty's ships; and on how many operational tours they will perform.
    Lord Balniel: These pilots receive familiarisation training appropriate to the embarked rôle. The number of operational tours is decided in the light of circumstances but would normally be one.
    Mr. Wall: Does that reply mean that senior officers of Royal Air Force aircraft in an aircraft carrier will only have done one tour? Can he say who will provide the maintenance of these aircraft when they are afloat and which service will provide the deck crews?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend has asked some technical questions, and I would perhaps find it easier to answer him in writing. There will, however, be a significant proportion of Royal Air Force personnel in the "Ark Royal" who have had previous experience of operating from land bases. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him in answer to his specific question.
    Mr. John Morris: But the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has asked the Minister a basically very simple question. He wants to know the future for fixed wing aircraft in the Royal Navy. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that and say that there is no future for fixed wing flying in the Royal Navy because the Royal Air Force will be undertaking this task.
    Lord Balniel: That is not what my hon. Friend asked. As has been frequently announced in the House, there are no plans to reopen recruiting for fixed wing flying in the Fleet Air Arm. As we have explained, we have not yet taken a decision about flying vertical take-off aircraft from cruisers. Therefore, the question of providing pilots for that kind of flying does not yet arise.
    Mr. Wall: What I want to know is how the Royal Air Force will perform its new rôle, which most informed opinion thinks it is impossible for it to perform.
    Lord Balniel: The future rôle of the Fleet Air Arm lies overwhelmingly in helicopter flying. This is the expanding rôle for the Fleet Air Arm.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to report on the very considerable technical difficulties, particularly turbulence, of vertical take-off and landing on carriers? When is the report to which he referred expected?
    Lord Balniel: The "Ark Royal" is to conduct vertical take-off trials in May, and I shall be attending some of them.

    Young Servicemen
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence approximately how many members of the Armed Forces are at present absent without obtaining leave; how many of these joined the forces between the ages of 15 and 18 years; and if he will consider granting discharge for the latter category if they request it.
    Lord Balniel: Service statistics are not such as to enable me to give all the information asked for, and I will write to the hon. Member. All requests for discharge are very carefully considered.
    Mr. Allaun: But surely the figures should be known. Is the noble Lord aware that many of these young men get into petty crime and trouble when they are on the run in order to keep themselves? As many of them would give themselves up and suffer, say, a month's punishment if they knew that they could then be discharged, will the noble Lord consider this matter with a view to making a public announcement?
    Lord Balniel: I appreciate the deep concern which the hon. Gentleman has always shown in this matter, but I am sure that he will understand that service in the Armed Forces involves acceptance of military law, which is part of the law of the country. To allow men to escape the consequences of their absence simply because of their success in evading capture would be unfair to those who perform the service which they undertake when they enter the military forces and would have a harmful effect on the morale and discipline of the Armed Forces.
    Mr. John: Does the noble Lord accept that there are many people in the pre-Donaldson Report category and that people who, if they had been born later, would have had the option to withdraw from the forces at 21 should now be placed in a special category?
    Lord Balniel: I do not accept that. By accepting the Donaldson Committee's Report we have made a major advance in liberalisation. I do not think it would be reasonable for us to undertake a retrospective act of the kind put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

    Conscription
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give an assurance that joining the European Economic Community will not involve reintroducing military conscription in Great Britain.
    Lord Balniel: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) yesterday.—[Vol. 815, c. 211.]
    Mr. Allaun: As only Luxembourg does not have conscription, is not considerable pressure likely to be put on Britain by the other Governments to have it, particularly if we are part of a European defence force?
    Lord Balniel: Irrespective of pressure on Her Majesty's Government, the decision on defence policy rests with the Government in this country. The Treaty of Rome does not refer to military matters, and, therefore, joining the European Economic Community has no relevance to the question of the reintroduction of military conscription.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Far from Britain having to change to conscription in the event of her joining the European Economic Community, is it not a fact that our regular system of recruiting is the envy of our allies on the Continent?
    Lord Balniel: There are few countries which can claim such high standards of professional military competence as those shown by the Services of this country.
    Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend reject the pleas for conscription coming from the Opposition and ensure that he pays the rate for the job?
    Lord Balniel: One of the mercies of Parliamentary life is that I am not answerable for the views of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). The question of Service pay is kept constantly under review. My hon. Friend will know that we have appointed an independent review body to keep Service pay constantly under review.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Surely my hon. Friend's position on the matter of conscription is very well known, and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is suggesting, my hon. Friend was pleading against conscription, not for it.

    Recruits (Unpaid Leave)
    Mr. Johnasked the Minister of State for Defence what proportion of Service recruits are, after recruitment at a careers information office, sent on unpaid leave; what is the average duration of such leave; and what proposals there are for converting such leave to paid leave.
    Lord Balniel: In the case of the Navy and R.A.F., none. In the case of the Army some recruits spend a brief time on unpaid leave, but statistics of the numbers doing so are not maintained. For adults and young soldiers this period has been reduced to an average of four days, and we plan to reduce it further. For juniors it is 14 days. I have no plans to convert such leave to paid leave.
    Mr. John: While welcoming the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this period is being reduced, may I ask him whether he would not think again about it, because if recruits have to wait for the Army's
    664
    convenience—and after they have been received upon their recruitment, they are waiting for the Army's convenience—they ought to receive pay during that period?
    Lord Balniel: No. I would not accept the views which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but I will consider them in the light of what he has said. I am satisfied that the number of recruits who decline to be enlisted because they will not receive pay during this very short period is really totally insignificant.
    Major-General James d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Would the Minister not agree that when a recruit who wants to join the Army enlists certain inquiries have to be made as to his credentials and his character, and that for that reason there is a delay before he is finally recruited?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. and gallant Friend has pointed to a very significant factor which leads to this short delay.
    Mr. Brian Walden: But, if that is the case, why is it necessary for the Army but not, apparently, for the other two Services?
    Lord Balniel: For exactly the same reasons which operated when hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for these affairs.

    Exocet Weapon System
    Mr. Johnasked the Minister of State for Defence what discussions are currently taking place regarding the Exocet Weapon System; and what consideration is being given to the procurement of an alternative system.
    Mr. Kirk: Negotiations with the French for the purchase of Exocet are still proceeding.
    Mr. John: Would the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of denying the report of the defence correspondent of The Guardian on 20th March that this missile is to be delivered later and will cost more and that the Government are now considering the whole of this weapon system?
    Mr. Kirk: The hon. Gentleman really must not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the delay?
    Mr. Kirk: There is not one. We are negotiating.

    White Tor, Dartmoor (Flagpole)
    Mr. Carol Johnsonasked the Minister of State for Defence (1) why, after more than 23 years of live-firing use of the Merrivale area in the Dartmoor National Park, it has been found necessary to dig a large pit for a concrete base and erect an additional flagpole structure on White Tor; why such work has been carried out without observing agreed consultation procedure with the Park Planning Authority and in direct contravention of Ministry of Planning Circular No. 100; and why the convenant in the Duchy of Cornwall licence granted in 1956, which forbids damage to natural tors, has been ignored;
    (2) whether, in view of the beauty of White Tor in the Dartmoor National Park and of its scheduled ancient monuments, he will at once direct that the flagpole structure recently constructed there by the military authorities should be removed and the site restored without delay.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): It had become necessary to improve the public warning system by the erection of a flagpole near White Tor as a result of increasing public access to the Merrivale Range area. The Dartmoor National Park Committee was informed, and Circular 100 was not contravened. The flagpole has been sited some 100 yards from the natural tor at the summit. It would not be in the interests of public safety to remove the flagpole.
    Mr. Johnson: is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply and that both the siting and the usefulness of the flagpole are certainly in dispute, and that it is doubtful whether it will add further to the warnings which exist? Over and above that, does not this undermine completely the arrangements built up for prior consultation with the Park Planning Authority? The Clerk to Devon County Council specifically asked for a decision to be held up pending the Park Planning Authority's consideration of the matter. In view of the appointment of the
    666
    Nugent Committee to review the matter of the holding of land by the military, is it not a very awkward moment at which to undermine the whole attitude to the military use of Dartmoor?
    Mr. Gilmour: No. I cannot accept any of the contentions of the hon. Member. He ignores the factor of public safety, which is surely a very important one. He ignores the fact that this is one flagpole added to eight which are already there. It has been carefully sited as a result of the advice of Lady Fox, who is the head lecturer in archaelogy at Exeter University. On the planning point, paragraph 5(b) lays down that minor operations of this sort are not subject to prior consultation with the planning authority, although, as I said, the planning authority was informed.
    Mr. Johnson: In view of that reply, can the hon. Gentleman explain why Lady Fox should be invited for her opinion but the Park Planning Authority, which is directly responsible, should be ignored?
    Mr. Gilmour: Well, Lady Fox is the head lecturer in archæology at Exeter University. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] She is the author of Her Majesty's Stationery Office's booklet on Dartmoor and a former adviser on archæological matters to the Parks Committee and the Ancient Monuments Division of the Department of the Environment. Therefore, she was plainly a suitable person.
    Mr. John Morris: I am very glad to hear the credentials of this distinguished lady, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would seek to answer my hon. Friend's question. Why should she be invited, as opposed to the appropriate authority?
    Mr. Gilmour: As I say, under paragraph 5(b) this was a minor operation which is not subject to Circular 100. The county council was informed. It is true that the clerk asked for a postponement, but after being told of the reason he did not insist that there should be delay. I must emphasise that public safety is involved. This is caused by increased public access, which I am sure the House will welcome, though, perhaps, not those for whom the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
    Mr. Johnson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice

    667
    that I shall take an opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

    Nuclear, Bacteriological and Chemical Warfare
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget is taken by units which will develop, deploy, or in any way use or be associated with nuclear weapons or bacteriological or chemical warfare.
    Lord Balniel: The resources devoted to the Polaris force are detailed in the Statement on the Defence Estimates. It is not in the public interest to divulge further information of the sort requested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is it not in the public interest that the public should know to what extent our forces are committed to the use of weapons which are internationally prohibited, or ought to be internationally prohibited if the human race is to survive? Therefore, should not the public know what the position is, even if not in particular detail? One recognises that the hon. Gentleman cannot give detailed information, but the public should know broadly what the situation is. Will the hon. Gentleman not, therefore, reconsider his answer?
    Lord Balniel: No. To give the wider information for which the hon. Gentleman asks would be to give information which would be of assistance to a potential aggressor. I think the whole House will agree it would not be right to give it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the forces would not utilise weapons which are prohibited by international agreements to which we are signatories.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. John Morrisasked the Minister of State for Defence what consideration he has given to lengthening the tour of duty of service units posted to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: The length of emergency tour has been reviewed on a number of occasions, but, as I said in the Defence Estimates debate on 11th March, I think that four months is long enough.—[Vol. 813, c. 740–1.]
    Mr. Morris: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the words he used on that occasion:
    "I am inclined to think that anything longer than four months would be too long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 741.]
    He said he would certainly bear in mind the suggestion of continuity of service of intelligence officers. Originally when the period of four months was decided, this matter was urgent, and accommodation was then unsatisfactory, but now there has been a great demand on the forces and there should be some improvement in the accommodation. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the door is not closed completely to reconsideration of this issue in order to ensure the more efficient use of our troops?
    Mr. Gilmour: I agree with a good deal of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Accommodation has been improved, but it is still not good, and troops often have to live in makeshift accommodation. They have to undertake particularly exacting duties, and they are separated from their families during that period. I think that four months is long enough but steps have been taken to improve the continuity of intelligence cover.

    South Africa (Guided-Missile Defence System)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence what assistance he has provided to the British consortium led by the British Aircraft Corporation in planning a guided-missile defence system for South Africa.
    Lord Balniel: None, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the hon. Gentleman go a little further and say that if an approach is made by the people who are developing this project—it is called, I think, "Country 102", and the proposition is for nuclear and Thunderbird missiles to be used—he will turn it down straight away so that the people embarking upon it can stop their drawing board work and devote themselves to some more useful work?
    Lord Balniel: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a hypothetical question. I can inform him that no commitment to sales in relation to air defence

    669
    systems in South Africa has been requested by the South African Government and none has been given to them.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Detained Persons (Consultation with Solicitors)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what memoranda, instructions or recommendations have been sent or given to police authorities concerning the rights of people who have been detained for questioning, or following arrest, to consult their solicitors.
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instruction or advice is given by him to police authorities relating to the right of persons detained to consult solicitors.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): In January, 1964, the attention of chief officers of police was drawn to the Judges' Rules and Administrative Directions to the Police. These deal, among other things, with the rights of a person at any stage of an investigation to communicate and consult privately with a solicitor.
    Mr. Davis: I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that, in what has become known as the Carr bombing case, at Barnet Police Station two men were detained for 24 and 48 hours respectively, 23 others were questioned for some period of time, all these people were subsequently released and many of them were denied the opportunity of seeing a solicitor? Is he further aware that the officer in charge of that investigation described the process of seeing a solicitor as "a legal nicety"? How is this consistent with the statement made to the House by the Secretary of State that:
    "It is an accepted principle that every person at any stage of an investigation, even if in custody, should be able to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor, provided that no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of the investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 1639.]
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend stated the position accurately. It would
    670
    be quite improper for me to comment in any way upon the case which the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is sub judice.
    Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the case is sub judice. The matters to which I have referred are not sub judice because these people were released.
    Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order for me. I am not responsible for Minister's answers.
    Hon. Members: Let us have an answer.
    Later—
    Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a supplementary question which I put to the Minister of State on Question 30, I specifically referred to 25 people who had been detained at Barnet police station and subsequently released. My Question related to those people. In reply the Minister of State indicated that it would not be proper for him to consider the activities of the officer in charge of those investigations because the matter was sub judice.
    My point of order is as follows. First, was it not implicit from the Minister's reply that it was not in order to raise the supplementary question which I did? Secondly, is it not quite clear that it was incorrect for the Minister to allege that a case involving people who were not being tried was sub judice? Thirdly, was it not a reflection upon me, particularly in my capacity as a lawyer, to suggest that I did not understand what the sub judice rule was? In those circumstances, would it not be right to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw?
    Mr. Sharples: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I misled the House and the hon. Gentleman I do, of course, apologise and withdraw. It is quite true that the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the 25 people—are not strictly sub judice. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. I am advised, however, that it would have been improper for me to have made any comment about those cases whilst the other cases connected with them are proceeding because it is likely that the matters which the hon. Gentleman raised are likely to be referred to in court in connection with the other cases.
    Mr. Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has withdrawn the suggestion that was made. I am grateful to him.

    Children (Witnesses of Character)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in magistrates' courts, during the past 12 months, have children appeared as witnesses of character in cases concerning their parents.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Davis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 15th March at Staines Magistrates' Court a 12-year-old boy was brought into open court by the direction of the chairman of the bench, Mr. John Slagg, J.P., to witness the shame of his mother who was facing that court on a charge. Is he further aware that the chairman asked the boy:
    "Do you know why your mother is here today?"
    Is this not a grotesque misuse of judicial discretion, and is this not a case deserving of inquiry?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the case on 15th March. The behaviour of individual magistrates is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said it is only right that I should say that I do not necessarily accept that the purpose of doing this was that the boy should witness the shame of his mother. I understand there is considerable dispute whether any questions were put to the child.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner), on having become "learned". In view of the statement that has been made by my hon. Friend which the hon. and learned Gentleman has disputed, and the fact which has been elicited by my hon. Friend, would it not be for the satisfaction and the good name of the magistrate that there should be a statement of what happened so that we can judge the matter?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that there is any case for a statement. The conduct of a court in any matter is a question for the justices concerned. The chairman of the justices apparently considered that, in the interests of justice, he would like to see the child of this woman, who was present at court, before deciding what it was appropriate to do with regard to his mother. What I said was apparently in dispute is the question which the hon. Gentleman said was reported in the Press as having been put to the boy. I have seen a report which suggested that this question was not put in the way the Press implied. I do not think it is right to suggest that the magistrate did this with the intention of shaming anybody.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Will the learned Minister be good enough to give instructions through the means open to him—never mind the facts of this case—that in future children will not be heard in open court in matters of this kind and that the magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion, will, if they think it will help them, see such children in private and not expose them to the unhappiness which this case has obviously brought about?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and thank him and his hon. Friend for the kind remarks which they have made about me. That is a valuable suggestion. It must be within the hands of the magistrates to decide whether they wish to see a person in open court or in private, and it is not a matter upon which I can comment as a Minister.

    Immigration Cases (Members' Correspondence)
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken for Home Office Ministers to reply to letter from Members of Parliament about immigration cases.
    Mr. Sharples: Owing to seasonal and other factors affecting the volume of work, this would vary at different times of the year, and an average for any one time would not be a reliable guide. But I am well aware that on occasions it has taken an unduly long time to send a reply. Steps have been taken to reduce delay.
    Mr. Cunningham: I welcome the last part of the Minister's reply. Does he

    673
    realise that the delay in answering this type of inquiry is much greater than the delay in answering other inquiries? This appears to be due to the slow and imperfect communications between the Home Office and diplomatic missions overseas. Will the Minister see whether that aspect can be improved?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir. I appreciate that this is often the cause of delay. We are doing what we can to speed this up.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Minister further aware of the delay which is experienced by many people who call at the Aliens Department in having their cases attended to? Is there not a case for employing a larger number of people in this Department?
    Mr. Sharpies: The staff in the Immigration Department has been increased, but the Department gets something like half a million letters, 200,000 callers and more than 100,000 telephone calls a year. The Department has to do a very large volume of work.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: May we have an assurance that the political need at party conference time to say that the Government are cutting down the number of civil servants will not lead to a shortage of civil servants in some departments? I suspect—and I do not put the blame on anybody—that this is true of the Immigration Department, given the large number of people who call there.
    Mr. Sharples: As I said, we are taking steps to try to improve the position. This involves a certain readjustment of staff.

    Electoral Registration Officers (Members' Correspondence)
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of the 15 Members of Parliament about whose correspondence Home Office officials gave advice to electoral registration officers.
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that, at the expense of considerable time and effort, I have extracted information that the Home Office is in the habit of providing advice to electoral registration officers on correspondence between them and Members of Parliament? At
    674
    the least, it should be the habit of the Home Office to tell hon. Members when representatives of the Executive have given such advice. Is the Minister further aware that I was informed by the electoral registration officer that my letter to him was being referred to the Home Office for advice? It is, therefore, highly undesirable that I should then be refused any indication of the nature of the advice provided by the Home Office.
    Mr. Sharples: This practice has gone on for many years. It is open to an electoral registration officer to seek advice from the Home Office on technical matters and on the interpretation of the law. The responsibility in replying to the hon. Gentleman must be on the electoral registration officer.
    Mr. Cunningham: I am not suggesting anything different, and the Minister knows it.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the Minister say on what subjects advice is tendered by the Home Office?
    Mr. Sharples: The subjects on which electoral registration officers seek advice from the Home Office relate to publicity arrangements, corrections of the register, printing of the register and technical matters of that kind. It would be quite wrong if electoral registration officers did not have a Government Department to which they can turn for advice on technical matters of this kind.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: If, for example, an electoral registration officer, who, I take it, is a law unto himself, is seeking advice on how he should collect the names for the register, what sort of advice is given? Is he asking for technical advice, and what is his relationship with the Home Office?
    Mr. Sharples: He is an independent officer, responsible for his own decisions, but sometimes he can ask the Home Office for technical advice on matters of this kind. The decisions that he takes are his own.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the general guidance provided for electoral registration officers is available in the Library of the House of Commons, and, therefore, this entirely unofficial but helpful advice—not mandatory advice—provided by the

    675
    Home Office to registration officers is generally available? Is the Minister denying that he has said that when this advice is provided in a particular case in relation to correspondence with one hon. Member it becomes confidential? Is the Minister further aware that not one of his answers on this subject have related to the Question that I put? Will he try to deal with the question I asked; namely, why should it be necessary for this advice to remain secret from the hon. Members directly involved?
    Mr. Sharples: Because the decisions which the electoral registration officer takes are his own decisions. In his Question the hon. Gentleman asked whether I would list the names of hon. Members of this House about whose constituencies advice had been given. It would be entirely improper to disclose confidential information of that kind.
    Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Consumer Protection (Parliamentary Commissioner)
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for the protection of consumers.
    The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) on 19th January by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry.—[Vol. 809, c. 253.]
    Mr. McBride: Does the hon. Member realise that the position has changed since January, and that with the 50 per cent. cut in S.E.T. there is a need to watch prices and ensure that those that should come down do come down? Does the Minister also realise the need for overall price surveillance; that the Crowther Report emphasised this in terms of consumer credit; that in the United States and Canada public funds are devoted to this purpose; and that in Sweden the
    676
    office of consumer ombudsman has been created? Does not the Minister agree that the British consumer deserves the services of a similar official? Why does the Minister refuse to act in this matter?
    Sir J. Eden: We are giving further consideration to the recommendations of the Crowther Commission. I am aware of the position in Sweden, but I believe that in this country the best protection for the consumer can be provided by the consumer himself. This matter is not appropriate for Government action.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister has said that there should be competition and that the consumer should judge, but does he not agree that when the article concerned is of a complex technical nature the consumer requires assistance to enable him to judge between competitive firms?
    Sir J. Eden: If the consumer wishes to establish an independent arbitral body, it is a matter for him to put into effect. The Government act by means of legislation. A considerable number of Acts of Parliament are designed to protect consumer interests in general. Consumers in this country are sophisticated buyers who know best how to look after their own interests.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Kirkgate Market, Bradford (Public Inquiry)
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the result of the public inquiry relating to the future of Kirkgate Market, Bradford.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) on 5th April, my right hon. Friend hopes to announce a decision soon after Easter.
    Mr. Lyons: Is the hon. Member aware that many people in Bradford have great affection for this Victorian Kirk-gate Market, which many thousands visit weekly, and that they are waiting with increasing impatience and great anxiety for the outcome of his deliberations? Will he seek to ensure that the decision comes as fast as it possibly can?
    Mr. Page: I have said that it will come after Easter. It was a compulsory purchase order for only one-third of an acre but it was a key site in a development area and was bound to raise difficult problems. The decision will come as quickly as possible.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his public speech to the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers Association in London on 16th March on economic policy.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so on 17th March.
  Mr. Barnett: In the light of the Ford settlement, will the Prime Minister now accept that his policy of wage de-escalation in the private sector has failed? In view of the N.E.D.C. discussions that took place yesterday, is he prepared to reconsider the possibility of meeting and discussing with the T.U.C. its sensible proposals on a possible unofficial prices and incomes policy?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept that the policy of de-escalation has failed. I do not think that one could be expected to say that it had failed even when certain settlements have been made which are unduly high. The discussion that I had yesterday with the N.E.D.C. was a valuable one. I do not accept all the points put forward by the T.U.C. spokesman yesterday, but I have made it clear that we are always quite prepared at any time to discuss with the members of the T.U.C. or its economic committee any proposals for dealing with the question of inflationary wage settlements. There was a general desire yesterday that there should be a full discussion on this aspect of policy very soon in the N.E.D.C.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I did not notice in the right hon. Gentleman's speech any reference to the undesirability of conspiratorial and collusive contracting in the electrical industry. Would it not have been a good thing for him to take part in a discussion of this subject in order to
  678
  draw attention to the undesirable exploiting of the public sector by the electrical industry which now takes place and has been universally condemned?
  The Prime Minister: I did not deal with that aspect of the industry because I was dealing with broad issues of Government policy. If the hon. Member has specific cases that he wishes to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend, we can examine them.

  NO. 10 DOWNING STREET (OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he will give, for the most recent available date, the amount expended upon official functions at No. 10 Downing Street, itemising the expenditure in as much detail as may be convenient.
  The Prime Minister: About £5,800 since the General Election.
  Mr. Lewis: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, provided he has enough cognac and coffee, he can resolve any problem, including the problem of getting into the Common Market? Will the Prime Minister see that he stops having any cognac or coffee at No. 10 Downing Street?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was referring to the need for sustenance in the late hours during the negotiations in Brussels—an experience which I have shared in the past. He was not referring to functions at No. 10 Downing Street.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the problem of official functions since he has become Prime Minister is not that more people have been invited to No. 10 Downing Street but that more have accepted?
  The Prime Minister: Since expenditure on official functions at 10 Downing Street in the last 10 months of the previous Administration was, I understand, around £8,700, compared with £5,800 in the first 10 months of this Administration, I am not sure that my hon. Friend's argument can be correct.

  Cabinet (Aviation Supply Minister)
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of Aviation Supply to his Cabinet.
  The Prime Minister: As was announced yesterday in the White Paper on Government Organisation for Defence Procurement and Civil Aerospace, it is intended that the Ministry of Aviation Supply should be dissolved on 1st May. Ministerial responsibility for the defence activities of the Ministry will pass to the Secretary of State for Defence, while responsibility for the aerospace industry and civil aerospace policy will pass to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Dalyell: Has the Prime Minister any reflections about the alleged statement on aerospace attributed to a senior civil servant to the respected defence correspondent of the Daily Telegraph—Air Commodore Donaldson—to the effect that reorganisation means mostly changes in titles and notepaper? On this issue, does the Prime Minister also accept that, granted that the RB211 negotiations are delicate, there is nevertheless a residual problem for sub-contractors whatever happens as an outcome of the RB211 negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: As to the subcontractors, I have nothing to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend. On the hon. Member's first point, I have no evidence that any civil servant has made the remark that is alleged to have been made. I should have thought that in discussing these matters in the Press it was undesirable that remarks should be attributed to an unnamed civil servant. If remarks are to be reported it is important that the one who makes them should be named. If the hon. Member—who studies White Papers very carefully—has read the document that we published yesterday and the report which led to the changes in Government structure, he will know that the comment was quite valueless, because the changes are of an organisational character and are major changes.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: While I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Press attributions to unnamed persons,
  680
  would he confirm that responsibility for the RB211, which is an export order and not a military order, does now come uniquely under the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? If so, is he aware that this meets a point we impressed at the beginning, that there should be a Cabinet Minister responsible in this House for all the pronouncements? Is he now in charge or is Lord Carrington in charge?
  The Prime Minister: At this moment, while the negotiations with which my noble Friend Lord Carrington has been concerned are continuing he will retain responsibility. At the conclusion of the negotiations this responsibility will go, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will have full responsibility, and who is, of course, in the Cabinet.
  Mr. Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Would he confirm that, apart from the immediate issue of the negotiations, it will be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who will be responsible for the industrial policy and all relations with the Receiver and the Rolls-Royce organisation?
  The Prime Minister: Yes; as soon as the negotiations over the RB211 are concluded, that will be the position.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Would the Prime Minister not agree that bringing the procurement and regulatory mechanisms of civil aviation under one roof in the Department of Trade and Industry and the further rationalisation by bringing procurement for defence under the Ministry of Defence are eminently sensible and reasonable measures very much overdue?
  The Prime Minister: I think that successive Administrations have found this problem particularly intractable. I announced in the White Paper on Government reorganisation last October that we were having a special study made and hoped to reach a conclusion and implement it by 1st April, 1972. The study was concluded recently, and we have, therefore, been able to make the changes more quickly, which I am sure is for the benefit of everyone concerned in the Whitehall organisation and in the aerospace industry.
  Mr. Ford: Would the Prime Minister say whether these changes are a forerunner of a general reassessment by the Government of support for the aircraft industry?
  The Prime Minister: Obviously, this new organisation will be able to review the size, the scale and the activities of the aerospace industry. We are not at the moment putting in hand any new survey of that kind.
  Mr. Whitehead: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be answering to the House for the take-over of the assets of Rolls-Royce by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. if such a take-over should precede the completion of the RB211 negotiations, whatever may be the outcome of those negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: It will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but, obviously, it will be for him to decide whether he answers questions or takes pan in a debate or whether one of his Ministers does so.

  CIVIL LIST
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Miinster if he will now establish the Select Committee for the Review of the Civil List.
  The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to add to the answers I gave to similar Questions from the hon. Member on 27th October and 25th February.—[Vol. 805, c. 25–6; Vol. 812, c. 842.]
  Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, as selected, the Committee will be representative not only as between party and party, which is a different thing, but as between individual and individual? Could I make my own personal application now?
  The Prime Minister: I have no doubt of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter but I think he will agree that it is not my responsibility to appoint a Select Committee. The responsibility rests on the House, which has the opportunity to debate and vote upon it.
  Mr. Dormand: Would the Prime Minister agree that this kind of Committee
  682
  requires Members with special knowledge and new ideas? Would he not further agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is ideally qualified in this respect?
  The Prime Minister: The House has always considered a Select Committee of this kind to be of the utmost importance. It has usually contained senior Members of the House, but at the same time it has been widely representative of the different views. I imagine that the House will take the same attitude on this occasion.

  WEST MIDLANDS
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will now make an official visit to the West Midlands.
  Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the West Midlands.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no specific plans to do so.
  Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister aware that that answer will be received with mixed feelings in the West Midlands, especially by the unemployed? Is he further aware that unemployment is rising faster than it has risen for 40 years? Is he also aware that if the RB211 is cancelled and if the Government fail to take early measures to stimulate the motor industry these figures will rise even more dramatically?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the particular problems in the Midlands and of some of the views expressed by the people there, in particular of the desire that the I.D.C. policy should be modified or abandoned. That is not a view I can share. As to the motor industry, there is a home market which is being met more and more by imports of cars from overseas. I hope that the British motor industry will be able to meet more and more of the market instead of less.
  Mr. Rost: Would the Prime Minister not agree that the best way to stimulate the motor industry would be to stop industrial disputes?
  The Prime Minister: It is not for me to stop industrial disputes but I would

  683
  have thought that there could have been common agreement that the fewer the disputes in the motor industry the greater will be output and the greater its success overseas.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: While all of us deplore industrial disputes, is the Prime Minister aware that it is not industrial disputes which have been causing unemployment in Birmingham and the West Midlands recently? Will he bear in mind that, while I understand his attitude to and share it to some extent, there are great difficulties about having what has hitherto been one of the most prosperous areas of the country suffering from a rate of unemployment above the national average? What prospect can he hold out of bringing that rate down?
  The Prime Minister: We have constantly discussed in the past the impact of wage-cost inflation on the level of employment. I find in discussions with employers and trade unions that this point is understood and accepted now. As to the general economic situation, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave his assessment in the Budget debate.
  Mr. Faulds: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his wisdom in deciding not to visit the West Midlands? Does he realise, and I presume he does in view of his decision, that after the false prospectus which was his election campaign and all the "phooey" about prices, were he to turn up in my constituency there is a great danger that he might be lynched by the irate housewives of Smethwick? Can he understand my embarrassment in having to be the one to save him?
  The Prime Minister: I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have not decided not to visit the West Midlands.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of visiting the East Midlands, because in areas such as my constituency, where there was never any great unemployment, people are now beginning to become redundant in large numbers? Is he aware that there are considerable worries? Would he give his attention to this urgent problem?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. When I do make my plans to visit the Midlands I hope to visit the East Midlands.
  Mr. Heffer: To clear up one mystery, could the Prime Minister tell the House why in the last few weeks most of the Questions put to him have been asking him to visit various parts of the country and the world—in one case the Windward Islands? Would he say why everyone is so anxious that he should be got out of London at the earliest possible moment?
  The Prime Minister: Apparently hon. Gentlemen are so anxious to ask me Questions and this is the only way they can find of getting them on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Moate: If on any of his official trips the Prime Minister should travel by British Rail, may I express the hope that he will not suffer from the delays and frustrations experienced at present by millions of travellers as a result of industrial action going under the spurious title of a work to rule? Would he agree that this type of industrial action is quite wrong? Will he encourage the Chairman-designate of British Rail to enter into longer-term contracts so that travellers can avoid being held to ransom by a small number of irresponsible employees?
  The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend's area is suffering particularly from the work to rule. I hope that the House as a whole would wish that this would shortly be brought to an end and would agree that there should not be any inflationary wage increase.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to raise a point of order on procedure, Mr. Speaker. If a request is made that the Prime Minister, who is now present, should answer Questions Q8 and 9, and as the Easter Recess is upon us and there is not time for us to have a statement for a week or so, would you grant the Prime Minister the necessary permission to make a statement now?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may give some ecumenical support to the hon. Member for West Ham, North

685
(Mr. Arthur Lewis) that you should concede that request.
Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are to take all these, what about Q7, which is mine?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me. Mr. Rees-Davies.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister will know that I asked him a few days ago whether he would make a statement relating to the subject of the Questions, so there is some reason for saying that he must have prepared a statement which he could make now rather than later.
Mr. Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair. Mr. Rees-Davies.

TANKER "PANTHER" (OIL POLLUTION)
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement regarding the emergency measures being taken to avoid the danger of oil pollution arising from the discharge of oil from the tanker "Panther".
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): We estimate that the oil slicks in the Channel to the north-east of Dungeness amount to several hundred tons of oil. It may have come from the "Panther", but analysis is necessary to attempt to determine its source. The Government now have five vessels spraying the slicks at sea with low toxicity detergents, and more vessels will be used if necessary. The local authorities are taking action to disperse the oil on and near to the beaches. We believe that these measures will prove successful. I would like to pay tribute to all personnel who are working so hard to deal with this problem.
Mr. Rees-Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the measures which have been taken by the Government and those engaged in the dispersal of the oil. Thanks are due to them in that regard. I congratulate my hon. Friend also on the Amendment he moved last night to the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, which should go a long way to ensuring that
686
incidents of this kind will not happen in the future, in that emergency action may be taken.
I have three questions to ask of my hon. Friend. First, will he be continuing with these dispersal measures at sea? One recognises that incidents close to the shore are for local authorities to deal with. Secondly, does he agree that this is a suitable moment to press other countries, in view of these incidents, to ratify the Brussels Convention of 1969? Will he undertake now to approach other nations in this regard, and also to draw their attention to the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill? Third, does he not think that this is a suitable time to review the question of territorial waters? If we had had a 12-mile limit we would have had complete control of the situation.
Mr. Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remarks. I can confirm that we shall continue dispersal operations, certainly over the weekend and longer if it should prove necessary. We shall use every opportunity to press other countries to ratify the Brussels Convention. When the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill receives the Royal Assent we shall notify it to the Convention countries in the usual way, and hope that it will be a useful example. The subject of territorial waters is more complex. We have to consider world wide implications. But this is a matter at which we are looking, and I believe that the Amendments we made to the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill last night will go quite a long way to achieving the results we want.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will have noted the more hopeful statement put out this morning about detergents helping to deal with the situation? If this is so, it has proved the success of the new detergent developed by the B.P. Company which many of us have seen tried out and is a very big step forward. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that while we welcome his Amendment to the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill last night, some of us find it a little hard to see why the Navy cannot take action outside territorial waters. Obviously, some people might object, but the "Torrey Canyon" was outside navigable waters, and well outside, yet the Navy went in within hours to take charge of the whole situation

687
there, and to the best of my knowledge no one from any other country objected. The Royal Navy acted on Government instructions because of the imminent risk of damage to all the beaches, not only in Cornwall, but right up the Channel and the Bristol Channel. Will the hon. Gentleman, without even waiting for the Bill to receive the Royal Assent, recognise that in a case like this we have an absolute right, however people may quibble about it, to put in the Navy to protect our shores and those of France and other friendly countries when this kind of disaster occurs?
Mr. Grant: The international legal position is by no means so clear as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but undoubtedly the Amendment we made last night will provide a greater degree of clarification. As to the "Torrey Canyon", it was not until some ten days before the vessel was abandoned that positive action could be taken and in that time some 100,000 tons of oil escaped, whereas here we are dealing only with about 100 tons.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that the legal position was absolutely clear, nor will the international position be any more clear by the unilateral passing of a Measure here. I said that in that situation we put in the Navy. As to the rather illegitimate difference the hon. Gentleman tries to point out, there is a lot of difference between a 130,000-tonner being stranded on a rock and a much smaller vessel being stranded on sand, and where, in the first case, the damage was such that it was impossible to pump out the oil without further loss of life, loss of life having already occurred when the tugmaster went down. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to make illegitimate differences, but will accept congratulations on the fact that the much smaller operation seems to be going well; and that he has introduced this Bill to assert what we believe to be the international position, and not to change it.
Mr. Grant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My aim was to correct an impression which seems to have got abroad in some places that this incident in some way presented a greater degree
688
of pollution danger than did the "Torrey Canyon". The position is not at all comparable. I say that in order to set at rest the minds of people who might otherwise be over-anxious. Putting in the Navy is always a possibility if another event of this nature occurred, but I think that the Amendment to the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill will give quite wide powers to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take this action or any other necessary.
Mr. Braine: While I completely approve the action taken so far by the Government, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware of the risk arising from the rapidly growing oil traffic in the Thames Estuary itself, with these large resident population risks which recent oil fires and collisions in the river have underlined in no uncertain manner? What action is being taken by his Department in connection with proposals to add no fewer than three large oil refineries to those already there? Does he believe—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This cannot arise out of the Private Notice Question which deals with a specific problem. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue these other matters he must do so by means of another Question.
Mr. Ogden: The Private Notice Question referred to the oil now threatening the South Coast as coming from the "Panther". The Under-Secretary of State said in his statement that the oil might have come from the "Panther". Yesterday there were reports that the oil threatening the beaches had been analysed and had proved not to have come from the "Panther". Can the Under-Secretary say which view is correct? Has his Department had any contact at all with the marine insurance people who, it would seem from certain reports about the equipment of the "Panther", were not doing the job they should have been doing?
Mr. Grant: On the first question, the analysis which our experts are carrying out on the oil is not yet complete, so it is not possible at this stage to say positively from where the oil is coming. We shall know this as soon as the analysis is completed. At this stage I cannot say more than that. There is conflicting evidence on this point.

689
Concerning marine insurance and the equipment carried upon the vessel, these are matters for the vessel's insurers, but we will consult them. As a nation in international circles concerned with international bodies, we are taking active steps to raise the standards of navigational equipment carried on all vessels.
Sir D. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that however much of this oil reaches the beaches, as happened in the case of the "Torrey Canyon", despite efforts to prevent it doing so, the help of thousands of volunteers would be of great use to clear it up? What preparations have the Government and local authorities made for making the best use of those volunteers?
Mr. Grant: I agree that this may be necessary. I reiterate that we are dealing with hundreds of tons of oil, not with 100,000 tons as in the case of the "Torrey Canyon". The removal of oil pollution on the beaches is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have no doubt that he will take note of my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is at the coast today and will no doubt be able to bring back a full report.
Mr. James Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up another small point? Did he say earlier that he was quite happy that United Kingdom legislation would cover the Government in the event of our taking action against other vessels outside territorial waters?
Mr. Grant: I can do no better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech which I made in the debate last night. The purpose of the Amendment was to enable an Order in Council to be made giving powers to the Secretary of State to make directions concerning an incident which occurs outside territorial waters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
I understand that it would be for the greater convenience of the House if the
690
business for Wednesday, 21st April, and Thursday, 22nd April, were re-arranged as follows:—
WEDNESDAY, Supply [15th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on Education on an Opposition Motion. Remaining stages of the four Consolidation Measures.
THURSDAY, Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
Mr. David Steel: I hope that it will be in order on this business statement to ask the Chief Whip what happened to the statement which we were led to believe would be made today by the Prime Minister about the appointment of the Chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body? It is not good enough that a matter affecting the interests of the House directly should be announced by means of a Written Answer especially as so many Questions have been put both yesterday and during previous business questions to the Leader of the House?
Mr. Pym: It will be necessary for me to consult my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Thorpe Mr. Thorpe rose—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I can allow any questions about business this week. This is a statement dealing with business when we come back.
Mr. Thorpe: Will it be during the week we come back that we shall have this announcement about the Chairman of the Review Body, or will it be made before?
Mr. Pym: I must make inquiries of my right hon. Friend. I imagine that it will be in the week that we come back.
Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is concern in the House, and the Government Chief Whip should realise that there is this concern, that matters which ought to be stated openly from the Government Dispatch Box are being given in Written Answers. This applies to announcements about chairmanships and a whole series of matters. It is not fair that the Government Chief Whip should say that he will refer to his right hon. Friend. At least he could say that he notes the feeling of the House.
Mr. Pym: If the Chief Whip does not know the answer, it might be as well for him to find out.
Mr. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House. I find that the point raised by the Government Chief Whip earlier is dealt with in Question No. 161. As this refers only to the appointment of the Chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Government Chief Whip whether when we return we may have a further explanation so that the terms of reference can at least be questioned in this House?
Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the chairmanship is being announced in reply to a Written Question. The terms of reference are not yet settled. They are a matter for discussion with the Chairman and through the usual channels. Because my right hon. Friend wants the whole House to be entirely satisfied that they are right, when they are agreed in due course they will be announced to the House.

COUNT OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement about the count of the House.
The House will remember that on Tuesday I undertook to consider the present rules regarding the operation of counting the House.
It is quite clear that if a quorum has not assembled at the end of a period of four minutes after notice has been taken that 40 Members are not present the House "shall stand adjourned". I take those words from the Standing Order, and they allow the Chair no discretion whatever.
During the four minutes in which the House is being counted the Chair has a discretion either to consider any point of order or to refuse to allow it. The duty of the Chair is to ascertain, during the period of counting, whether or not a quorum has been made, and for that reason there is no over-riding right to make points of order. The Chair's discretion in the matter must be absolute. I understand, however, that other aspects of the count are under examination by the Select Committee on Procedure, as I indicated to the House on Tuesday.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

LANARKSHIRE (UNEMPLOYMENT)
Mr. Speaker: Owing to the length of time which has been taken since 12 o'clock on these other matters, I shall slightly readjust the timings of the Adjournment debates.
12.19 p.m.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter which is of considerable importance not only to the constituency that I represent but to the whole of Lanarkshire—that of increasing unemployment and short-time working. I am grateful that the Minister for Industry has taken the trouble to come and listen to the debate and to answer the points which will be raised.
The Minister will be aware that the figure for unemployment in Scotland now stands at well in excess of 120,000; that is about 5·7 per cent. of the employed population. In Lanarkshire, which is about the highest populated and the most industrialised county in Scotland, we now have an unemployment figure of about 14,500; that is about 4,500 more than there were nine months ago.
It is important to appreciate from these figures that they do not show the degree of short-time work that we have in Rutherglen; nor do they include the numerous and unfortunate redundancies that we have had in Rolls-Royce and—something that ought to be impressed upon the Minister—nor can they reveal the length of time for which people are now unemployed. This is exceedingly important. People are now unemployed for much longer periods than they were some time ago. Therefore, we think it right and proper to raise this matter in the House and to ask the Minister for his assurance that he is willing and able to do something about this problem.
We do not raise this matter in a grumbling spirit of pleading. We raise it because we genuinely believe that in Lanarkshire we have a substantial contribution to make. We have made a very

693
substantial contribution in the last century to the build-up of heavy engineering, steel and coal, and we still feel that we have a contribution to make to the economic well being of the community. Therefore, it is pathetic that men and women in Lanarkshire, many of them very highly skilled and talented, are not allowed to use these talents to the full.
We have been told over the past few weeks that Her Majesty's Government have taken a number of initiatives which they hope will stimulate industrial activity. But may I say to the Minister that we do not feel that these initiatives will fulfil our aspirations until we can see within the Department of Trade and Industry a very real enthusiasm for the regional policies which the party to which I belong has put into being in the last few years, and until we see a real enthusiasm and interest in regional matters.
We have been told in the last few days, in reply to questions, that the Budget will stimulate industrial activity. In my judgment, for what it is worth, the Budget is only a mildly reflationary Budget and it has given very little to the people of Scotland, to the people who are out of work in Lanarkshire. Unless, therefore, positive initiatives are taken by the Minister, the limited amount of growth that will be generated by the Budget will go to the most prosperous parts of the United Kingdom and we shall be left with what is now a new word in the Department, the spill-over, from the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom.
We have also been told in the last few weeks that a great part of our county will be a special development area, and this pleases many of us. We like to think that at least there is this initiative on the part of the Government. We shall, however, want to wait and see how effective these special development area measures will be.
This was much heralded in the Scottish newspapers. The Scottish newspapers, the day after the Secretary of State made his announcement, said almost with one voice that this would mean about £100 million more for the West of Scotland. This was never the figure officially put on it by any member of the Government from the Treasury
694
Bench, but it was not without significance that most Scottish newspapers got the same figure of £100 million. To many of us this is rather a mythical figure. As the Minister knows, and as the answers which he has given will prove, the figure spent on the special development areas will only be as high as industrialists make it, by application.
If we read the philosophy of the Secretary of State aright, then we shall get in the West of Scotland only that amount which is the spill-over from the other areas. The previous Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, were conscious of the need to assist the people of Lanarkshire. My right hon. Friend appreciated that we had in our two basic industries of coal and steel a very serious run-down. Our coal seams were running down and our steel industry, because of technological changes, was changing in character. We therefore appreciated the very serious need for restructuring our whole industrial set up in the Lanarkshire area. We much appreciated my right hon. Friend's initiatives at that time in bringing extensions to the electrical appliance industry and in bringing the electronic industries and the newer type industries into our county. We shall always be grateful to him for that valuable help.
He was able to do this primarily because of the investment grants policy and regional employment premiums. We in Scotland feel very sad that we have been robbed of these grants and advantages. The Minister has the benefit of the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland who will, no doubt, tell him that no matter what is said from the benches opposite, the S.T.U.C., the Scottish C.B.I. and the local authorities in Scotland are adamant in their view that investment grants were a very real attraction to industrialists to come to Scotland. We are very sad that we no longer have these advantages that we have enjoyed over the past few years.
No doubt, many of my hon. Friends in the course of the debate will raise other issues concerning other industries, but I should like to mention two in particular that affect my part of the County of Lanarkshire. I do not think it will

695
surprise the Minister when I tell him that the first industry to which I want to refer is the paper and board making industry which affects me in my constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith). Over the past few years we have had a loss of over 2,000 jobs in Scotland in the paper-making industry, and many of these 2,000 jobs have been in the County of Lanark.
This is a pretty serious matter for people who have given 30 or 40 years service to the paper and board making industry. The Minister will appreciate that these men who loyally served the industry in Lanarkshire and, indeed, throughout Scotland have skills which are peculiar only to that industry. Once a highly-skilled paper maker who has spent all his life in the industry is declared redundant, his skill is of no value outside a paper mill and he is seeking work virtually as a labourer. That is about the extent of the problem.
That is a pathetic reflection on our modern society. These men naturally ask one important question. They see in the City of Glasgow and other centres of industry a great deal of paper being used, and they cannot understand why the great paper users in the City of Glasgow and elsewhere find it more profitable to buy their newsprint and other paper from Scandinavia and, indeed, from North America, when there are paper mills not half a dozen miles from these great cities.
This is the point which was made to the Minister—and, from the Press reports, it appears to have been made reasonably well—by a deputation of leaders of the paper industry and S.O.G.A.T., the trade union concerned, and the Minister promised to look into these problems. We hope that in due course he will come forward with the answers. The deputation made the substantial point that there seems to them and to us on these benches to be very unfair pricing on the question of newsprint and paper bought from Scandinavia. It seems peculiar to us that there is only a very marginal difference in pulp and paper prices purchased from Scandinavia.
696
Much the same applies to newsprint bought from Canada. Many of us were disturbed to read reports that one of the paper-making companies in this country had recently decided to declare about 2,000 people redundant and to bring from Canada the newsprint which it needed to make up the deficiency. Having seen the Press reports, and having seen nothing to contradict them, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State, and he was kind enough to reply to me yesterday. His reply disturbs me a great deal.
I had put to the hon. Gentleman that it was a false economy to allow such companies to go to Canada for newsprint, and I emphasised the serious effect that this would have on the number of people employed in our paper industry and the serious effect it had on our balance of payments. But the hon. Gentleman wrote to me to the effect that, although he understood that it would cause redundancies and there would be an adverse effect on our balance of trade figures, he considered nevertheless that these were commercial decisions best left to the individual firms concerned.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me a moment? I have now had an opportunity to look at the timing of debates today, and, for the assistance of those hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate, I wish to say that I think it reasonable that it should end at approximately 1.30 p.m. rather than at 1.15 p.m. as previously arranged.
Mr. Mackenzie: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
We very much resent the sort of philosophy which lies behind the approach to these matters which the Under-Secretary expressed in his letter to me, and we hope that the Minister for Industry will persuade his colleagues in the Department to reconsider the answer which I had in those terms.
Over the past nine months, we have constantly pressed the Minister—and we asked his predecessors in office before that—to do all that could be done to help the paper industry in Lanarkshire. We have continually pressed that there should be an investigation into the whole set-up and that the whole question of Scandinavian prices and of importing newsprint from Canada should be examined. The

697
men I mentioned earlier have given a lifetime of service to the industry, and they are entitled to a lot more consideration than is shown in the answer which I received yesterday.
Our main concern in Lanarkshire—I think that it spreads throughout Scotland today, and this is one reason why I am glad that the Minister for Industry has decided to answer the debate—is for the future of the steel industry in our county. Lanarkshire houses many British Steel Corporation plants. We have strip mills, tube, general and special steel plants, construction plants, forges and foundries—all of them owned by the British Steel Corporation. In the whole of Scotland at present, there are about 27,000 people who depend on steel for their livelihood, and the majority of them are to be fauna in the Lanarkshire constituencies. We feel it right, therefore, that this matter should be ventilated in the House of Commons.
A few days ago, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry opened a debate on steel and the future of the industry in Britain. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) very properly put, in a short and succinct speech, the problems facing the steel industry in Scotland. What worried us was that the Minister for Industry was unable in his winding-up speech to give any assurances about the future of steelmaking in Scotland. We hope that the only reason was that time prohibited him from properly examining our problem, and we hope that he will today be able to say something about both the short-term and the long-term projects planned by the British Steel Corporation in Scotland.
As for the short-term plans, I wrote about a year ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, and he assured me at that time that the short-term investments of the B.S.C. in Scotland were very much in the forefront of the Corporation's thinking. He told me that £100 million of the Corporation's money would be invested between 1969 and 1974, and he said that,
"Scotland should at least maintain its position within the national total in the foreseeable future, with consequential benefits to Scottish steel-making areas."
698
In the last few months, however, we have become most concerned about whether that short-term programme of investment to the tune of £100 million is still to go ahead. We should like to hear from the Minister that the developments mentioned in that letter to me a year ago, involving Ravenscraig, Clyde-bridge, Gartcosh and a number of other plants and projects, are to go ahead. It is important for the Scottish steel industry that they do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and I are especially concerned about the future of the special steels division. The Clyde Alloy section of the British Steel Corporation operation at Craigneuk and Hallside employs between 3,000 and 4,000 people. It has for a long time been a proud achievement that we have had this unit, that it has been a viable and economic unit, and it has played, and still plays, an important part in the economic life of Our community. We should like to think that, no matter what the pressures coming from Sheffield or from the London headquarters, the plants at Craigneuk and Hallside will continue well into the future.
Further, on the question of special steels, we should not like to think that there are those within the British Steel Corporation who would seek to use the short-term recession—we hope that it is only short-term—to make closures or declare redundancies for the purpose of long-term nationalisation programmes. We hope to have an assurance from the Minister that he will use his good offices with the managing director of special steels to assure us that there will be no closures at Craigneuk or Hallside because of the recession in demand, and that further rationalisation plans will not be pursued in that way.
I come to the question of longer-term plans and developments. All Scottish Members of Parliament, and especially Lanarkshire Members, support those people in the British Steel Corporation who want to see substantial growth in this country's steel-making plants. We should like to think that the best hopes of the members of the Corporation, that steel production in this country should rise to 43 million tons, will be achieved, and will be achieved with the blessing of the Minister.

699
Those of us who have hopes that we shall achieve the target of 42 million—43 million tons have been a little saddened recently to read in the Press of campaigns by those who are much in favour of importing more steel at the expense of the steel-making capacity in Lanarkshire or, for that matter, in Wales or the Midlands of England. The answer the Minister gave his hon Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) yesterday, that the shipbuilding industry would no longer be under the same obligation to purchase steel within this country, will give little comfort to those making steel, whether the British Steel Corporation or the private sector.
If we achieve the target of 43 million tons, we hope that Scotland's share will be no lower than 4½ million tons. We on this side of the House were pleased to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for Development, in a recent debate on Scottish unemployment and industrial activity, that it was the Government's hope that Scotland's share would be 4½ million tons.
Mr. George Lawson: That was by 1975. But it is very much less than we would expect for 1980.
Mr. Mackenzie: Yes, and we want to know that that 4½ million tons will still stand. In the speech by the Minister in our debate on the Scottish steel industry we had no assurances even on the 4½ million tons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that that figure was to be achieved by 1975. We should like to know where we stand. There is much fear and apprehension in Scot land on the issue. The newspapers have said in the past few months that there could be no Scottish steel industry at all if we did not get some of the projects we shall demand in this debate, but I think that we were reassured by the Under-Secretary of State when he told us that it would be a nonsense to say that there would not be a steel-making capacity of substance in Scotland after 1980. We believe that the Government have stated the position clearly. All that we want the Minister for Trade to do today is to back up his hon. Friend's assurances in the debate.
There is not a branch of industry in Scotland today, including the Scottish T.U.C. and the Scottish Development
700
Council, which is not concerned, as I and my hon. Friends are, about the future of Scottish steel making. We believe that in the long term it lies with an integrated steel plant at Hunterston on the Ayrshire coast. There is not a steel-making plant being constructed anywhere in the world today that is not sited on the coast alongside deep water. When we argue in favour of Hunterston we are not simply plugging the case of the Scottish steel industry but are doing it because we believe it to be in the best interests of the steel-making industry throughout the United Kingdom. The case for Hunterston, which has been rehearsed in the House many times, is beyond dispute. The deep-water facilities that we can offer are beyond dispute, as are the savings, maintenance and capital costs of having a terminal there. So we believe that it will be to the advantage of everyone if we are given the right to go ahead with the plans for an integrated steel works at Hunterston, which will provide much employment for the people engaged in steel making in Scotland, and will be for the benefit of steel making in the United Kingdom as a whole.
But whilst we in Lanarkshire who are concerned about the future of steel making are enthusiastic about Hunterston, and have, to a man, pressed for its development, such a development will have very serious repercussions for the county of Lanarkshire. We have 15,000 to 20,000 people making steel in Motherwell, North Lanark, Bothwell, Cambuslang and Rutherglen. They would have to transfer to the coast, or we should have to find alternative employment for them somewhere in Lanarkshire. Our county council has over the years built up a stock of houses, schools, roads and other social amenities. It is a modern county and, we think, an attractive county. We feel with some justification that we are ready to play our part in modern development. We are anxious for Hunterston and shall continue to press the Minister on it, but we hope that he will appreciate that it will have serious repercussions for Lanarkshire. Perhaps we should have a survey of the industrial scene in West Scotland to see what is to be the future of Lanarkshire if our best hopes of having an integrated steel works at Hunterston are to be fulfilled.
We are waiting for the Government to make statements on many aspects of industry that affect our county. We are

701
waiting for a statement on steel and for a statement on paper, which has been promised. We are waiting for a statement on the RB211, which affects people in East Kilbride, and for a statement on the future of ship building, which also affects Lanarkshire. In all of these industries we have an important part to play. We hope that in all these industries we shall have the Minister's support in making progress on Lanarkshire's employment prospects.
12.46 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: I am very grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) was able to secure this topic for debate today. Those of us who represent Lanarkshire constituencies have become increasingly concerned about the growth in the number of redundancies in recent months. All those who represent Scottish constituencies have been concerned at the number of redundancies, now running at 6,500 a month, a jump from a figure of 2,900 last June. Within the North Lanarkshire travel-to-work area there have been 4,000 redundancies since then.
Against such a background, the Minister will not be surprised that the Lanarkshire Members are extremely concerned about the loss of job opportunities occurring within the county. My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties facing the paper making and board making industry throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland. I wish to draw to the Minister's attention the closure of the mill at Caldercruix in my constituency, owned by Robert Craig and Sons Limited. That mill is scheduled to close on 7th May this year. If the closure is carried through, 300 employees will be made redundant. That may not seem a large number compared with the many people involved in major redundancies in recent months in this country, but Caldercruix is a village of just over 2,000. The paper mill has been its staple form of employment for decades, and the people who work in it have passed on the skills from father to son throughout those decades. It is a close-knit community, with many cases of husbands and wives and fathers and sons working together in the mill. We have had an excellent labour relations record during that period. The whole history of the enterprise has been
702
one of co-operation between the management and the labour force.
Hon. Members will be aware of the consequences felt in mining communities when a colliery closes. My constituency has had to face many such closures since the end of the war, and on the whole it has done so with fortitude and a great deal of adaptability. But Caldercruix faces something probably even worse than the closure of a colliery would be to a mining village.
The community is still stung by the announcement that this centre piece of its life is about to be removed. Is it possible for anything to he done to avert or postpone the closure? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene with the owners to see whether anything can he done? If nothing can be done and the closure is inevitable, what is to be done to provide alternative employment?
I asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department proposed to take following the closure of the mill. On 5th April he told me that it would
"…make every effort to find alternative employment for those who are to become redundant…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 37.]
He added that a job team would begin interviewing at the mill during the week beginning 19th April, following a special canvass for jobs in the surrounding area. I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions but one is entitled to be rather cynical about the prospects of the special canvass being productive. The surrounding area has been extremely badly hit by redundancies.
At the Airdrie employment exchange, 1,086 people were registered as unemployed in June, 1970; the figure is now 1,600—an increase of 514. At the Coat-bridge employment exchange nearby, 1,371 unemployed were registered in June, 1970; that figure has risen to 1,947—an increase of 576. Taking the two together—and Coatbridge and Airdrie are the nearest towns to Caldercruix—there are 3,547 people redundant in that area already. I doubt whether a special canvass for jobs for those to be made redundant in Caldercruix will be productive, because looking for a job in the west of Scotland at the moment is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

703
It would be disastrous if this cohesive labour force of 300 people, who have learned to work together and whose skills, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are linked to the paper trade, were to be lost for ever. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of the representations made to him by the employers and the trade unions in the paper industry and to see what can be done by the Government about the unfair pricing policies of our Scandinavian competitors.
It is sometimes said by the Government that redundancies are being created because of excessive wage demands. I took special care to investigate that in relation to the closure at Caldercruix. I was assured by the local managing director and by the chairman of the parent company, Associated Paper Mills Ltd., that that could not be said of the Caldereruix mill and that no excessive wage rises had been either demanded or granted. They had no complaint about the labour relations, which have been excellent for very many years. In many of these places, where there has been a family tradition of employer and employed, labour relations are often very good. The closure has nothing to do with excessive wage claims. I stress that so that it can go on the record.
It might be possible to save the mill if the Government could intervene in the question of the unfair pricing policies, but if that is not possible I ask the hon. Gentleman to review the provision of alternative employment in the North Lanarkshire area and to pay particular attention to the prospect of building more advance factories in the area. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry on the whole does not wish to build more advanced factories unless existing advance factory space has been filled. But it would be a gesture of confidence in the future if another advance factory could be sited in Caldercruix. The local people would see an opportunity being created for other work to come to their village, and it would be a gesture of confidence by the Government in the future of my constituents. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to that proposal.
If it is not possible to locate an advance factory within the village, then I ask them
704
to locate it nearby and also to consider mounting another programme of advance factory building for Lanarkshire. The redundancies in the county over the last nine months have tended to wipe out the gains we made during the previous several years by bringing in advance factories and by other policies.
If we are serious about providing jobs for those who are redundant, we have to communicate our confidence in the future by a programme of advance factory building and also by a programme of retraining on a much bigger scale than contemplated so far. I am thinking, for example, of the 300 workers at Caldercruix who have been trained for the paper trade. They may not get jobs in the industry again and they should be offered the opportunity to retrain for some other industry which may come into the area. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take up with the Secretary of State for Employment the possibility of introducing a much larger retraining programme in the North Lanarkshire area.
I turn to the situation in Shotts. Shotts is a community which has suffered greatly from pit closures in the past. In 1945, there were 19 collieries there; only one operates nearby today. The community has faced a great deal of hardship in the past and has done so with fortitude. It has met the challenge of changing times extremely well. Indeed, it was delighted when the last Government put an advance factory at the Stane site. But since that factory was completed last June, it has not, unfortunately, been occupied, and it stands as a monument to a good endeavour never followed up. I ask the hon. Gentleman to pay special attention to finding a tenant for it. Nothing would increase confidence and morale in the area as much as if that factory were occupied. In that area, unemployment has increased from 393 in June, 1970, to 518 last March. So labour is available for an incoming tenant of the factory.
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend about the steel industry. It is vital to the Scottish steel industry and its future viability that we get the ore terminal at Hunterston. The Secretary of State for Scotland states that he shares our concern. I hope that he uses his influence in the Government to show how

705
vital it is to the future of the existing steel industry in Scotland that we should get the ore terminal and the steel complex at Hunterston.
At the end of the day, the Government will ask what solution we propose to the problem. The Government should not be allowed to escape in this situation from facing the consequences of the policies they have adopted. I echo my hon. Friend's complaint about the effect that the abolition of investment grants will have and is already having on the prospects of attracting new industry to Scotland, particularly to Lanarkshire. We are convinced that the switch from investment grants to investment allowances was done to save money. The five-year review of public expenditure showed that in each of the years 1972 to 1975 a considerable saving will be made by switching from investment grants to capital allowances. For example, in 1972–73, the Government will save £345 million in investment grants at a cost of £235 million in capital allowances. Clearly, the switch has been done to economise.
We greatly regret what appears to have been a doctrinaire decision taken at a time when we need an increase of public expenditure in Scotland. Scotland, particularly Lanarkshire, benefits from a high rate of public expenditure, not only generally, but because that gives real bite to regional development policy. I ask the Government to get rid of the lame duck philosophy which has characterised their approach to regional development and the problems, I hope temporary problems, of some major industries, because we shall never be able to offer a proper future to the people of Lanarkshire unless we have a regional development policy, which means a policy operated by a Government determined to make it succeed and determined to put public money into backing up their confidence in the future of an area.
I ask the Government to reconsider their regional development policies in the light of the crisis situation which now exists in the West of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen mentioned the 14,000 unemployed in Lanarkshire. The Glasgow Herald of yesterday pointed out that there were 35,000 unemployed in Glasgow, which is in the travel-to-work area of Lanarkshire. We now
706
have a crisis situation in Lanarkshire and the west of Scotland. We ask the Government to rise to meet that crisis by reviewing the whole of their policies and, even if it is unpalatable to them politically, to adopt some of the policies followed by the Labour Government which were successful in attracting industry to our area.
1.2 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on his success and compliment him on his enterprise in getting this short Adjournment debate. I associate myself with his thanks to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), the Minister, for coming to listen to what we have to say. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is generally regarded as fairly doctrinal—he may be surprised to hear that, but I do not think so.
I remind him that a past Conservative Government took considerable steps in Lanarkshire and that Lanarkshire would have been in an exceedingly difficult situation if those steps had not been taken. I refer to the establishment of the steel strip mill at Ravenscraig. It was laid down at Ravenscraig, which is in my constituency, because of the intervention of a Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due and to say that that was also true of the motor car industry. It was not my right hon. Friends, but a previous Conservative Government who brought the motor car industry to Scotland. I like to think that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to embark on such measures as the occasion demands, and certainly it calls for major steps.
When we talk of steel making in Scotland, we talk of steel making in Lanarkshire, for there is only one major works outside that county. Within Lanarkshire it is concentrated in my constituency. We have the Ravenscraig Works themselves, the Lanarkshire Works, the Dalzeel, the Clyde Alloy and the former Etna Works, now unhappily closed, all substantial steel-making companies.
The circumstances today are not such as to permit matters to be left to ordinary commercial judgments, to thinking in terms of the cost of a job, profitability,

707
which is usually a short-term consideration. I do not decry and never have decried profitability. I recognise that various types of enterprise are undertaken because it is expected that something will be gained from them. But there may be circumstances for a nation when such considerations are comparatively minor, when what requires to be done is so vast that no single person or group of businessmen can begin to approach tackling the problem. That is now the situation with the steel industry. The task is too big and too serious for the nation for decisions to be left to normal commercial criteria, and when I say that it is too serious for the nation, I mean not just Lanarkshire and Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom.
When one talks about steel making in Lanarkshire, one talks about employment. If the works in Lanarkshire are to close, there will be virtually no employment in the county and the area will become an industrial desert. That kind of thing cannot be allowed. The workers of the area are reconciled to seeing the industry slowly moving its concentration towards the coast. This is a process which has been going on over 100 years. It says much for the people and town council of Motherwell that they have accepted this development, that they understand that the industry cannot indefinitely be concentrated in Motherwell, for example.
However, we regard the establishment of the ore terminal at Hunterston as being necessary for the continuance of the existing industry quite apart from its development, and that development will be in the interests of the United Kingdom, not just the local area. But as the industry moves towards the coast, transitional arrangements must be made so that there is no serious dislocation among existing works. The move can be carried out over a number of years to the benefit of Lanarkshire, Scotland and the whole United Kingdom.
But this underlines the importance of the Government's intervention. With all the force at my command, which at times may not seem to be much, I emphasise that the job is too large to be left to normal commercial processes, too big even for the British Steel Corporation. The Corporation cannot find the money to pay for the kind of development which
708
we have in mind. I would not be so presumptuous as to quote figures to the Minister, who is already familiar with them, of course, and who will know that investment in steel making in the United Kingdom compared with that of other countries is so small that we are not even in the league in this respect.
I will not give the figures because they have been sent to the Minister by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. They are most illuminating. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that we must do much better than we have been doing. I will not argue whether this is because of the nationalisation versus denationalisation question. Investment in the industry has been calamitous. We cannot hope to remain an industrial nation of any consequence unless we are able to make our own steel sufficiently cheaply. Not only have we been investing at a much lower level than any other country, but we have been producing at an increasingly lower level. The production of crude steel, which is the sinew of a nation, has fallen.
We are told that the profitable section is special steels. We have substantial special steel units in Lanarkshire. Despite the fact that the largest part of the special steel section is still under private enterprise, our increase in production of special steel over the years has been appalling. It has been about 6 per cent. in the period 1960–69. This compares with the Japanese increase of something like 400 per cent. Every other country has been racing ahead in the production of special steels while we have been dropping out.
Tied up with the question of employment in Lanarkshire and its future is the future of steelmaking. We are at the centre of things. We make no special plea that we should be a steel-making centre for all time. We are prepared to accept that major developments will take place on the coast, we hope our part of the coast. All we are saying is that the Government must sort this out. This is the Government's responsibility. The other day, during a sort debate on the steel industry, I pointed out that the Government intervene on defence. No Government can leave the defence of a nation to any kind of hotchpotch commercial arrangements. It is a matter for

709
the nation and therefore for the Government.
Equally, I say that because the world has moved so quickly since the nineteenth century, no Government of whatever party can leave the steel-making industry to normal commercial considerations. This does not mean that we ought not to be thinking in terms of cheap steel. We can get that only by applying the best available techniques, developing the best sites, maximising the greatest measure of good will available among managerial and workpeople. If the hon. Gentleman can begin to do this we shall cheer him on. We will give the Government every support.
They cannot possibly leave this to the normal processes of commercial judgment or to the B.S.C., big though it is. The Corporation must at the least be given permission to go ahead with its plans, which are pretty ambitious, although I would say not ambitious enough. It is our understanding that the Corporation wants to build up capacity so that by 1980 it will be producing in the region of 43 million tons. We think this is very small beer compared with what others are doing, certainly compared with the Japanese. They are producing four times as much as we are.
The Minister could use his considerable influence to ensure that the Government will come in behind the B.S.C. and see that the most ambitious parts of the Corporation's scheme are carried out and that in Lanarkshire we are not confronted with any sudden decision saying that in the interests of economy half of the industry in Lanarkshire is to be killed. We could not stand that. We are ready to co-operate over a period of time in a smooth transition, knowing that the Government will be making efforts to retain and bring in new industry. I take it that it is not in the Government's mind to carry out this kind of sudden killing? If it is, it will be a very sad and angry day for the people of Scotland.
1.16 p.m.
The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I am grateful, as is the House, for the moderate and constructive way in which the hon. Member for Rutherglen
710
(Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), supported by his hon. Friends the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), have spoken in this debate. I know that their moderation does not minimise their strength of feeling on this subject. I realise that they speak as they do because of their real concern for the situation which has been developing in Lanarkshire. I may not be able to answer all of the points that have been put to me but I can assure them that I will study their speeches carefully later and if there are any points that need a supplementary reply I will write to the hon. Gentlemen concerned.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen referred to the position of the whole of Lanarkshire. He will know that since 1945 the economy of the area, particularly North Lanarkshire, has been undergoing a pretty radical change. It is not something which has come about in the last few years and certainly not in the last few months. It has been happening progressively since 1945 and I want to put the debate into that context.
Coal mining has almost disappeared. There are three pits, none of which, I am glad to say, is in jeopardy. They employ just under 3,000 men. Many of the older iron and steel works have closed and modern strip mills and a number of firms, mainly engineering, have been introduced in the area. As hon. Gentlemen know, we have engaged in a review of the structure of development area status to determine whether any other changes were needed. The result of this study led to the creation of a number of special development areas and notably to that of West Central Scotland. This will help progressively over a period of time. I do not for a moment pretend that by changing a designation there will, overnight, be a transformation of the situation. It is not always fully understood how considerable is the full range of inducements which designation as a special development area provides.
Other facilities are already available in the development areas. These include free depreciation on new machinery and plant; initial tax allowances of 40 per cent. for capital expenditure incurred in the construction of industrial buildings; the regional employment premium, while it lasts, up to 1974; training grants for on-the-job training costs and training

711
courses; assistance through the Department of Employment towards the transfer of key workers; assistance under the Local Employment Act, 1960, such as the provision of D.T.I. factories, building grants at 35 per cent. and in some cases 45 per cent., loans at moderate rates of interest and removal grants. There are additional incentives for the special de-development areas, such as a rent-free period in a Department of Trade and Industry factory for a period of up to five years; operational grants at 30 per cent. of the wage and salary bill for the first three years; loan towards the balance of building costs.
That represents a fairly considerable package of inducements. I have enumerated them rapidly and in short form simply to get them on the record and in the hope that hon. Members will do their part, as I am sure they will, in giving these advantages publicity, for they are considerable and they will progressively assist in attracting new industry to the area.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North asked me particularly about Government training schemes and advance factories. There are four Government training centres in Lanarkshire providing a total of 650 training places. A number of new training initiatives were recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. These include payment of grants to employers in the development and intermediate areas who engage or retain workers aged 45 and over who have been unemployed for eight weeks or more; new short courses at lower levels of skill at Government training centres; and the Department of Employment would also be prepared to enter into arrangements with employers whereby they could use their spare training capacity to provide local training courses for the unemployed at Government expense.
The vocational training scheme has been extended. Under it, professional and executive staff of the age of 40 and over can in certain circumstances receive financial assistance for short courses with employers or to attend suitable courses at colleges of further education. Assistance is also available under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme to those who have no early prospects of obtaining work in their
712
home areas, to resettle permanently, or until work is available in their home areas, in jobs elsewhere for which no available worker can be found, locally. On 1st April this year the grants and allowances under the scheme were increased.
The Department of Trade and Industry has 11 industrial estates and individual sites totalling just under 700 acres providing employment for 24,300 people, two advance factories totalling 74,000 sq. ft. and 12 other factories totalling over 275,000 sq. ft., and 117 acres of land are available at various locations in North Lanarkshire. In the Glasgow group of employment exchanges, the Department has six established industrial estates which, together with a number of individual sites, provide employment for 26,000 people. A seventh estate is being progressively developed at Cowlairs and work has begun on another site at Dalmuir. There are four advance factories either built or under construction, 33 other factories and 95 acres of land available for new industry. In addition, three advance factories were recently authorised for Clydebank and the Department is considering other sites.
I apologise for speaking rather rapidly, but every effort is being made to interest suitable industrialists in the vacant premises. I come back to my main point, namely, the limitation imposed on the amount of help any Government can provide which arises from the shortage of mobile industry and of people willing to go to areas to take up the advantages and opportunities available to them.
Hon. Members have spoken of two industries in particular—paper and steel. The paper industry has been going through a very difficult period. Hon. Members say that the pricing policies of the E.F.T.A. suppliers have operated unfairly. The E.F.T.A. themselves make out the case that world market forces dictate their pricing policies. I have been looking into this matter very closely as a result of all the representations made to which hon. Members have referred. Fresh evidence has come to hand which seems to support the contention of the United Kingdom industries and I am studying it as urgently as I can. But, because of many grades of paper involved, the changing pattern of supply and demand and the

713
effects of substitute material, such as plastics, it will require a complex economic study to isolate the natural market effect from deliberate price manipulation. This is the point which is hard to pin down. But I assure hon. Member that if manipulation can be demonstrated the Government will be ready to make the appropriate representations.
I wish to say a few words about the steel industry on which the hon. Member for Motherwell spoke particularly strongly. I cannot give answers about specific works because decisions in these matters are primarily the responsibility of the British Steel Corporation. Proposals must in the first instance come from the Corporation. If I had answers which I could give the hon. Gentleman, I would not hesitate to give them. I do not want to mislead hon. Members or anybody outside engaged in this industry. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that as a result of recent financial deterioration in the Corporation's performance the short-term review is engaged in studying the existing development plans. We have not asked for the deferment of Ravenscraig, but all these schemes are under consideration as a result of the study of the Corporation's financial position.
We hope to have an answer within six weeks, and we are pressing ahead with it. What matters is not that there is investment for investment's sake but that the costs of the investment projects are such as will be a reasonable guarantee for the profitability of the venture when it gets into gear. I accept what has been said about the great need for new investment in the industry. This need has existed for some years. None of us is trying to knock the industry or kill any sector of industry. Those are the words which the hon. Member for Motherwell used. I am sure that he does not expect me to give him any different answer.
I can give the absolute undertaking that our chief concern is to avoid a continuing drift into unprofitability because we want a secure, viable industry with a future. In the light of the rising costs to which the steel industry, like many others, has been subject, we must look afresh at some of the premises on which decisions were based. I hope that I have put it as reasonably and fairly as possible.
714
I accept that when we have a developing situation it is very much the Government's responsibility to help sort things out. This is why we are involved to the present extent.
The steel industry in Scotland has contributed very substantially to the benefit of the economy and of many engineering industries in this country. I would hope that it will long continue able to do so, but the exact proportion of investment, the exact decisions concerning the rundown of plant, are matters in the first instance for the Corporation. The hon. Gentlemen know that certain decisions were announced by the Corporation not so very long ago, and it will obviously be continuing a review of the availability of plant and the need to retain in being older sites and factories. This is because the Corporation, too, is as concerned as we are that the Corporation shall be a strong economic, as well as a widely, broadly based, industrial unit.
It announced right at the beginning of the existence of the Corporation what the sort of broad scheme was, and in 1969 made clear that it was planning to launch a sort of two-pronged attack for the rationalisation and the modernisation of older works, to improve productivity throughout the industry and to introduce more flexible working methods. It was then made clear that it would be aiming at a reduction of manpower by 50,000 in a period up to 1975. Some of the manpower reduction objectives which it then had in mind have not up to this point been achieved. I think that there is no doubt that it will have to press ahead with further closures. I am not specifying those in Lanarkshire or in Scotland, but, generally speaking, it is quite clear that we shall want to see that this industry is balanced and stronger in the future.
I know that I shall not have been able to reassure the hon. Gentlemen very much by the answer which I have been able to give, but I hope that they will take heart from the measures which have recently been introduced by the Government—from the creation of the special development area, from the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that these give enormous hope for the future, and for the development of industrial and economic activity in this

715
country. They are bound to have an impact, and a beneficial impact on Lanarkshire. They will take time to have effect, but, undoubtedly, we shall see over the months, the years, to come the progressive benefit of improving confidence throughout industry. I hope that, in the meantime, all those in the area, at whatever level of employment in the industry, whether at workforce or management level, will make the best possible efforts they can to take advantage of the opportunities which do exist.
Finally, I again assure the hon. Gentlemen that I shall do my best to study the record of their speeches and to follow up any of the points which I have left uncovered. I hope before very long to visit the area.

TOURIST INDUSTRY
1.34 p.m.
Mr. John Hannam: May I first of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity of raising the matter of Government policy for tourism. This is a very important subject, which affects most hon. Members' constituencies in one way or another. I personally represent a constituency which is the centre of the largest domestic holiday area in this country, the South-West, but in this debate I should like to speak on a national basis, as someone who has spent over 15 years working in the industry, and several years on the Council of the British Travel Association, now defunct, and as Chairman of the British Hotels Federation.
Tourism represents our leading major growth industry, earning more dollars than any other, and it is certain to become, by 1975, the largest single industry in this country. It is already earning over £500 million a year, and by 1975 it will be bringing in from overseas £1,000 million a year and earning another £1,000 million from home demand.
However, it is not just a question of money. Tourism also represents a major environmental factor in the preservation and creation of amenities for the way of life of our people—weekend holidays, holidays such as the one we are about to embark upon, camping parks, wild life parks, National Trust parks, business trips
716
and conferences; they are all part of the structure of tourism.
As a service industry the hotels and tourist sector has suffered greatly over recent years through not being treated as an industry proper. There have been years of tax increases, loss of investment allowances, S.E.T., purchase tax on equipment, corporation tax. By the 1960s the industry was reeling under the cumulative effects of these impositions. Investment was dropping away sharply, and, despite the tremendous annual growth in the numbers of visitors, largely due to the sustained efforts of the old British Travel Association, our facilities here at home were lagging behind—far behind those of our rivals overseas.
In 1969 we had the Development of Tourism Act, which set out, belatedly, to change all that, firstly by introducing grants and loans for new developments started before 31st March of this year and completed before 31st March, 1973, and secondly by establishing a new structure of four tourist boards to supervise the tourism activities of Britain.
This Act stimulated a feverish burst of hotel construction, with everyone trying to jump on the bandwagon, planning permission or no planning permission, the result being that instead of an estimated £8½ million a year in grants being spent on new hotels and motels throughout the regions we have had well over £52 million in grants applied for in England alone to date, while there are still many projects to be accounted for. Pro-party speculators have seized on the opportunity of developing in London, and the result is, as Lord Crowther pointed out quite recently, that nearly 50 per cent, some £23 million, of grants has gone to London projects, producing a severe over-saturation of expensive luxury accommodation, when what was in fact required was a supply of medium and lower priced bedrooms for the lower-tariff holidaymakers. One can forsee a price-cutting war developing at some time in the near future when under-occupancy in London becomes more apparent.
However, we now see the termination of the grants and loans scheme and the reintroduction of investment allowances on the equipment and tools of the trade of the hotel industry. This, with the reduction in selective employment tax

717
and corporation tax, is very much welcomed by the industry. However, I believe there is yet a lot more to do.
A clear definition of Government policies for tourism in the 'seventies is necessary if investment and modernisation are to continue effectively after the end of the present grants and loans assistance. My intention in this debate is to focus attention on the main requirements of the tourist industry.
These requirements do not constitute outrageous or impossible demands on the Departments concerned but rather a demand that a framework should be established wherein tourism can develop in a natural manner, providing the facilities and the amenities which the leisure-seeking and business traveller requires.
Since December of last year I, in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), have been carrying out a survey of the attitudes to Government policy of the major companies and organisations in this country. We shall be producing a full report in due course, but in the meantime, because of the unanimity of view expressed by all those we have interviewed, I wish to state the leading priorities of those feelings towards Government policy in the hope that the Minister will take account of the points raised, although some of them, I know, fall outside the scope of his own Department.
The first priority in all cases, and one which has been repeated over many years, is the need for the industry to be recognised as an industry and to be allowed depreciation allowances on buildings and structures. There can be no strong reason, in the opinion of all those concerned with the hotel industry, why these purpose-built buildings, used as they are seven days and seven nights a week, unusable for any other commercial function, yet contributing so much to employment and to the income of local authorities, should not be allowed a normal allowance for amortisation on fabric. It has been somewhat disappointing to myself and to other hon. Members who have discussed this matter with Ministry officials to find that there is still a tendency to hide behind the out-dated smokescreen laid down by the Treasury—that it is impossible to define a hotel building. This is nonsense, and it was exploded by
718
the 1969 Act, which defined a hotel and laid down the grants and loans qualifications. It stated that a hotel had to have ten bedrooms, 25 in London, and had to be of a permanent nature, supplying breakfast and an evening meal and must be open during the main part of the season.
It is also argued that investment allowances on plant and equipment constitute 40 or 50 per cent. of the total expenditure. This is an exaggeration. My experience indicates a figure nearer 30 per cent., and we must remember that purchase tax is still levied on most of the working tools of trade of the industry. Certainly in 1973, when value-added tax will replace purchase tax and S.E.T., this situation will change, but it has been shown in the Common Market countries that in such a labour-intensive operation as hotels V.A.T. will prove to be a considerable tax burden.
If the Government are to create the right climate for investment on a long-term basis for new hotels, extensions and modernisation it is important that depreciation should be allowed from 1973 on capital invested in buildings, particularly having regard to the importance of tourism as a foreign currency earner. This type of incentive is particularly important in seasonal tourist areas, where it is essential, to make projects viable, that buildings are erected with a relatively short life-span, say, 20 to 25 years, so as to keep capital costs to a reasonable level. Depreciation allowances would also help to halt the deterioration in our older, more traditional holiday resorts, where obsolescence in older buildings has meant a general air of seediness and depression amongst what were once fine period buildings. If I mention party conference venues, hon. Members will understand my meaning.
Holiday areas, for example, along the South and East Coasts do not fall within the development areas. The development areas which are receiving aid are industrial and not tourist. Holiday areas desperately require assistance if we are to maintain the standard of our domestic holiday trade which will otherwise go abroad to places with more modern facilities, with balconies and bathrooms, even if sometimes no water appears. We still rely on the age-old attraction of the aspidistra, and creaking corridors, and

719
even the use of the Hoffnung attraction of a "French widow in every room" no longer makes up for the other disadvantages.
The first priority desperately sought by the industry is a tax allowance on buildings. If this policy were implemented, the technique of introducing "shot in the arm" hotel grant schemes would not be necessary or desirable. Tax reliefs would provide funds for hotel development that would in turn promote tourism. In the meantime, an extension of the loans scheme would help to tide the industry over.
The other priorities are related to Government strategy and simplification. We have inherited four major boards to administer tourism. As the intricate grants and loans supervisory work begins to come to an end, I suggest that we shall need possibly only two such boards. First, we should need the British Tourist Authority which, under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Glen, has performed such a brilliant operation in selling Britain as a major attraction to the foreigner. This organisation would be responsible for marketing and political representation. Secondly, I suggest a combined England-Scotland-Wales Tourist Board to deal with our home tourist market and the regional structures and facilities. Again, I pay tribute to the work done by the teams in the existing boards in the short time they have been in operation.
We need not go on much longer with a four-part structure, with each board having equal status and able to make decisions different from the others, and each looking for specific technical direction from the Department of Trade and Industry which, with all respect to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, is perhaps best equipped to exert this specialist control. Here is an opportunity to reduce the size of the Government machine and to end the "who does what" confusion in the public's mind.
The second most important priority in the eyes of the industry is the abolition of the training board, and its replacement by a small training advisory unit. The arguments against the Hotel Catering Industrial Training Board are overwhelming. It is cumbersome, slow-moving and top-heavy in administration. Incident-
720
ally, it appears that over 40 per cent. of the Board's income is currently devoted to administrative and direct services to the industry, at a cost of £1·3 million, which is not acceptable to an over-taxed industry.
The future rôle of the Board must he in consultancy and advice, possibly on a fee-paying basis. What is required is a small establishment able to co-ordinate the expertise within the industry so as to frame recommendations which can be adapted to a firm's individual needs, with a small staff of qualified people commanding respect in the industry.
Finally, a general strategy for planning and infrastructure is needed. I should like to see tourist development areas rather than the present limited industrial development areas. The present system of channelling assistance into what are often non-tourist areas can only lead to a wastage of our valuable resources. We also need a general direction on planning attitudes, as many anomalies exist. On the one hand, the Minister for Transport Industries insists that advance warning signs can be allowed for establishments which provide a 24-hour service with petrol. On the other hand, a hotel or motel on a main route applying to the Minister for Local Government and Development for planning permission, is allowed to build if petrol facilities are not provided with the accommodation. The motorist needs clear advance warning signs of services ahead—accommodation, meals, petrol and rest areas. Let us design and plan a standard advance warning sign for use on our main roads and motorways. Surely the time has come for us also to consider whether overnight accommodation should not be provided on our motorways.
There are many aspects of tourist policy which need to be stated but, as several hon. Members wish to speak I will conclude by summarising the needs of the industry. The first priority is for the industry to be treated as an industry and to be allowed depreciation on buildings. The second priority is the abolition of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board and its replacement by an advisory service. The third priority is a close examination of the structure of the four-headed tourist body with a view to possible simplification. The fourth priority is a redefinition of tourism

721
development areas to replace or encompass the existing industrial development areas.
Given this strategy for the 1970s, backed by the enthusiasm and efforts of the Tourist Authority and Boards, with such keen dynamos as Sir Mark Henig of the English Tourist Board, and fully supported by the hard-working seven-day-a-week industry, the Government could produce a self-sufficient, modern tourist industry closely concerned about the needs of the home holiday demand and care for the environment and at the same time attracting more overseas visitors and enticing them away from our overcrowded capital into the beautiful and historic regions of this country of ours. The reform of the licensing laws, the creation of a major conference centre in London, better communications with the regions—all these are before us. I hope that we shall soon hear a clear statement of Government tourism policy for the 1970s, which will allow this great industry to produce the amenities and facilities needed by the ever-growing numbers of tourists and travellers.
1.48 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: We have listened to an able and wide-ranging speech setting out the needs of the tourist industry. I had always understood that Government policy was for the tourist industry to be treated as an industry. I agree that this is the first priority. I regard the grant system, which is to be phased out in 1973, as unnecessary when we have adopted the policy of treating the hotel industry as an industry. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter on the Finance Bill and that the Government, bearing in mind the new forward-looking measures in the Budget, will be able to say that when the grants are phased out in 1973 newly built hotels and extensions to hotels which are purpose-built will be entitled to the grant. I hope that we shall no longer hear the argument that it is difficult to define hotels, because the Development of Tourism Act lays down a clear demarcation between hotels, restaurants and other establishments associated with the catering industry.
Information from the Department of Trade for February shows an increase of nearly a quarter in the number of visitors
722
coming here—a figure of 182,000, which means an increase of 35,000. If spending continues at that rate the estimate that we shall earn over £660 million from tourism in 1971 will clearly be substantially exceeded.
That being the case, we have to face the problem that at the rate we are going London will be literally flooded with tourists within the next two years. The diffusion of tourism is vital to its future success. It is largely for that reason that the policy advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam), of having carefully selected development tourist areas, is essential. We must ensure that we have the necessary facilities in areas outside London—in coastal resorts, such as my constituency, and places like Eastbourne, and away in the West of England and even in the North, so that those coming here can be diffused out of the London area
The great need is medium-priced and low-priced accommodation, not only in London but outside, in cities and resorts where modern hotels, providing cheap accommodation, are required. To attract tourists to these areas it is necessary not merely to diffuse them but to secure attractive amenities. One of the really new upsurges of modern travel depends upon the convention, particularly the convention that comes here from abroad. We must create convention centres both in London and outside.
I ask the Government and the Department of Trade to make representation to ensure that the new Covent Garden site becomes the convention centre for London. It is the perfect site for that purpose. Such a site is badly needed, just as we need convention sites in other parts of the country for smaller conventions of agencies. The convention business in this country is still in its infancy. I agree with my hon. Friend about the general need to review the work of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board. It is top heavy, and too costly. An urgent review is required of that board and other boards, and I invite my hon. Friend to commend to the attention of his right hon. Friend the need to reconsider the position.
It is necessary to correlate the efforts of all the parties concerned in tourism. There are the B.T.A., the British Hotels

723
and Restaurants Association, the brewers, caterers' associations, and others. The Minister may be able to appeal to them to join together to provide one organisation, so that they may make the training boards truly effective. At present a lot of effort is being expended, but it is not concentrated. We must ensure that the regional boards are strong and truly representative, and that under their chairman they pursue a policy of promoting tourism in the regions. That will help to create the diffusion that is essential and, at the same time, ensure that the amenities and attractions of those areas are forcibly brought to the notice of travel agents, both at home and overseas.
1.54 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) on raising this very important subject. It is important both at his constituency level and over the country as a whole. No one who studies the subject can do other than recognise that we need, if not a Minister of Tourism then at least a Minister for Tourism.
The tourist industry is important to the national effort. It is a massive earner of currency. I should have thought that in the next two years we could go for an income from tourism of £1,000 million a year. The interesting thing is that for every person coming here from overseas and spending money in this country we are at least getting from him in currency the value of our export of Ford motor cars. If we lose the export value of some Ford motor cars because of strikes, or disruptions of any kind, we can regain it by persuading people to come here from abroad and spend their money.
Promotion is important. Nothing that is spent overseas on promoting Britain is wasted provided it is spent effectively. The national travel organisations both new and old have provided for Britain a good concept in the world. They nave put across a good picture of this country by amalgamating the old with the new in Britain. That is the right way to sell this country.
Once we have promoted the country we must provide the necessary facilities. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter and the Isle of Thanet
724
(Mr. Rees-Davies) who have stated that we are short of hotels in the medium-price and low-price range. We are sending large numbers of people abroad on package tours, and equally large numbers of people in Europe and elsewhere want to come here on cheap package tours. These people do not have large amounts of money to spend but they have sufficient to enable them to stay here at moderately-priced hotels. It is no use our providing hotels only in the high-price range.
One difficulty that arises in winter, particularly in London is the black market in hotel prices. People go round and engage in a kind of Dutch auction. I should have thought that it would be of value to the hotel industry if the prices of hotels were heavily reduced in the winter, so that many more people from abroad would be attracted to come to London. If hotel prices were reduced the rooms would be full. It is vital that the prices should be reduced openly and not under the counter.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that we need a convention centre. The number of conventions is increasing. Many business associations have yearly conventions, some of which are held abroad when they could well be held in this country. The Association of British Travel Agencies has held its last two conventions abroad and is likely to hold its next one abroad also, because no centre in this country can take it. Whether we create a convention centre in Covent Garden or on the south bank of the Thames, I do not care, but it should be in London. If we had a proper convention centre it would attract conventions from abroad and also persuade conventions from this country not to go abroad. It would mean people coming from overseas getting together so that we had a share of international business and industrial meetings. People coming from abroad would be able to see what this country can produce, and that would create a stimulus to trade.
Last summer we had the deplorable situation of many students coming here and being unable to find accommodation. The Minister should try to co-ordinate the work of various bodies to try to ensure that that does not happen this summer. Schools, university buildings and similar places should be made available. I am surprised that some of our

725
public schools do not make their houses available for the purpose. A bad image is created for this country if students who come here cannot obtain reasonably-priced accommodation and have to sleep in the parks.
It has been of great value to raise this subject today. The capacity of this country to earn through entertaining foreign visitors is still not fully realised. It is growing, and will continue to grow. It has massive potential, and I hope that the Minister and the Government will put their weight behind that potential.
2.0 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) for raising this subject and also for the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). All of them have expert and specialised knowledge of the subject. I have listened to their contributions with great interest. Tourism is an important element in our national economy and its importance is growing year by year. In 1966 earnings accruing from visits to the United Kingdom by overseas residents amounted to £219 million. For 1970 the figure was £433 million, nearly double. During the same period the number of visitors grew from just under 4 million to 6¾ million and we expect the increase to continue. The British Tourist Authority estimates that we shall have 10 million visitors by 1975.
This is a success story and results from the efforts of many inviduals and organisations both public and private. The Government have given and will continue to give assistance. A major contribution continues to be made by the Tourist Boards set up under the Development of Tourism Act, 1969. These Boards are financed mainly by Government grants. The British Tourist Authority has been notably successful in attracting visitors to our shores and the English, Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards are making a splendid contribution towards the task of encouraging the provision and improvement of facilities and amenities needed, not only for visitors from overseas, but also for the home holidaymaker.
726
The country boards have shown that they appreciate the importance of working in consultation and in close co-operation with local interests. Growth of tourism can help bring prosperity to a region and I am sure that, encouraged by the activities of the Tourist Boards, local interests will be ready to support, both financially and in other ways, the formation of strong and effective regional tourist organisations. I recognise that defining regions for this purpose can give rise to difficult problems but I am confident that satisfactory solutions will be found. I have no doubt at all that local initiative and enterprise is of crucial importance to the success of a policy of encouragement of tourism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter in his interesting and well-informed speech made certain comments on the tourist organisation as such. He made the suggestion that perhaps the National Tourist Boards should be amalgamated into a single body. This raises the whole question of the machinery of government which we cannot discuss today. It should be borne in mind when considering co-ordination between the Boards that the National Board Chairmen also sit upon the British Tourist Authority Board. This helps co-ordination. The development of tourism in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of the respective Secretaries of State to whom the Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards are responsible.
Very careful thought was given to the question of the right sort of organisation for tourism by the House during the consideration of the 1969 Act. It was concluded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who was particularly active at that time, that a separate Tourist Board for England was needed. It was for this reason, when in opposition, that we pressed our Amendment providing for the setting up of the English Tourist Board. I have been impressed by the excellent co-operation that has developed between the three National Boards. At the same time, however, this is not inhibiting the development of distinct characteristics which will, I believe, lead to interesting variety in the sort of holiday facilities we have to offer. For my part I think that the new tourist organisation is doing a very good job and shaping up well.

727
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet rightly drew attention to the problem of London and the necessity to spread tourism into other parts of the country. Over-concentration in London and a few other centres of attraction is one of the problems. Regional tourist organisations can play a part in the task of demonstrating to the tourist that we have much more to offer for their enjoyment and entertainment in other parts of the country.
My hon. Friend also referred to Covent Garden. The G.L.C. plan is to use part of the Covent Garden site for a comprehensive development which would include conference halls, restaurants, etc. The cost is estimated at £5 million and it is proposed that the development should be undertaken in conjunction with private enterprise. The scheme will be considered during the summer as part of the overall plan for the development of the area so that if approval is given construction could begin as soon as the market is moved to its new site in 1973. I understand that the G.L.C. is considering proposals for the use of part of the Covent Garden site for a centre of this kind but that no decision has yet been taken. I am sure that it will take note of the point made by my hon. Friend.
The hotel industry has responded very well to the incentive scheme introduced in the 1969 Act. Indeed, the additional amount of accommodation which will become available will far exceed the original estimate. This was intended to be a short-term scheme and as has been made clear, while we shall honour commitments made in accordance with it, we shall not extend it.
We think that reduction of the tax burden is a better way to help the hotel industry than a general system of grants and loans. The reduction of selective employment tax announced by the Chancellor will be particularly beneficial to this industry. Modernisation of hotels must be a continuing process and it is here that the industry will benefit particularly from the new system of depreciation allowances on plant and machinery introduced in October.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and others drew attention to the need for a depreciation allowance for buildings as well. I have noted what my hon.
728
Friend has said about a depreciation allowance for hotel buildings and I understand the arguments put forward. I am sure that they will appreciate this is a matter primarily for the Chancellor and I know that he is aware of the arguments. He will no doubt take note of what has been said in the debate. My hon. Friends will have an opportunity to pursue this matter further during the Finance Bill proceedings.
Along with the rest of industry the relief accorded by the reduction in corporation tax also announced in the Budget will help to make finance available for further improvements and developments.
Perhaps I could refer to the interesting point put forward by my hon. Friend on the question of tourist development areas. I know that this is a subject in which he takes a great interest and has studied carefully. I entirely agree that the present development areas are not necessarily areas of special tourist potential, although I would be the first to admit that the development areas include some wonderful country for holidays. Our decision to provide funds to assist the tourist projects in the development areas was taken in the interests of helping the economies of those areas which have special problems rather than in the narrower interests of tourism.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in thinking that it will be necessary to identify those parts of the country which have real potential for development. This is not an easy problem. It will involve careful and long-term research to find out what sort of things the tourists of the future will want to do and where we can provide these facilities. Our National Tourist Boards are conscious of this need and I am sure that they will be interested in what has been said today.
I am confident that, assisted by the measures which the Government have taken generally, the many interests concerned will be able to provide accommodation, amenities and facilities for visitors from overseas and for those of us who spend our holidays in Britain. I agree about the need to provide lower-priced accommodation. I was intrigued by the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford that universities, and perhaps, schools, might be used to provide student

729
accommodation. I have noticed that this is done abroad a great deal, and further thought will be given to this interesting suggestion.
I have referred to the many interests concerned with this activity, because tourism is a matter of much more than hotels. The Tourist Boards are fully aware of the importance of the provision of other facilities and amenities, such as motels, youth hostels, camping and caravan sites, historic houses and stately homes, and festivals of music and drama, all of which have before them exciting possibilities of development.
Consistently with our general economic policies and relying on self-help and private initiative rather than subsidies we shall continue to encourage the expansion of tourism, and I have no doubt that from this source we can expect a growing contribution towards our overseas earnings. My hon. Friends may rest assured that we have noted with great care their many interesting suggestions, which we shall study carefully as, no doubt, will the Tourist Boards; and will do everything we can to encourage what is a vitally important sector of British industry as a whole.

CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN)
2.12 p.m.
Mr. E. S. Bishop: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of initiating a debate on discrimination against women within the Civil Service. We must ask ourselves what are the criteria for assessing whether there is discrimination in the Civil Service. Unless the Minister and I have common criteria we shall get nowhere, and I should like him to say early in his reply whether he accepts my view.
Millions will claim, and I am one of them, that in modern marriage and family life partners should both be able to contribute or to have dual rôles, that of running their home and family life, and at the same time, if they wish, that of following a career. This involves each partner in a joint rôle domestically and outside the home, and society should so fashion its procedures as to make both rôles possible for men and women. If it fails to do so, and either deliberately or thoughtlessly hinders men and women in their wish to
730
live as unstunted and fully developed beings, discrimination is proved, and this should be a situation of top priority for change.
In a recent publication "Sex, Career and Family", Michael Fogarty, the Director of the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, and Rhona and Robert Rapoport, senior social scientists of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations say:
"What is important in the long run is not simply the removal of barriers to women's entry into a world of work which would otherwise remain unchanged but the positive promotion of new attitudes and practices on the part of both men and women, at work and in the family, to take account of the new fact of women's new high level careers…".
They suggest that action on race discrimination is building up a volume of experience of positive as well as preventive procedures which it will be well worth while to bring to bear on the problems of women's work. I believe, as do many others, that formal equality of right does not lead to actual equality of right between the sexes unless at the same time a profound change takes place in our social and industrial order, and in our outlook.
Fundamentally, few seek to discriminate, and where it exists discrimination is often the result of an attitude of mind. Women are still tied and bound and restricted by the nylon cords of tradition and out-of-date attitudes, and just as securely as their suffragette grandmothers who were chained to the railings in Whitehall. They and I, and many other men, too, look to Whitehall to set an example in breaking those chains so that men and women may grow to their full stature, which their Creator intended for them.
I begin my plea not by attacking the Minister and the head of the Civil Service, because I know that the Minister can bring a very strong case to refute allegations of discrimination. I can anticipate his replies in which he will remind me of the progress made in recent years in recruitment, pay and conditions of service, and so on, and this will give him the opportunity of telling the country just what thinking is going on, and what the progress is likely to be in the near future.
I was encouraged to read the speech made by Sir William Armstrong, head

731
of the home Civil Service in January, 1970, when addressing a meeting of the Women's National Commission, in which he anticipated some of the changes likely in the rôle of women within the Civil Service. I am aware also that the Civil Service was a forerunner in the granting of equal pay, much to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sower-by (Mr. Houghton) among others.
I want to discuss the issue for two reasons, among others: first, because I know that there is tremendous interest in the need for more and speedier reforms in reassessing the rôle of women in modern society and, second, because I believe, as others do, that the Civil Service, being State-run, should set an example and a lead to commerce and industry and to employers generally on the standards we might expect.
My main pressure will be brought on the need to allow recruitment of people on grounds of suitability rather than sex; to allow more women to expect full or part-time jobs in the more responsible work; to provide more facilities, having regard to family responsibilities, to allow them to work and make fuller use of their ability and their potential; to facilitate transfer of pension rights for those entering the Service or those wishing to leave it—and this is a most important point—and also to encourage far better educational facilities, making entry into the Service and, of course, the enhancement of career prospects, much improved.
Speaking a year ago about recruitment, Sir William Armstrong claimed that there was
"…no discrimination in recruitment between men and women except for a very few jobs…"
But it was admitted that
"…most women civil servants are in the lower ranks of the service. Only 8 per cent. of the administrative class are women, while 44 per cent. of the clerical class are women."
He said that in July, 1969,
"…here were 29 Permanent Secretaries, none of whom was a woman; only two out of 74 Deputy Secretaries were women and 9 out of 274 Under-Secretaries were women."
These figures show the extent to which there may be discrimination, or grounds for change for other reasons.
Sir William continued:
"A similar pattern, with women clustered in the lower grades occurs in the executive
732
class where 20 per cent, of the total are women. No women hold the highest posts, while the executive officer grade, the lowest grade in this class, has 23 per cent. women."
On 22nd February, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), whose concern about discrimination has resulted in her seeking to bring in an anti-discrimination Bill for Second Reading on 7th May, the Minister provided a list of a hundred or so jobs in the Civil Service for which women were considered unsuitable. Between us, my hon. Friend and I tabled a couple of dozen Parliamentary Questions asking the Minister to review the list in order to allow women to be recruited.
There has been quite unprecedented publicity about my concern that women might become Yeomen of the Guard. Some may think that in these days of many other problems an hon. Member has something better to think about; but, as I said, I have suggested many other jobs in Questions for review by the Minister.
Having now spent many hours looking through the five very thick volumes of the Fulton Report on the Civil Service to get the kind of atmosphere and climate or background of current thinking, I was rather struck by the outlook of the past in which there may still be some resistance to change. Indeed, in Chapter 1, paragraph 1, we are reminded:
"The Home Civil Service today is still fundamentally the product of the nineteenth-century philosophy of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report. The tasks it faces are those of the second half of the twentieth-century."
Incidentally, the Northcote-Trevelyan Report was published in 1854.
As far as I can see, there is no reference in the Report to the special need to keep a much fairer balance between the sexes in manpower. The latest figures showing the numbers of men and women employed indicate that the Civil Service is still very much a man's world.
We all know and appreciate that India and Israel have enormous problems and that they have considered that women Prime Ministers are required to deal with them; but in Britain we have not yet got to the stage where we think that a woman is fit to become an ambassador.

733
The Diplomatic Service is woefully lacking in womanpower with only 47 women to 1,062 men.
Looking through the tables one sees a lack of balance in other ways, too. There are no women county court clerks. The National Savings Commissioners number 170 men and two women, even though most of us appreciate that housewives are quite good at being Chancellors of the Exchequer.
There is no custom of employing women in the Excise Department which has one woman compared with 5,489 men. The Immigration Service, where I think most of us would feel that women were particularly suitable and had a contribution to make, has 874 men and only two women.
Women can give birth to and rear children, but they are not considered fit to he calf-certifying officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Only six women work for the Animal Health Inspectorate compared with 386 men.
There are only half-a-dozen women gas meter examiners compared with 135 men. I should think that it was time that the penny dropped that there should be a few more women carrying out this job.
As I said earlier, two women can steer their countries through troubled times, but on messengerial work we do not trust women to steer motor vehicles as motor vehicle drivers. There are 254 male accountants and only three women doing that job in the Civil Service. In the engineering disciplines, the levers of power are in the hands of 3,767 men and a mere 29 women. Here again, as one connected with engineering, I see no reason for more women not being encouraged to be educated and trained and given opportunities in engineering in which they can often hold their own with men provided that they get the opportunity.
One can go on making comparisons of this kind. I ask: why the arrogant assumption that men must run the State machine? Why are we allowing the potential which women have to offer to run to waste?
On education, which I suspect is largely bound with this problem, the Fulton Report may give the secret when, in
734
Vol. 1, paragraph 79, it says that the Civil Service aim is
"to secure for the Service the best man or woman for the job, with the education, training and attitudes appropriate to it."
If there is no discrimination, the Minister will undoubtedly allege that women are nowhere in the running on these and educational grounds.
In reply to a Question which I tabled to the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 22nd March I was told:
"In 1969, 198,139 boys aged 15 to 17, 39·7 per cent. of those in employment, received day or block release for further education; the corresponding figures for girls were 54,619 and 10·4 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 63.]
In other words, in round figures, the ratio of those getting day-release facilities was 4 to 1 in favour of the males. In further and higher education generally the position is not much better, because there is a ratio of three boys to one girl getting those advantages. This seems an extraordinary situation for a country which can allege that there is no discrimination. Surely, if we think that women are fit only to carry out serf jobs, we should continue to gear our educational system to fit them for that rôle in our society and they will always be eligible for the unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. It seems that we have geared our educational system towards that kind of outlook and philosophy.
I obviously do not want to go too deeply into the educational system in this debate, but it is relevant to recruitment in the Civil Service. We must radically overhaul our educational system to allow the full development of the latent and special abilities of our girls and women so that they can grow into the fuller developed and mature individuals which they ought to have the chance of becoming. It is a wonder that, despite being denied the advantages of the males, women have managed to hold their own in this kind of situation.
Women's dual rôle should make their education and training of double importance. I should like to know whether the Civil Service College is making that challenge a top priority.
It may be that women civil servants are not easily come by, either because of inadequate educational opportunities or because they may appreciate, as many

735
do, the enormous barriers which they have to overcome for entry and advancement in the Civil Service. Equally, the Civil Service may not wish to risk spending on the training of women who may leave the Service on marriage or motherhood. But are not these problems challenges to be faced and overcame rather than reasons or excuses for inaction?
What about planning for such natural eventualities? What about retraining on re-entry after marriage and motherhood for a resumed career prospect? Why judge highly qualified women not only on their performance but on other female staff whose absenteeism rate may be higher, and bar their entry into higher grades and posts of greater responsibility?
I am sorry that the Fulton Report devotes only one page out of hundreds to the subject of women in the Civil Service, apart from a couple of pages of tables at the end. I am sorry that only about eight women gave personal evidence to the Fulton Commission compared with over 260 men. They may have done something as members of organisations, but those were the personal evidence figures.
The universities and school career advisers must, I feel sure, advertise and advise on opportunities in the Civil Service to encourage more applications from girls. The Civil Service must also recognise the changing pattern of marriage and family life, allowing girls to enter the Service and to re-enter later after having a family. I think also that the Minister must look into the situation of pensions and the transferability of pension rights for those entering the Service from other jobs and for those leaving the Service to go elsewhere.
Certainly I hope the Minister will remind his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make some radical changes in the education and training of women for, as the Fulton Report says, even though women do compete on less-than-equal terms with men, they are likely to be better qualified in the formal sense than their male colleagues in the same grade. If women are to enter and make progress in many professions where they are not conspicuous by their numbers, they often have to be far better than the men with whom they work.
736
The problem is not one of sex but one of identity. Whereas at the time when the functions of the Civil Service were laid down, when another Queen reigned, women were not expected to gratify their sexual needs, today women are not allowed to gratify their basic needs. That means growing into fully-developed human beings. I do not think, incidentally, that Dr. Greer's obsession with women's sexual rôle is germane to our discussion of this problem.
The challenge is to call upon all, in private and public industry, and the Civil Service, to a change of attitude. To discriminate is to devalue people. We can do that thoughtlesly by not challenging and changing outmoded attitudes. The Civil Service, with Parliament, can, for example, unchain women as the suffragettes were unchained from the railing 60 years ago. I suggest that the unchaining can start now in Whitehall.
2.32 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: It might seem wiser to let what the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) said lie on the Floor, but I think it right that somebody other than the Minister should challenge or disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said, because I have seen so often in the past that pressure groups, constantly exercising their pressure, year in and year out, even though they may be totally unrepresentative of public opinion, nevertheless begin to acquire an effect and influence the course of public affairs. Many of the absurdities in our arrangements derive from the unchecked activities of pressure groups.
The hon. Member for Newark has every right to his views. He has persistently pressed them in this House year after year, and it would be dangerous if the impression got abroad that he represents the House or that there is no adverse and contrary view. What worries me about the hon. Gentleman's views is that inherent in them there is this utter the total disregard and disparagement of the rôle of women in society as women. He takes the view, and he has said it in so many words today, that when a women is a wife and a mother, making a home, one can think of her potential as running to waste. I should be inclined to think that in the case of a woman Excise officer, her potential was running to waste.

737
There are a good many men who become old women quite early in life—
Mr. Bishop: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bell: —but not many women want to become third-rate men. The hon. Gentleman should realise that there are real distinctions between men and women—not merely physical distinctions but mental and emotional differences. The inequality of numbers in certain occupations which the hon. Gentleman has described simply derive from the fact that men want to do certain things and women, on balance, want to do other things. There is, of course, an immense area of overlap, and the degree to which there is overlap varies from one occupation to another. But when he looks at the Customs and Excise and says that it comprises virtually 100 per cent. men, I could point out that in the maternity ward of any hospital one would find that the occupants are 100 per cent. women. So in varying degrees in other activities of life we find this differentiation. It is fallacious logic which says that because women have babies, they are therefore peculiarly qualified to be calf-certification officers. I do not see the logical consequence there, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman.
It became clear as the hon. Gentleman developed his theme, as he has developed it on other occasions, that what he expects to see—I took his words down—as a matter of fairer balance is that, for example, the administrative grade in the Civil Service should contain an equal number of men and women, and that in the other grades the same should apply. If the hon. Gentleman analyses what he said, he will see that he assumed as a matter of conclusive presumption that whenever there is a numerical difference there must be some adverse and unfair discrimination.
This assumes two things—first, that men and women as such are equally qualified for all occupations, which is plainly not true, because they are different in temperament and in inherent gifts; women will be better in some things and men will be better in others. One should not look for numerical equality in all occupations. The other equally fallacious assumption is that men and women want to do the same things. They do not. What the hon. Gentleman and his col-
738
leagues in the feminist movement are always trying to do is to push women, as a matter of their political principle, into doing things which women are in no way deprived legally from doing but which they do not want to do to the same degree as men do. They want to do other things.
The hon. Gentleman might have instanced—but he did not—that the majority of teachers are, in fact, women. If we consider the primary stage of education we find that the proportion of those teaching young children is overwhelmingly women, which indeed is natural and what one would expect. Just as women give birth to children and are concerned with their early nurture, so they have not an exclusive rôle in the education of young children but a predominant rôle, and that gradually and proportionately varies as the children get older. To me that seems a very natural and sensible arrangement.
Mr. Bishop: When I made the point about the gross imbalance of numbers, I was not suggesting that there should be parity of numbers in all situations. I was talking about the need for equal opportunities so that people can do certain jobs if they so wish. The figures show clearly that this is not so. On the occasion when the hon. and learned Gentleman opposed my Matrimonial Property Bill, which was concerned only with giving both parties to divorces equal rights, I was concerned with equity between people, and he is again showing his dislike for fairness, especially as it applies to women.
Mr. Bell: I do not think you would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to embark on consideration of the Matrimonial Property Bill. Indeed, I think it would he out of order in this debate on the Adjournment of the House to refer to any legislation, although the hon. Gentleman, with his brief reference, has got away with it. Therefore, I will not attempt to answer that one.
What I was saying—I think that what the hon. Gentleman reinforces—is that he assumes from disparate numbers that there must be inequity. I challenge that. Disparate numbers show nothing of the kind in a free society, which is what we have, for, be it remembered, there are no legal impediments. The balance of

739
numbers in all these occupations shows two things, and two things only: one, the relative average ability of men and women in particular occupations; two, the relative preference of men and women in different occupations.
All that the hon. Gentleman can do in a society in which there are no legal impediments is to try to exercise pressure either by propaganda or by twiddling the knobs of administrative power, that is, by harassing my hon. Friend—though he is well able to defend himself—and in that way to try to distort the natural pattern. That is all.
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that what is needed now is positive procedures. That is what he meant—coercive or, at the very least, persuasive procedures to coerce or persuade people to do what, left alone, they do not want to do. This is the brainwashing technique. It underlay the race relations legislation which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I opposed for the same reason. I believe that the law has no function to perform here. In a free society in which nobody is prevented by law from doing anything which he may reasonably wish to do and nobody is coerced to do things in the ordinary run of life which he does not want to do, people should he left alone. "Leave people alone" is not good Socialist doctrine, but it is good Conservative doctrine that people should be left alone to get on with their lives as they wish.
Mr. Bishop Mr. Bishop rose—
Mr. Bell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, for not giving way, but I have in mind the interests of other hon. Members who have subsequent Adjournment debates.
Those matters being so, to conclude as the hon. Gentleman did that to discriminate is to devalue is completely to misunderstand the rôle of discrimination. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say, but I hope that he will say that the Civil Service is, and will be, fair and equal but that, where there are relevant differences between men and women, it will not shrink from "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong in discriminating. It is the peculiarly human function of the mind to discriminate. One should
740
discriminate between everyone one meets upon every ground that one can detect, and any law which says that one should not do so is a bad law, because discrimination is always right. Of course, the attachment of disproportionate consequences to observed differences is another matter. But the process of discrimination is always right, and ought never to be disparaged or discouraged in any way out of muddled-minded doctrinaire obsessions with particular political objectives.
2.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for the sincere and comprehensive way in which he presented his argument. I am grateful also to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for his contribution from a rather different point of view, and for his reminder—if I understood and can encapsulate his argument aright—that, whether men and women are or are not, or should or should not be, equal, they are not the same.
We have heard two valuable points of view expressed, and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to say something, perhaps, from the rather narrower standpoint of the actual subject of the debate, that is, the employment of women in the Civil Service.
The hon. Member for Newark very fairly said that he expected me to refute the allegation of unfair and unreasonable discrimination in the Civil Service. I refute it at the outset. We can fairly say that the Civil Service today has reason to be proud of its employment record for both men and women. It has, in fact. generally been ahead of other employers in achieving equality in conditions of employment for men and women. Since the 1930s, women have been able to compete equally with men for entry into the general service classes, since 1946 all married women have been able to continue their employment in the Civil Service, and since 1962 women have had equal pay. In many fields outside the Civil Service, these conditions have not yet been achieved.
It is correct, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, that some departmental

741
posts have not been open to women, and there are, or have been in the past, four main sets of reasons why this should be so. I shall return to these in a moment, but I emphasise at this stage that though some of these reasons obviously can be, must be, and are under review, some stand firmly on grounds of practicality and common sense.
The four categories of reason are these. In some cases, the experience or skill required in a job is just not available to women. This applies, for instance, to the printing trades and the building trades in which no women have the skills in the jobs involved, sometimes for reasons of union restriction, and sometimes for other reasons of practice and tradition.
The second category of reason is straightforward accommodation difficulties. An obvious situation here arises where a job involves seagoing in a ship or something like that.
The third kind of reason—I say frankly that this is much the most straightforward and, to my mind, perhaps the most obvious and common-sense reason—is that the work is heavy or involves rough conditions and is just not suitable for women.
The fourth kind of reason is that women may be unacceptable to staff, customers or clients. One has in mind here, for example, the situation in all-male penal institutions or something like that.
Those are the four sets of reasons which have governed the situation hitherto, though I emphasise again that these reasons have been reviewed at intervals over the years, they are being reviewed, and it is right that they should be under review. Moreover, it should be remembered that restrictions have been removed over the years from many jobs, so that we have now moved to the stage at which only a marginally small proportion of posts in the Service are still restricted to men.
As I say, there are certain practical difficulties in some institutions in removing restrictions altogether on the employment of women. Nevertheless, in areas of the kind which I have described, we are not content that the situation should remain unchanged or that the reason that things have always been so should be taken as a reason why they should remain
742
so. If the opportunity arises, and if women wish to fill these posts, we are anxious constantly to review these questions and see whether there are possibilities for the removal of restrictions.
During the last year, restrictions have been removed from quite a few jobs in the Civil Service. These include immiagration officers and the Customs and Excise officers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. We are continuing this review, and we do not regard the fact that some posts have traditionally been filled by men as of itself alone justification for continuing to fill them in that way. Needs change, attitudes change, and the possibilities change. The Government's position is that in future there will have to be other and better reasons than those for the exclusion of women from particular jobs, so I expect that, as time goes on we shall see a steady reduction in the relatively small number of jobs now restricted to men.
I come now to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman. He referred to recruitment. I hope that he will accept a reassurance from me about this. Women have been eligible to apply for entry to the general Service and most of the Departmental classes since the 1930s, and almost half the entry to the executive officer grade at this time are women. The hon. Gentleman may like to know also that the proportion of women who gain entry into the executive officer grade is slightly higher than the proportion of women who have the educational qualifications for entry to that grade. This is evidence of free opportunity for entry into the Service. The situation is broadly similar for other groups in the Service. Women have represented an increasing proportion of successful applications for entry into what used to be known as the assistant principal grade, that is, the basic grade in the former Administrative Class. Last year 30·5 per cent. of the successful applicants for the Assistant Principal entry were women. That proportion was slightly higher than the proportion of women graduating in the previous year. Therefore, any allegation of bias in recruitment for the Civil Service can be firmly refuted by the evidence.
The evidence available to us on promotion has not led us to the conclusion that there is discrimination against women.

743
More women than men tend to decline promotion, particularly where it involves a move and they cannot, for example, for domestic reasons, meet that obligation. The fact that the proportion of women to men becomes smaller in the higher grades of the Service is explained by the fact that a higher proportion of women leave the Service for personal reasons. So a case cannot be made out for saying that the system of recruitment and promotion as a whole reflects a bias against them.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the Diplomatic Service. There has been a woman British Ambassador, Dame Barbara Salt who was appointed to be Ambassador to Israel, but unfortunately was too ill to take up her appointment. Therefore, it is not strictly true to say that there has never been a British woman Ambassador.
I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman got his figures for the numbers of women in the senior reaches of the diplomatic service. Mine are that there are two Consuls-General, five Counsellors, 48 First Secretaries and 86 Second Secretaries, making a total of 141 women. That gives a rather fairer picture of the situation.
I believe that this picture shows that, while as a matter of indisputable fact the vast majority of higher posts in the home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service are filled by men, that is in no way because of conscious or deliberate discrimination nor because there is bias in the promotion ladder. It is simply that women decline promotion, that they leave for various reasons, such as to get married, or that a smaller number of women come forward in the first place who wish of their own accord to involve themselves in the higher posts.
The terms and conditions of employment of women in the non-industrial Civil Service since 1946 have been the same as for men. Since 1962 women have had equal pay.
There is absolutely no distinction within the Civil Service between men and women for either Civil Service or external training courses. Both boys and girls have the same opportunities for attending the day-release courses.
There is no discrimination on pensions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about
744
transferability. We recognise that that is very important, and obviously it is included in the general review of superannuation in the Civil Service which is now going on. But there is no difference, except that women who resign for reasons connected with their marriage can, if they subsequently return to the Service, count their previous service towards their pension. No one else can do that, so if a difference exists it is on the side of women in this case.
In the past some allowances have discriminated against women in money terms. One of these discriminations, on removal expenses, has been ended, and the others are all being reviewed.
The allegation of discrimination in the Civil Service does not stand up, when we examine the record, the situation and the kind of jobs from which women are now excluded. But I repeat that we are never satisfied that the traditions and assumptions of one period necessarily are valid in the next. Therefore, the matter is under constant review. Moreover, last summer the Committee on the Employment of Women in the Civil Service was set up, with far-reaching terms of reference. It is now at work, intends to produce a report in the, I hope, fairly near future, which I believe will be a valuable guide to us on these matters.
Even in some of the areas where at first glance it might appear that the heavy or rough work criterion rules out the employment of women, we are keeping the posts concerned under review. If women wish to take on such work, even though they are aware of the problems and difficulties, and if it is judged that it is a reasonable line for the Civil Service as the employer to take, all question of exclusion or restriction will be lifted.
In short, the picture we can present in the Civil Service is of an organisation which is taking the lead, which is setting the example. I believe that in the future—indeed, it would be quite unacceptable if it were otherwise—women will provide a growing share of the talent and ability of the Civil Service.
Mr. Bishop: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am glad that his general line has been in keeping with his party's manifesto, of which I approve on the need to get rid of discrimination, regardless of what his

745
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) says. How soon may we expect to see a charter of rights for women in the Civil Service? This is what I think many people are awaiting anxiously.
Mr. Howell: Nothing in the way of a charter or rights is planned, but when the report from the Committee is received by the Government we shall consider whether to publish it, depending on our judgment of its value and the value of publishing it, and that will obviously carry us forward. But we do not see any great value in charters. Charters can be written ad nauseam; the main thing is to create a situation in which opportunities are available and talent is used, whether of men or of women.

AMPHETAMINES
2.57 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: Over the past few years there has been a growing concern about the use and abuse of amphetamines and a growing realisation that they have a very limited medical use. In this debate I should like to touch on some of the problems, and to draw attention to what I believe to be one of the most hopeful schemes for tackling the problem that we have seen in this country.
First, it is worth emphasising that the use of amphetamines brings with it considerable risks. I say this because even today, even after all the publicity that there has been, it does not always seem to be realised. Although heroin is generally accepted as a dangerous drug, there is still an assumption that the limited use of amphetamines is relatively harmless. This may spring from the common description of amphetamines as pep pills. But at drug dependence clinics many of the patients are treated because amphetamines are the major drug of dependence. For example, in the Nottingham drug dependence clinic almost half the patients treated during the year have amphetamines as the major drug of dependence.
Amphetamines are stimulants which affect the central nervous system. They include dexledrine and the mixtures like drinamyl, the old purple hearts, and the so-called black bombers. Far from being
746
safe, their use can lead to psychosis, and when this happens the user must be withdrawn. In the depressed period which follows there is the risk of suicide, and after-care may take six to 12 months. In some cases the patients will need continuous psychiatric supervision and treatment. In the words of the British Medical Association working party, which reported at the end of 1968, their misuse can produce mental and physical deterioration. In short, amphetamines are a problem to be taken very seriously.
There is one other point worth making. We sometimes think of this problem as being confined to young people. There is no question that it is a problem of young people and that many of them are introduced to the illegal drug scene by way of amphetamines. But it cannot be pretended that it is confined to them. Half the people admitted to psychiatric hospitals in the period 1966 to 1968 and who were shown to have used amphetamines were women. Half these women were aged over 30. This perhaps throws some light on the problem of the middle-aged woman using amphetamines, perhaps for purposes of slimming or to combat depression but who are put at risk as a result.
This brings me to the problem of prescription. The middle-aged woman does not get her amphetamines from the clubs or discotheques but through prescriptions from doctors. In 1969, 1,700,000 prescriptions for amphetamines were made in England and Wales. I realise that this was a reduction on the totals for 1967 and 1968, but by any measure it is still formidable. The effect does not stop with just those people for whom amphetamines are prescribed. There is also a risk that pills surplus to requirements get into the black market. There is even a risk that children may find them lying about at home. There is also the attendant fact that chemists' shops have to keep stocks. I shall come to that later, but I should say now that, although I am a parliamentary adviser to the Pharmaceutical Society, I am not in this debate stating a society view of the situation.
At this stage, I should distinguish between the ordinary general practitioners and the few rogue doctors thrown up in the last few years. Every profession has its rogues and the medical profession is

747
no exception. But it should be emphasised that it has only a handful. These rogue doctors have operated in various ways. The simplest way is plain over-prescription. Some doctors, particularly in London, have been prepared to prescribe amphetamines for all kinds of people. They become rapidly known to the users, who flock to them. Their conduct is utterly irresponsible and it is reassuring that in the last few years some of them have been brought to justice.
We should recognise the part which newspapers have played in exposing these men. In particular, the Daily Mail carried out a number of investigations with great care and success. We look forward to the Daily Mail carrying on this valuable rôle over to the new paper which it is to become.
But it would be a mistake to think that such doctors only operate from dingy surgeries and street corners. One or two are fashionable doctors with smart consulting rooms. I think, in particular, of the one or two doctors who specialise in slimming treatment and prescribe amphetamines for purposes of slimming. Here the pickings can be rich. One practice is reputed to have a turnover running into several hundred thousand pounds a year.
No, only do the middle-aged want slimming treatment, but also, of course, there is a demand from young girls of 17 or 18, straight from school or college, who also require this kind of treatment. What is objectionable here is not only that amphetamines should be prescribed but that those who take them are not told what they are. I have had one case referred to me. A girl of 18 went a couple of years ago to one of these doctors I have referred to for slimming treatment. She was given various tablets to take. Some of them are in the bottle I have here. It is only now that we find that quite unknown to her these pills are amphetamines—that is what she was prescribed. It is worth stating that authoritative medical opinion holds that amphetamines have no use in slimming treatment. They also have no use for the treatment of depression or fatigue. Their use is confined to one fortunately rare condition, that of narcolepsy.
Some of the black sheep in the medical profession have already been dealt with,
748
and it is my hope that the others will be dealt with when the Misuse of Drugs Bill becomes law. But that still leaves the problem of the perfectly legal prescription, and here I draw attention to a scheme started in Ipswich and now extended elsewhere which I believe is a very great step forward. Under this scheme, doctors have voluntarily agreed in these areas to restrict the prescribing of amphetamines. This amounts to a voluntary ban on prescribing except in very few special cases. They have worked together in co-operation with the local pharmacists and the scheme has had two major effects.
First, it means that the number of prescriptions has fallen dramatically. In Ipswich, for example, there are now no more than a dozen prescriptions a year for amphetamines. It means that there is no opportunity for tablets to get into other hands and into the black market.
Secondly, it means that, as pharmacists know that doctors will not be prescribing amphetamines, there is no need for them to keep big stocks. This is a major advantage, because break-ins to chemists' shops have provided a great source of supplies of amphetamines for the black market. This has been a big problem in some cities, including Nottingham, but the problem has been virtually solved overnight by such action in these areas.
The scheme has now spread far beyond Ipswich. I understand from the British Medical Association today that it is now in operation in about 30 out of a possible 200 areas. These areas include major cities like Glasgow, Liverpool and Nottingham, and also central London and areas like Hertfordshire. It is an excellent scheme and is worth supporting and encouraging by the Government in every way.
Clearly, legislation on drugs is important but that alone is not the answer. Voluntary agreements have already shown their worth. I refer here to the problem of methedrine and injectable methedrine of a few years ago, when serious abuse occurred. By the action of the medical profession and the Pharmaceutical Society, supplies of methedrine were confined to hospital pharmacies and the problem was solved by that voluntary action. I believe that the voluntary scheme which is now being undertaken by many doctors also has that potential.

749
The aim should be to extend these voluntary agreements so that the whole country is eventually covered, and therefore I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State not only to give support to this valuable scheme but to give an undertaking to take all steps to assist and encourage its extension.
3.10 p.m.
Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) for the chance briefly to intervene in this important debate and to pay my tribute to the work of Dr. Frank Wells, Dr. Roy Webb and their colleagues in Ipswich whose research and initiative introduced the scheme in my constituency in the first place. I mention research because one of the important things which Dr. Wells and his colleagues did was to look at the nature of amphetamines and the extent to which they were relevant to many of the diseases for which they were prescribed. Over and over again the same reason why they were being used as a palliative came out—that they had simply become something which hard-pressed members of the medical profession were being expected to hand out to their patients because their patients wanted something visible to be the result of a trip to the surgery.
The immediate result has been that Ipswich to all intents and purposes, with very few exceptions, has gone dry, at least of amphetamines, and a development resulting from that is that the medical risks, the social nuisance and the financial burden which my hon. Friend mentioned as being some of the great disadvantages of the over-prescription of these drugs have been significantly cut. It may also be to that, fortunately, that in the County Borough of Ipswich we can attribute the remarkably low crime figures over the last few years, as opposed to the situation in other parts of the country, such as Hertfordshire, where the manufacture of drugs of this sort has led to a constant series of cases both of breaking and entering and the misuse of drugs at both quarter sessions and assizes.
I hope that the Minister will be able to go from here to consider the broad question of over-prescription of all kinds of prepared drugs, because I believe that the lesson of the Ipswich experiment is
750
that in the long run so often it has turned out that drugs which have crept into the semi-conscious part of national use were not only not necessary, but sometimes downright harmful to the recipient and, secondly, very costly to the taxpayer. In a situation in which we have sometimes been described as rapidly becoming a nation of hypochondriacs, one of the most significant results of the restriction of over-expenditure would be that my hon. Friend's Department would be able to take a long cool look at the way in which the drugs bill has been growing and the risks extending from that.
I quote only one case to show the way in which amphetamines, for instance, have been exploited, not, as my hon. Friend pointed out, as a result of rogue doctors, but simply because of doctors getting so sick of patients turning up for whom no other palliative was acceptable that amphetamines were prescribed as the best way in which to get the patient off the doctor's back. Towards the end of last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and I were involved at the Central Criminal Court in a case of murder in which the defendant had been receiving amphetamine pills at a terrifying figure, perfectly legally, because his general practitioner was getting so sick of him that the easiest thing to do was to write out a large number of prescriptions to cover a period of time.
He was being issued with what one might call a stock issue for 200 pills a week. The result was that the defendant found himself in the happy financial position of being able to market these things at the taxpayer's expense. When the opportunity occurred he found he was able to market even more than he was being prescribed. He took to selling perfectly harmless tablets such as aspirin wrapped up in silver paper as a means of extending the fairly extensive supplies which the taxpayer was producing for him.
The tragic end was that when two of his clients came to remonstrate with him a fight ensued in which one of them lost his life. This is an extreme example of the kind of risks involved. There is evidence that we are becoming a drug-hungry nation. This is not just to do with cannabis and even possibly heroin

751
but with the drugs mentioned by my hon. Friend. I believe that the initiative shown by some of my constituents, now followed by the B.M.A. in many different parts of the country, is something which will be a substantial protection to the inhabitants of the country as a whole. Equally important it will enable a substantial saving to be made, providing more badly needed funds for my right hon. Friend's Department to be spent on other things nearer to his heart.
3.17 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) for raising this problem of the misuse of drugs of dependence. I am glad to see in his customary place as usual when we discuss anything to do with the pharmaceutical industry the hon, Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). I feel secure in the double-barrelled representation of this society. Although the House has had occasion fairly recently to consider formally measures designed to regulate the misuse of drugs such as amphetamines, it is desirable that we should devote some time to considering other more informal and non-statutory ways of tackling the very serious social problems posed by the misuse of drugs.
It is undeniably a serious contemporary social problem. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, that it has to be taken very seriously indeed. All of us who are associated with the problem must take the greatest care neither to exaggerate its scale, nor, in our anxiety to bring misuse under control, to advocate measures that might have the effect of inhibiting the use of valuable drugs for genuine therapeutic purposes.
Draconian measures of compulsion should be contemplated only rarely and then only after exploring every possible alternative. The problem here is well illustrated by the history of amphetamines, so well described by Baroness Wootton's Committee in its Report on Amphetamines and L.S.D. The House will recall that amphetamines had for many years a small, if not a particularly
752
significant place, in therapeutics, and my hon. Friend has defined that place.
This was before they achieved their present notoriety. The possibility of dependence had been noted as long ago as 1937 but it was not until restrictions on the prescribing of heroin and cocaine were contemplated as recently as 1967 that misuse of amphetamines, particularly of injectable methedrine, was adopted by addicts. The possibility that the Dangerous Drugs (Supply of Addicts) Regulations, 1968, which limited the prescription of heroin and cocaine for addicts to doctors specially licensed for the purpose, might lead to a wide extension of the abuse of drugs by intravenous injection and that amphetamines might be used in place of heroin was recognised by my Department even before the Regulations were brought into operation.
Our Chief Medical Officer wrote to all general practitioners and chairmen of general medical advisory committees and medical advisory committees of teaching hospitals in March, 1968, in order to alert them to this twofold threat and, at the same time, to remind doctors that
"a substantial body of authoritative opinion holds that the use of amphetamines for the suppression of appetite is unnecessary and is largely ineffective in the treatment of depression".
This opinion was reinforced in November, 1968, by the British Medical Association's own working party on amphetamine preparations, which recommended that amphetamines and amphetamine-like compounds should be avoided as far as possible in the treatment of obesity, and should generally be avoided in the treatment of depression
"as they appear to have no place in the modern treatment of this condition".
The fears expressed by the Chief Medical Officer in his first letter were borne out by experience in the spring and summer of 1968 when there was a rapid increase in the abuse of methylamphetamine by injection. So rapid was this increase that it became necessary, in the absence of statutory powers to control distribution, to have recourse to a purely voluntary arrangement—which both the medical and pharmaceutical professions fully supported—whereby supplies of injectable methylamphetamine were no longer available on prescription but were confined to hospital pharmacies and

753
made available through them to general practitioners who required them in strictly limited quantities. The Chief Medical Officer wrote again to all doctors in October, 1968.
Following this voluntary restriction of supplies, a few doctors began to prescribe powdered amphetamines. These doctors were visited by my Department's regional medical officers and, though contrary to their terms of service, pharmacists were advised by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, with the agreement of the General Medical Council, not to dispense prescriptions for powdered amphetamines.
Although abuse of amphetamines continued to pose a problem, the scale—which in 1966 was estimated to be less than that of the misuse of alcohol as reflected in the number of alcoholics—has gradually declined. An indication of the extent of this decline can be gained from comparison of the average number of National Health Service prescriptions for amphetamines dispensed per week in 1967, 60,000, down to an estimated 25,000 a week last year. I take my hon. Friend's point that, although this is a sharp decline, the number is still too great.
There is every reason to expect the decline to continue, especially since an increasing number of local medical committees are following the example set by the Ipswich Local Medical Committee in resolving to abandon the prescription of amphetamines altogether. As my hon. Friend rightly said, this self-denying ordinance is welcome for several reasons, not least because it is a purely voluntary arrangement.
I am glad of the opportunity of repeating the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 2nd February last, in which I made it clear that the Government welcome this voluntary ban and especially the fact that the example set by Ipswich has been followed by other local medical committees, including, I am glad to say, the Inner London Local Medical Committee. The House will also be glad to know that the B.M.A. is arranging a meeting in July to consider ways and means of extending the voluntary ban, Ipswich-style, and my right hon. Friend has accepted an invitation to address the meeting.
754
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich asked me to give an undertaking that we propose to support and extend the Ipswich arrangements. Although the extension of the Ipswich experiment is welcome as a useful step towards bringing abuse of amphetamines under control, it should not I think be assumed that it is necessarily a complete answer to the problem. Ipswich is a rather special case. Apart from anything else, all the doctors get on extremely well together. Arrangements of this kind, welcome though they are, are not by definition mandatory on all members of the profession. There is always a minority—or there may be in places outside Ipswich—who are not prepared to accept the view of their colleagues. Nevertheless, it would be a pity if, in a natural anxiety to control the irresponsible actions of a few doctors, Parliament were to introduce measures which might unreasonably restrict the prescribing of the vast majority of doctors who prescribe drugs of dependence with the greatest care and discretion.
I conclude on this point by saying that we warmly support the Ipswich experiment. We hope to see it extended. My right hon. Friend will be alluding to it when he addresses the B.M.A. meeting. One has to recognise the fact that it does depend on the willing and active co-operation of a group of local doctors, and where they may be in substantial competition with one another, as may be the case in areas of more concentrated practice, it may not be so easy. But we are right behind them.
It has always been a principle of medicine in this country that a doctor should be free to prescribe any drug or medicine which he considers necessary for the treatment of his patient. This is a principle which one would not want lightly to abandon or restrict. The case for freedom goes further than that, for, as the Wootton Committee pointed out, it is a feature of the drug misuse problem that once the misuse of one substance appears to have been checked another immediately takes its place. Thus, restrictions on the prescribing of one drug may lead addicts to adopt another drug, which in turn will lead to demands for the imposition of similar controls on the prescribing of the new drug, and so on. It is vital that the

755
sudden upsurge of abuse of a drug which has wider therapeutic uses than, say, amphetamines, should not be subjected to restrictions which may be positively disadvantageous from the standpoint of the ordinary patient.
Experience of the misuse of amphetamines in recent years has prompted the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Bill. The introduction of that Bill demonstrated, I think, what the Government, both the last Government and this, felt to be the inadequacy of the powers to take action swiftly enough to deal with irresponsible and reckless prescribing, particularly private prescribing, and I think that it was anxiety about this that led to the Misuse of Drugs Bill which, as my hon. Friend knows, has completed all its stages in this House and is now in another place, and which will certainly be on the Statute Book before long.
Regional medical officers of my Department have discussed prescribing patterns with general practitioners in the National Health Service, and there are long-standing arrangements for special informal visits to be paid to those doctors whose prescribing is substantially above that of their colleagues. In the last resort, where, having regard to the character and quantity of the drugs he has prescribed, there is prima facie evidence to suggest that the cost of a doctor's National Health Service prescribing is excessive, the facts can be reported to his local medical committee, and in those instances where the evidence suggests that a doctor's prescribing of drugs of dependence is grossly excessive or irresponsible, it is customary to report the facts to the General Medical Council. In the last year my Department has laid information before the Council in three such cases, and in one the name of the doctor concerned has been struck off the medical register.
In passing, whilst I welcome the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich shows about the danger of escalation of drugs costs, and their being a larger share of the National Health Service budget, or that it may grow, the drugs bill in fact, as a proportion of the total expenditure of the National Health Service, has remained static at about 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. for some time now.
756
The collection of evidence in these cases is, as my hon. Friend can imagine, a lengthy and time-consuming process. It is more difficult when the doctor is prescribing privately—and a good deal of irresponsible prescribing of drugs is private—and it is even more difficult where, as I understand is the case of the slimming clinic mentioned by my hon. Friend, drugs are dispensed directly by the doctor—I understand, in most cases without reference to the general practitioner of the patient who is attending the private practice concerned.
I say in parenthesis how warmly I applaud my hon. Friend's reference to the publicity given in the Daily Mail, and, I may add, the publicity given by Mr. Simon Dring in the Daily Telegraph, for the very reason that it may draw the attention of innocent members of the public, particularly young girls, to the fact that some of the drugs prescribed to them may contain amphetamines, though they have no idea that that is the case. I take my hon. Friend's point.
It is to expedite the handling of such cases that the Government brought forward the Misuse of Drugs Bill—in short, to enable my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to collect and analyse information, particularly about the private prescribing of drugs of dependence and to identify and deal with those doctors whose prescribing of these drugs appears to be irresponsible.
I am sure that the general approach which I have described—the Misuse of Drugs Bill, the voluntary agreements, trying to find a balance between not going too far and at the same time taking an effective position of control—is the right one. It not only ensures that all doctors receive up-to-date and authoritative information about the misuse of drugs generally and about the potential hazards of particular drugs, in a way which will enable them to bring an informed judgment to their own prescribing, but at the same time it strengthens our powers to identify and deal promptly with the irresponsible minority, while still preserving the freedom of the honourable and responsible majority to prescribe for their patients any drug or medicine which they consider necessary.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Industry Act, 1971.

2. Land Commission (Dissolution) Act, 1971.

3. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1971.

4. Mines Management Act, 1971.

5. Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1971.

6. British Aluminium (Saltburn Pier) Order Confirmation Act, 1971.

WORLD POPULATION
3.32 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Dormand: It is significant that a matter of such importance should be raised by a back-bencher, an Opposition back-bencher at that; and furthermore raised at an end of term Adjournment debate, when it should have been introduced by the Government during their ten months of office. The core of my case today is that the Government are not treating this subject with the urgency it warrants. The Minister will probably be aware that there was a debate in another place on this subject two months ago, the content and quality of which was of the highest order. It was a debate which could be commended to Members of both Houses.
I do not deny that the Government are aware of the problem and are doing something about it. They are represented on the Population Commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the World Health Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O., and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They also participate in the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, and in 1971–72 they will be giving about £1 million for family planning and population control generally. The Government in addition have agreed to participate in the United Nations World Conference on Population in 1974. When one considers the magnitude of the problem facing the world today, it is clear that we and in fairness it must be
758
said many other Governments are not making the contribution which they should make. They are only shadow boxing.
To give the background of the situation I must quote some statistics but I will keep them to the minimum. In 1650 the estimated population of the world was 545 million. I am not sure how the population was counted in those days but I have found this from my researches. Up to that time population growth had been very slow. A hundred years later in 1750 the figure had increased to 728 million, by 1850 to 1,121 million and by 1950 it had more than doubled to 2,515 million. These are the most astonishing figures which have the gravest implications for mankind.
By 1961 the world population was estimated to be increasing at a rate of 1·7 per cent. If this trend continues it will mean that there will be more people in existence in the next 50 years than there were in the whole of human history before 1961. The increase which may be expected over the remainder of this century alone will be more than the whole world's population in 1960. The statisticians say that this is inevitable. I am not sufficient of an expert in these matters to know that, but they assure us that that is the case. The sources to which I have referred for my figures are generally in agreement.
If I take the last set of figures and relate them to this country it will make the position more vivid. We are assured by the statisticians on population that our present population of 54 million will increase to 67 million by the end of the century. That position cannot be avoided. This country's growth rate of 0·3 per cent. per annum is one of the lowest in the world. We have almost stabilised. To bring the matter right down to a question of daily occurrence, this represents an increase of 800 human beings a day in this small island. That shows the House that the situation is of some consequence.
This brings home to us more forcibly the need for more food, houses, hospitals, services, and so on. Before I came to this House I was the education officer for a local authority and I remember my panic, three or four years ago, when I discovered that the birth rate had increased rather alarmingly in my area. As a result, I had

759
to provide a new school for about 200 children. I place that on record as the most frightening and difficult thing that I have ever done. Relating that situation to this country as a whole and then to the world, we see how serious it is.
These then are the figures. There are two reasons for this situation. First, man has increased his mastery over the environment and, secondly and perhaps more important, medical skill has increased out of all recognition. Nowadays people in all countries live much longer, and the infant mortality rate has improved out of all recognition. In some countries—not so many as one would think—the birth rate remains very high, but I shall not dwell on that aspect because I am concerned mainly about the implications of the various factors.
The most important question whether it will be possible to feed such an increase in population. Many will answer, "Yes". They will do so on the basis that history has shown that when this kind of crisis arises man, from the sheer necessity of the situation, produces a solution. There is some historical evidence for this. But the topic that we are now debating is unique, and those who answer "Yes" to the question that I have just asked display unwarranted and dangerous optimism, involving the lives of millions of people.
I do not believe that there will be mass starvation, although I am not sure that anyone, however expert he may be in these matters, is in a position to be categoric about it. I believe that there will be localised famines from time to time, and malnutrition on a vast scale. These will be terrible experiences for the human race. I also believe that the effects of over-population will take more sinister forms. At worst, they will take the form of localised wars and, at best, the form of disturbances.
It is unfortunate that the example I quote relates to the tragic events now taking place in East Pakistan. The Minister may have seen the article in last Sunday's Observer which said:
"The haunting nightmare of over-population has arrived."
That newspaper's distinguished Commonwealth correspondent Colin Legum wrote an article which brought home the
760
horror which may be repeated in other parts of the world. He wrote this:
"East Pakistan is the first place on earth where the haunting nightmare of the population explosion has already become a reality. It lies at the root of this crisis. The Bengalis are packed 1,200–1,500 per square mile compared with the 600 density figure of Belgium, the world's next most heavily populated area. Their numbers increase by 6,000 a day."
He goes on to tell the most astonishing fact. The half million souls who perished in the East Pakistan floods last November were replaced in number with in three months of that disaster taking place.
Who can fail to be moved by such a terrifying story? Who can deny that this is one of the two or three major problems facing mankind and who can deny the need for immediate action? John Donne's words were never more apt than in this context:
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
This is everyone's concern, the concern of every Government in the world. It is a fact that the biggest problems of population growth are in the under-developed countries, which adds to the difficulties of the richer countries who in my view have a moral responsibility to help. Direct aid from the richer countries to the poorer countries will be regarded, however incorrectly, with the gravest suspicion. Some of the suspicions might be well-founded in view of the motives which have been produced by some of the so-called developed countries.
I submit that the rôle of the United Nations in this matter or any of the international agencies is of vital importance. I would like to place on record the leadership given by the World Bank on this question of over-population and in particular the leadership shown by Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank. He is perhaps the world figure showing the greatest awareness of this problem. The channelling of aid through the international agencies should do much to allay the suspicions of the recently independent countries. As an American senator is alleged to have said, we do not see "World Bank Go Home" chalked on the walls.
The international agencies have the prime task of producing more food and new types of food. I need not dwell on

761
the magnificent work being done by some scientists notably Dr. Borlang. When we think that the rice yield per acre in India is less than one-third of that in Japan we begin to see the enormity of the problem. Research is slow and expensive and the British Government should give till it hurts. We have a special expertise not to say compassion and can make a vital contribution, a unique contribution, to this problem.
It seems inevitable that any solution to the problem of increasing population must include birth control. It is evident that this will give rise to further problems by way of ideological and religious objections to family planning. It goes without saying that such views must be respected but if some compromise cannot be reached the future is indeed bleak.
It is for these reasons in particular that I welcome the holding of the world population conference in 1974. Family planning must inevitably be one of the main items on the agenda at that conference, and one hopes that at least the basic differences will be solved, however optimistic that may seem at the moment.
The Minister will remember that when I put down a Parliamentary Question to him two or three weeks ago asking whether he would seek to have the Government organise or initiate a world conference on the topic, his reply was that one was already arranged for 1974. That reply exactly illustrates my point that the Government are not showing the urgency they should. Why 1974? Why not this year or, at the latest, next year? I realise that international conferences must be organised even from the physical point of view, quite apart from the papers, and so on, that go to make up such a conference, but to accept that a problem like this can be dealt with in three years' time shows a great lack of urgency.
I recently saw the Secretary of State for the Environment on our North-East television channel, when he said:
'When you know something has to be done, the sooner it is done the better."
Those are wise words, in my view, and I hope that the Minister will have a chat with his colleague to see whether they can be related to this problem, because there seems to be an awareness of a
762
problem not only here but in many countries, but little seems to be done about it.
I make the plea to the Government to ignore the increasing clamour of voices calling for the abolition of family allowances. The argument that such allowances encourage the population explosion is quite without foundation. In those countries which have such welfare facilities as, for instance, hospital care, maternity allowances, medical care—and family allowances themselves—the families are no greater than they are in, notably, the United States of America where the allowances are not made.
It is more than 30 years since Lord Boyd-Orr made my hair stand on end with some of his predictions of what might come about because of the population explosion. If little else has happened since that time, at least the world is aware that there is a major problem to be solved. In the last decade, some 40 countries have either supported or adopted a population policy or programme. There are at least six international organisations dealing with the problem, and this year the United Nations has recommended the setting up of a world population institute—in my view, a significant proposal. One hears whispers, and perhaps the Minister will say something, that the Government are interested in having the institute in this country. That would be more than a gesture that the Government and the country are prepared to have a physical symbol of their concern about the expanding world population.
However laudable the activities of these bodies are one comes back every time to the need to devote more resources to them. The world population programme at the moment requires 170 million dollars: its currnt revenue falls far from that at 35 million dollars. Mr. Macnamara said recently that if only there were only a 5 per cent. shift from arms to development we would be within sight of the Pearson target for development assistance.
The British Government should take the lead in trying to achieve this shift. As I have said, our aid for family planning and population control will amount to £1 million for 1971–72 out of a total of £245 million. I am aware that that

763
£1 million represents double the present contribution, and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on that large increase. Nevertheless, it is really trifling compared even with our strained resources, and certainly with world needs. I plead with the Government to give further thought to the matter. I am sure that a substantial increase will receive not only widespread support on this side of the House, but from many men and women in this country.
Many people feel that money could and should be diverted from other programmes—for example, the space programme, however useful and laudable it might be in other directions. Never was there a greater need for a reassessment of the financial priorities involved.
The problems associated with population control are not peripheral to man's existence; they are fundamental to it. Some progress has been made, but it is impossible to be optimistic about the future. We may already be too late. But if we cannot be optimistic, we need not despair. There is certainly time and opportunity for Britain to take the moral leadership in the international attempt to solve this most serious of problems.
3.51 p.m.
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is grateful, to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) for having drawn our attention to what I assure him I recognise as possibly the most urgent problem in the world. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I welcome the interest which he has been taking in this subject by putting down a number of Questions, one of which, as he reminded us, I answered a short time ago.
I repeat my rejection, which I offered to the hon. Gentleman some time ago, of any charge of complacency. If my credentials have to be examined in any way, although I am not in favour of recommending anyone to read past speeches which I have made in the House of Commons—most of them are better buried deep in the Library—I draw attention to a speech which I made in May, 1968, when I dwelt, as the hon. Gentleman has this afternoon, on the immensity of the problem and the need to tackle it.
764
There was a very important debate on this subject in another place a short time ago. Both the hon. Gentleman and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Snow that, in a sense, we all from time to time tend to fall into the danger of complacency because, rather naturally and for obvious reasons, we think that there are other important problems, which we all recognise, when we think about them, are in fact less important than the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
The hon. Gentleman did not make a long speech. However, while he was on his feet, I think, if my mathematics are correct, that about 5,000 new babies were born in the world. This is a measure of the problem.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the statistics and said that there would be a certain doubling of the world population by the end of this century. He also expressed concern for this country. I should do so, too. However, he will recognise that my responsibilities relate mainly to the developing countries where the dangers are obviously far greater and the problem much less easy to solve.
To put the hon. Gentleman's definition of causes in other words, I merely say that mankind now has the power and the will to control the death rate; it has the power, but not the will, to control the birth rate. This is why we face these difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the consequences would be. I believe—I may be wrong—that life, even if the world population did double by 2000 A.D., would probably still be sustainable; but what concerns me is that I can see in those circumstances precious little room for any improvement whatsoever in living standards. I can foresee the world continuing over the years to come without any hope of improvement, a grim and precarious struggle for existence, and this does not give me any pleasure at all.
The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. McNamara and expressed his admiration for him, which I entirely share. Mr. McNamara said:
"No achieveable rate of economic growth will be sufficient to cope with an unlimited proliferation of people on our limited planet."
This again expresses the problem. Unless we find some means of controlling this

765
expanson, we shall—to adapt a phrase of Lord Canning a long time ago—have to call in the old world of famine, disease and war in order to redress the imbalance of the new. These are really the alternatives that one is left with—either famine, disease and war on the one side, or some method of population control on the other.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was probably unlikely—here we seem to be moving closer together—that we should be faced with mass starvation. I am glad he said that because I thought he exaggerated a little time ago when he talked about the prospect of millions of deaths from starvation. None of us can tell. My own assessment is that there would certainly be a number of deaths from lack of food; there are more likely to be many millions of people with too little food.
I had an opportunity recently of visiting the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, and then I saw in Indonesia shortly after the effect of these new strains of rice being grown and the far greater yield. I reflected, as I have already said earlier, that possibly the production of food in the world may keep pace in the kind of way that it does at the moment with an increase of population, but that the real danger to human health and human advancement would be the continuing grinding poverty for which I see, with the population increase, very little hope of relief.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is extremely difficult for any of us to look with certainty into a very uncertain future. We know that in many of the developing countries there are considerable reserves of metals and natural energy. We know that there may be a number of new discoveries and substitutes. We know that the inventiveness and adaptability of the human race is very considerable. There may, for all we know, be vast untapped reserves and resources in the oceans themselves which cover a very large part of the world's surface.
Therefore, we cannot tell what the future holds. But the best information that any of us can receive at present, and to which we have access, leads one on to the conclusion that the likely course of population increase will place the world
766
in very considerable economic difficulties unless we can find some means of controlling it.
The hon. Gentleman expressed disappointment—and he again expressed disappointment this afternoon—at my reply that there was going to be a world population conference in 1974. I pointed out that there would be various regional conferences leading up to it. I should now like to point out that apart from these regional conferences on population, there are in train a number of Food and Agriculture Organisation studies which are reasonably optimistic, as I hope I have been, about the possibility of food production. Also, there are studies by the International Labour Office which are a great deal less optimistic about employment opportunities in the future, and the I.L.O. has launched a programme to help to deal with the extra 225 million people who will need jobs not in the year 2000 but in 1980, nine years ahead.
If I felt that a world conference on population would provide the longed-for solution to our population problem, I should certainly press for it before 1974, and if I felt that a debate in the House of Commons would provide all the answers, I should ask my right hon. Friend the Lord President if we could have one after Easter. But the problems are perfectly well known, and they are being tackled, as I think the hon. Gentleman recognises, not only by the developing countries themselves but by a number of nations which provide aid and by international organisations as well.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is not more talk but the process of patient persuasion which will make an impression upon these problems, which we all recognise. There are some Governments who are still not convinced of the need or of the benefits to be drawn from a policy of population control. As the hon. Gentleman said, they may be influenced by political, religious or racial reasons, and some, I think, are influenced by economic assessments which I myself believe to be mistaken.
At this moment, most Governments in Asia are now convinced of the necessity of population control, although many Governments in Africa and in Latin America are not so convinced. Some, as the hon. Gentleman said, are deeply

767
suspicious of the motives of ourselves and other donor nations. If I may say so, I do not think that it helps the cause to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that they are right in being suspicious of our motives. Our motives, the motives of this Government and of Great Britain itself, are, I hope, entirely disinterested and aimed only at decreasing the dangers which we can all see ahead.
Three-quarters of the population in the developing world live in countries with official population policies. This in itself is quite encouraging for it obviously offers some hope for the future. What is discouraging is that only a tiny fraction of those living in those countries are reached by family planning education and services. This, therefore—I emphasise it again—is the task, and no amount of talk will of itself achieve it.
We and other nations are not only prepared to help in this patient persuasion, but we are prepared to devote increasing resources to the tackling of these problems. The hon. Gentleman said that little was being done. He generously recognised that we are now providing over £1 million, double what we were providing last year. To put it in another way, our direct aid to international organisations, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the I.P.P.F., has multiplied ten times in three years, to over £1 million. It may give the hon. Gentleman some encouragement for the future to know that we are ready to increase it further if we are satisfied that more money can be well spent.
Also—again, I think that the hon. Gentleman will probably agree—we should like, if it were required of us, to increase our present modest programme of bilateral aid—modest for reasons which are obvious to most of us. We recently introduced special terms which we hope will stimulate more requests.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about our attitude to the Population Institute. I should be most prepared to continue discussions with those concerned with the Institute who might be interested in its making its home in this country, and the Government would support my doing so.
As in all development, we are faced by the human difficulty. The difficulty is not the shortage of funds and not the shortage of interest in this country, but
768
the shortage of trained personnel on the ground where they are needed, and the problem of persuading millions of people to change their whole attitude and adopt a code of behaviour which in many cases seems to be very strange to them. We are in a vicious circle, recognising that birth control would be more acceptable if individual economic circumstances improved, but knowing that there is little hope of improvement while living standards are held down by the population expansion. I am encouraged, because I feel that many people are beginning to see reasons for having smaller families. We can certainly make resources available to make wider persuasion easier, and are prepared to do so, but the difficulty is that the persuasion itself is and must be the responsibility of Governments and people in developing countries, and of the family planning associations which we support through the I.P.P.S., for which last week I was glad to be able to join in helping to launch a campaign for further funds in this country.
These problems will not be solved by conferences and more talk, by preaching either to the converted or those still unconverted. What is urgently necessary, and is the only means of solving the problems that face us, is patient work from the countries concerned backed up by the necessary resources. The Government and this country are determined to play a full part in this international effort.

BRADFORD (ECONOMIC PROSPECTS)
4.7 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of specific constituency interest, namely, the economic prospects for the Bradford area. I welcome very much the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with whom I shared a dialogue on Friday 12th February about the future of the Leeds/Bradford airport, another relevant matter for the region's economic prospect. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence), who is the Secretary of the Conservative Party's Yorkshire Group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who brings his

769
experience in industry and in the region to bear in the debate.
Although both the debate on the Yeadon airport and today's debate have arisen at an inauspicious parliamentary hour from the point of view of getting a good audience, both subjects are very important to the constituents whom I have the honour to represent. By the end of the afternoon my hon. Friend the Minister should be coming to feel almost as much at home in the industrial West Riding of Yorkshire as in his native Harrow. I am sure that he will welcome any opportunity to visit our region.
I cannot claim, as did a previous Bradford Member, Mr. Titterington, to be born and bred in my city. Like so many Bradfordians, I am a Bradfordian by adoption. Nor am I, unlike Mr. Tittering-ton, a former Lord Mayor, of the warp and weft of my City. I cannot claim any particular expertise in the wool trade, which is our principal industry, employing some 23 per cent. of the people. My personal experience is in the aircraft industry and in engineering, but that sector is growing in Bradford and it is one in which our long-term prosperity probably resides. Without greater diversification and without a broader base for our regional economy, I do not think that Bradford can stay in the big league where it belongs.
It is customary to speak of the wool trade at this moment with a long face and to be full of alarmist prognostications. I refute any such ideas. All the authoritative statements one has heard from wool textile firms is that this is a cyclical recession—something which has occurred before. It is a phenomenon with which they are familiar and its gravity should not be exaggerated.
The N.E.D.C. Report—the Atkins Report—on the wool textile trade in 1969 bears out much of what is happening today. I want to quote from a recent speech by Mr. Clough, Chairman of the Wool Textile Delegation, about the current state of the trade because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to make some comments about that. His message was that, as Atkins foretold, the rationalisation that is taking place certainly means contraction in employment. No one will deny that. But it does not mean any contraction in performance and cer-
770
tainly not any diminution in the importance of the wool textile industry to the economy of this country. It is still one of the pillars upon which our economic prosperity is based. It is No. 6 in the export league. The statistics in recent years show that the performance of the industry has been most encouraging if one considers that it has been achieved in a period of recession, of recession not only nationally but world wide.
Mr. Clough went on to say that in the last three months of 1970
"… wool consumption in most of the wool producing countries"—
that is, the Common Market, the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom—
"was down by 12 per cent. compared with the similar quarter in 1969. The United Kingdom figure was 14 per cent. so there is a margin of only 2 per cent. in the decline. This is not to be exaggerated. The production of cloth—particularly important to Bradford —fell by an average of 10 per cent. This was exactly the same as in the United Kingdom. Worsted yarns production was down by 3 per cent. but in the United Kingdom by 7 per cent. The average figure for woollen yarn was down by 5 per cent. whereas the United Kingdom output dropped by only 2 per cent."
As a wool-textile producing nation, we were more than holding our own. That is an achievement in which this country and Bradford, as the metropolis of the wool textile trade, can justly take pride.
The biggest difference, however, was in the production of tops, and there the United Kingdom share was down by 21 per cent., or nearly twice the average. This is a sector in which there is still the greatest room for rationalisation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will agree that we are to see still further rationalisation and concentration of resources in the top-making and combing sections of the trade. I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to say something about that.
Over all, our performance is one in which we can take pride. The wool textile industry's contribution to our balance of payments in terms of export earnings and import savings last year amounted to no less than £230 million. Despite the recessions to which I have alluded, our exports earned £140 million last year which was only £9 million down on the figure for 1969. Mr. Clough concluded his speech on 23rd March by claiming that British wool textiles were

771
still "top of the pops", as I am sure anyone will agree when surveying the sartorial scene in swinging London, or any of the other major cities of the Western world.
However, if we are to maintain a consistent performance, we must be able to keep our prices competitive and we must also suffer the very minimum of adverse treatment from the Government. Everybody was most heartened and pleased by the Budget Statement on 30th March when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced Measures which did a great deal of good to the wool textile industry. What the wool textile industry demands, apart from correct fiscal policies, is that fair trading should be maintained.
On the first point of fiscal policies, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to draw to the attention of the Chancellor for future Budgets—I know that 12 months ahead is a long time to be planning future Budgets—to purchase tax on knitting wools, rug wools, student dress lengths and household textiles, including blankets. I referred to the damage which the wool textile trade could suffer at the hands of exceedingly unhelpful Governments, and no Government were more unhelpful to the wool textile trade than the previous Administration, and it was the 1969 Budget which put this extra imposition of 13¾ per cent. on these items. I know that the Wool Textile Delegation is especially keen to have this tax rescinded if that is fiscally possible. It would be an incentive for home knitting, rug making and dressmaking and employment and activity in all these sections of the industry if we could have the tax reform which I have outlined.
As I said, there have been one or two criticisms about allegedly unfair trading practices. The wool textile trade does not want either Maundy money or tariff walls and protectionism. What we demand is fair trading, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will address himself to the criticisms which occasionally have been levelled about unfair practices and dumping from such countries as Portugal, Japan and so on. I am sure that he is able to inquire into these matters. There may well be little justification in the criticisms which have been levelled, but I should be grateful if we could have an
772
assurance that these matters are constantly under examination and that there is no question of trading malpractice in this regard.
I turn to the broader perspective. Bradford is not entirely a wool textile city. Its industry is much more diverse, and increasingly so. We are moving increasingly into engineering and the service industries, but, none the less, our problems cannot be looked at in any way other than the broad perspective of national regional policies. In doing so, I cannot turn to any better bible at this stage than the Report of the Committee under Sir John Hunt on the intermediate areas, a Report published in 1968. Our own problems in Bradford, although it is not part of an intermediate area, are relevant to regional policy.
I draw attention to a quotation in the Hunt Report from the White Paper on Regional Employment Programme, Cmmnd. 3310:
"Some have unemployment well above the national average, but not all the other economic difficulties of the Development Areas. Others, without showing up to consistent high unemployment, tend to suffer from net emigration and a slow rate of economic growth, due to over-dependence on traditional forms of industry… Some areas fear that because of their proximity to the Development Areas, they will be particularly vulnerable to the increased competitive power of industry in the Development Areas."
This is particularly relevant to the City of Bradford because we are sandwiched between a development area 40 miles to the north and an intermediate area which comes up to Wakefield to the south-east of our City.
It has always been felt in industrial circles in Bradford that the arbitrary and unjust regional differentiations in fiscal incentives put us at a special disadvantage. I am particularly glad that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is undertaking a thorough review of regional policy on a national scale. As I say, we do not want Maundy money. It would be inappropriate for the City of Bradford to become part of an intermediate area. We saw during the period of the last Administration how more and more public money went into development and intermediate areas without any corresponding improvement, Either in economic growth or employment.

773
In other words, it was generally felt that more and more money was going into a bottomless pit which was not helping the area as it was alleged to be. It was also creating disincentives for adjoining regions. For that reason, the new approach which we await should end, or certainly alleviate, this regional disparity.
While I am dealing with regional policy, there is the matter of growth points. We have already had a few special development areas designated. One of the great advantages of the proposed form of local government which the Secretary of State for the Environment advanced in his White Paper was that the City of Bradford should become a metropolitan district, that it should encompass its natural catchment areas. No one in our area would say that the problems of Bradford can be divorced from the situation in Shipley, Keighley or further up Airedale or even Skipton. For that reason my hon. Friend might like to ponder whether Bradford should not become a growth point. It is ideally suited, with a good range of communications, a large and well-trained work force and a comparatively high surplus capacity of manpower. With all these factors it is ideally placed for a period of expansion and growth.
Dealing with communications, we are dependent on a good motorway system which has been created in recent months. The finishing touches have yet to be put to the completion of the motorway link between the M62, trans-Pennine motorway, and the City of Bradford. Here I would ask my hon. Friend to urge his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to reach a speedy decision on the interchange at Staithgate Lane on this motorway link. It is vital to the creation of a new modern industrial estate which it is hoped in Bradford will be an example to the whole of the North of England.
There was a piece about it in the Business Post section of the Yorkshire Post on 6th April. It is a £7 million industrial development which is proposed, providing up to 5,000 jobs for people in the Bradford area. The sponsors, the Mount St. Bernard group of Preston, claim to be bringing about a totally new concept of industrial development. It is to be the forerunner of at least half a dozen such
774
developments in the North of England, one of which will probably be in South Yorkshire which is an area with acute economic problems and severe unemployment. The estate will be self-contained. Parts will accommodate manufacturing plants based on scientific and technological industries and providing up to 3,500 jobs. Another section will be devoted to warehousing capacity. A third section will contain administration facilities, shops and hotel. A further 1,500 jobs would be provided. Another aspect of the development is ornamental parks and precincts for shoppers. It is on the fringes of the city close to the good communications which the motorway system will provide and it is vital for the future prosperity of our city.
We should not forget the continuation of the M62 to the Merseyside ports and Hull. It is progressing eastward at a good rate, but until the final connection with Hull is made I do not think industrialists in Bradford will be entirely pleased.
I turn to the question of air communications in which my hon. Friend has a particular departmental interest. I have not an obsession about it, but I certainly have a great interest in it, because the West Riding is, to my mind, the only industrial area without an airport fully developed to modern international standards. By "international standards" I mean standards capable of operating contemporary jet aircraft for domestic services and services to Europe. We ask no more than that.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been most helpful. He understands the problem exceedingly well. In the debate on 12th February he said that it would be possible for the Leeds/ Bradford joint airport committee to make another planning application at some time in the future for the proposed runway extension, but he warned that before doing so the committee
"would be well advised to consider carefully whether the circumstances in which their recent application was turned down have altered to any appreciable extent."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 12th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1168.]
We have taken careful heed of my hon. Friend's warning, and yesterday the joint airport committee met and heard the future plans of the local operator, North-East Airlines, which provides most

775
of the services from the Leeds/Bradford Airport. It was decided that we should do what the Minister suggested. We would try to evaluate whether the situation had changed. The airport joint committee has called for a full study asking for full statistical data, operating information and all relevant facts. On the basis of the facts established it will decide whether to make a future application.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was right when he said in the debate that he was not pessimistic about the prospects. It was announced yesterday at the meeting that North-East Airline would continue to operate its equipment for another five years, which pleases everybody. The Viscount is one of the sturdiest and best British civil aircraft designed since the Second World War. I am glad that it will be soldiering on well into the 1970s from the Leeds/Bradford Airport. But air communications are vital for an area. We need to be able to make connections straight with Europe, particularly when, assuming that the negotiations go well, we join the European Economic Community, because the wool trade will want to take advantage of the increased export opportunities.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley has a special interest which I admire in it, one should not he too beguiled by Thorne Waste unless it is taken note of in the light of national airport policy. I hope that before an announcement is made about the site of another international airport, supposedly for London, my hon. Friend will assure me that a full study will be made of a national airport policy. If we had an airport farther north it would not only serve Bradford and the economic prosperity of our region but would also tap a great source of potential passenger demand and would probably preclude the necessity for a new international airport in the London area.
Therefore, if my hon. Friend wants my own personal tip where a new international airport should be—I am sure he must have had counless tips—my own is Castle Donington, which lies astride the MI and is in good proximity to the East Midland region, to Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, and it is only about three-quarters of an hour's drive from Sheffield. It is not much farther from Shef-
776
field than Thorne Waste and needs only a fairly small extension of its runway, and it is in a not-so-very populated area. It would provide not only from Bradford but for the North an inter-continental airport which would be a valuable addition to the regional airport at Yeadon, which should continue to be fully utilised.
There are many other aspects of Bradford's development which were further amplified in the Hunt Committee Report, and I shall draw the attention of the House to them because these are criteria which were described as being criteria by which intermediate status should be judged, and they are all very much evidenced in Bradford's own economy.
The first of these criteria was sluggish or falling employment. The process of rationalisation in the wool textile industry and certain difficulties in the engineering industry, and in particular the repercussions of the failure of Rolls-Royce, have meant that we experience a sluggish or falling employment and the major implications of slow growth. In our own City of Bradford, the percentage of the male work force unemployed is 5·4 per cent., I believe, and that is certainly above the national average and it does cause concern.
The second criterion in Hunt was the slow growth of personal incomes. Of necessity, incomes in our area are relatively lower than are incomes in other industrial parts of the country. The profit margins to which the wool textile industry has had to work have been low for a very long time, but, perhaps, with low profit margins has gone an understanding, both on the part of management and on the part of the work force, of the importance of good labour relations and of the minimum of disputes.
The latest settlement which was made for the wage structure of the wool textile industry for the next year is a sign of how good relations are in the City of Bradford, and this is a matter to which I would draw my hon. Friend's attention when we are talking in terms of bringing new industry to the City, for this is a very great asset. Mr. Jack Peel, famous for his leadership of his union in the textile trade, apart from the T.G.W.U., which has responsibility for the combing section, described himself, at the extraordinary congress which the Trades Union

777
Congress held on 18th March, as a "militant moderate". We could do with a great many more of them around. I am glad that his example has permeated fairly wide through the trade union movement in the City of Bradford. It is an advantage when, as I have said, we do have this fact of relatively low personal incomes there.
There is another criterion, slow rate of additions to commercial and industrial premises. When we look at the number of industrial development certificates issued to Bradford over the past six years we see that there do not seem to have been any very major additions to capacity in the City. There is a low level of increase in industrial premises. It is, perhaps, understandable when we take into account the number of industrial properties which already exist. The only exception was when Bairds Television expanded a couple of years ago.
Another criterion was,
"low or declining proportions of women at work".
It is a historic fact that over 40 per cent. of the work force in the wool textile trade in Bradford consists of women. They have always been invaluable and we have relied on them. With rationalisation, there has been a marked decline in the number of women at work which, according to Hunt, is a sign of low growth, although this could be disputed.
Another criterion was
"over-reliance on industries whose demand for labour is growing or falling".
The wool textile trade is a classic example of that. The next criterion was "decayed or inadequate environment". Although a great deal has been done to improve the environment through the Yorkshire and Humberside clean-up campaign initiated in 1968, which is a great monument to "self-help"—which has always been Bradford's motto, as well as our party's motto—there is a great deal still to be done.
Lastly, "serious net outward migration". A large number of people are migrating from the city, especially highly trained managerial and professional personnel, which the city needs to attract. There are large immigrations which counter-balance this, so the net population changes very little. It is a matter
778
of concern that it is difficult to attract high quality management personnel to the area.
In conclusion, I draw attention to a few of the good things which our Government have done for the city. After the Budget I received many laudatory messages. I will read out one which I received from the President of the Chamber of Commerce, who is a leading figure in the wool textile industry:
"This Budget is the most encouraging for years, and at long last there is some incentive and encouragement which is so badly needed, and I am sure that we can all look forward to the future with hope."
This is in marked contrast to the experience of Bradford in the six years from 1964 to 1970. The difficulties which Bradford is facing are nothing new. Taking the number of redundancies and factory closures, the startling fact emerges that the great turnabout in our fortunes occurred in 1968 just after devaluation. The number of closures in the wool textile industry doubled in the three years from 1968 to 1970 as compared with the four years from 1964 to 1967. In engineering, the number of factory closures almost trebled on average compared with the corresponding period.
The same applied to the redundancy figures. There was a significant doubling in the number of redundancies in 1968 in the wool textile trade. In engineering the redundancies went up virtually four times. This was the great watershed in the fortunes of the city of Bradford, and I am glad to say that this Administration has given the city new hope.
I will quote from another letter which I have received from Associated Engineering Ltd., a leading firm in Bradford, just after the Budget:
"Since dictating this letter …"
—the letter was written on the day of the Budget—
"… I have heard the Budget announcements and am delighted at the proposals relating to the abolition of S.E.T. Value-added tax will certainly add to our work load, but it is a much lesser evil than S.E.T. and, although we do not pay purchase tax, I know that other companies in the group will be pleased that their principal customers in the motor industry are likely to have somewhat less tax on their products when V.A.T. spreads the load more evenly. All in all an excellent Budget and, together with other sections of Government policy, it is likely to get Britain moving forward to higher investment than of late."

779
That is just the thing that the City of Bradford, like other industrial areas, needs.
The trouble has been that our fiscal policies have not only been regionally unfair; they have been unfair in their discrimination against certain key sectors of industry. In the report of the Humberside Economic Planning Council, published at the end of last year, emphasis was laid on the increasing rôle which it was hoped science-based and service industries would play in our city. Science-based industries are arriving to an increasing degree. I refer in particular to Baird's television and the manufacture of colour television sets on a large scale in my constituency. We also have sectors of the aircraft components industry, such as Rotax.
Colour television is a classic example of an industry that has suffered from the discriminatory effects of purchase tax. Whenever the Chancellor wanted to apply the regulator—as he so regularly did under the Socialist Administration—people in my constituency who worked on colour television sets—especially the women—were made redundant. I specially welcome the reform that the Chancellor has announced for 1973—the abolition of S.E.T. and purchase tax in their present forms and their replacement by a value-added tax.
We rely on the service industries. The Post Office strike showed how great a proportion of the work force in Bradford was engaged in this work. We have the Empire Stores, and Gratton Warehouses—mail order businesses. We should like to see the service industries expand, and we believe that what the Chancellor announced in his Budget will greatly help them.
We are most encouraged by the actions of the Government to date. It has been difficult time, but the new fiscal measures and the new review of regional policy should help us. Above all, on this Maundy Thursday I can assure my hon. Friend that we want no Maundy money for Bradford.
4.43 p.m.
Mr. Edward Lyons: There are two minutes left for another Member representing Bradford. I am
780
sorry for the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall), who have been waiting anxiously to contribute to the debate.
The Bradford Area Development Association is doing sterling work for Bradford. Bradford rejoices in one of the most remarkable and successful crusading evening newspapers—the Telegraph and Argus—which is open to all views and is led by a remarkable and energetic editor. The area association and the Telegraph and Argus both know what is wrong with Bradford. They know that it is necessary to get more money into the town in order that the people there can buy more goods, that the shops can put on better displays, with goods of a higher standard, and that more can be purchased. They know that more houses need to be built and that people should be able to rent them, because wages there are very low. They know that people need more money to pay the higher dental and other health charges.
We have a low-wage economy. We have heard a lot about wage inflation, but it cannot be said that the Bradford workers have grabbed high wages. For years and years Bradford has has a good non-strike record, especially in the textile industry. They people have had very low wages. The effect upon Bradford has been catastrophic. Employers have done their best. They have gone on without much in the way of profit until finally we open the newspaper and find that another half dozen firms have gone into liquidation. That is not the way to run Britain.
I am delighted to see that the textile industry is modernising rapidly and is putting its house in order. I cannot disagree with the less politically contentious contributions of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). Bradford needs assistance. It is losing a lot of skilled people. It needs a shot in the arm. It needs help in that when it applies for permission to build new factory estates that application is looked on benignly. It needs all the help it can get to diversify.
If it can get that there will be higher wages and with higher wages the people will be able to afford the rents for new houses and those 40,000 unfit houses will

781
begin to be replaced by decent housing. The shops will sell better goods, there will be more attractive displays, the town will be more worthy of its first-class theatre, first-class newspaper, first-class university and first-class people.
4.46 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): This has been a helpful debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) upon choosing this subject. I know of his concern and the remarkable vigour and vigilance with which he cares for the interests of Bradford in this House. He drew attention to the debate we had a little while ago on the question of the Yeadon airport. I do not want to go over that ground again. It is one of the interesting reflections of our times that the number of hon. Members who actually want a national airport in their constituency is almost matched by the number who do not want one in any circumstances. I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said and shall follow the progress of this matter with great interest.
My hon. Friend spoke with a greater degree of optimism than did the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons). It is a matter of degree, but for my part I look upon the future of Bradford with perhaps a greater degree of optimism than the hon. Gentleman. I will read the Telegraph and Argus article to which he referred. It seems that if Bradford has any cause for complaint, it is the complaint that everyone in the country has, that they want more money, which we all do. I hope that the people there will appreciate that the Government's economic policies are directed precisely to that end—to get the economy moving again in the interests of everyone in the country, not least the people of Bradford.
There are grounds for optimism rather than pessimism. I recognise that the rundown in the traditional woollen industry of Bradford has brought severe problems. Only last year I visited Bradford in the course of a regional tour of Yorkshire and I was extremely impressed with what I saw, particularly with the people I met and with whom I had discussions. While the area abounds in attractive open spaces and has good
782
reasonably-priced housing, it is worth pointing out that 50 per cent. of Bradford's housing stock pre-dates the first world war.
It also has problems with derelict industrial buildings, mostly woollen mills and warehouses. This is another pressing problem. I am glad to note that Bradford Council has plans for general improvement areas under the 1969 Housing Act. The council is also attempting a programme of 500 council houses per year to meet the needs of its people. Under existing legislation the local authority is eligible for grant of 75 per cent. for clearance purposes and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gives every encouragement to local authorities to make full use of the grants. His Department and mine are at present considering problems of reclamation of out-of-date or decaying industrial premises not covered by existing legislation.
Industrial pollution of the River Aire is being tackled under the city's major reconstruction schemes which include a programme of new sewerage works, and this will reduce flooding. I am also pleased to note that Bradford is an active clean air authority. As I noticed on my visit, the city has experienced a substantial improvement in general cleanliness.
The M62, when it is built, linking up with the M1, will add greatly to Bradford's attraction as an industrial area. I have noted what my hon. Friend said about the interchange, and I will draw this to the attention of my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who, I am sure, will very carefully note it. The road structure is important and valuable to Bradford and its industry.
Generally speaking, we believe that the infrastructure prospects of Bradford are good. This is important, because for the wool textile industry, centred at Bradford, I recognise that 1970 was a difficult trading year, and I acknowledge that its difficulties are not yet over. Textiles are now in a transitional stage of development, with the older techniques and natural fibres being increasingly replaced by newer technology and manmade fibres. Whilst Bradford and the West Riding Occupy a dominant position in the older wool textile technology, the newer textile developments are taking

783
place in many areas of the United Kingdom. The Bradford area has to some extent been losing out to the textile industries in other areas.
I should not like to give the House the impression that there is no future for the wool textile industry. I should like to pay tribute to its very real achievement, and to endorse what my hon. Friend has said in this connection. The industry satisfies 95 per cent. of the United Kingdom home market demand for its products, and last year, in spite of very difficult trading conditions in many of its better overseas markets, it achieved exports of £114 million. When I was in Japan, of all places, earlier this year, one of the most impressive pieces of information I had was about the success of Yorkshire textile exporters in this difficult country which is, nevertheless, a splendid market for them.
We are convinced that the industry has a healthy and profitable future. Undoubtedly, it will benefit greatly from the fiscal measures announced in the Budget Statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This will be of considerable assistance to all industry in Bradford. I note what my hon. Friend said about purchase tax. This, naturally, is not a matter for me nor one that I can deploy in this debate, but I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have noted the comments that have been made and will give them careful consideration.
I note also my hon. Friends observations on dumping. We in the Department operate anti-dumping legislation fairly and as far as possible speedily. Provided we can get the evidence which satisfies the criteria laid down by the Statutes, I think that my hon. Friend will find that we shall act swiftly in counteracting dumping if, as he suggests, it is damaging the industry.
To remain competitive, the industry must continue the process of rationalisation which has been going on for some time. The best elements in the industry are aiming for a highly paid, multi-shift labour force. This can come about only by sensible investment in new machinery and techniques. It would be a disservice to the industry as a whole and would damage the long-term interests of both
784
employers and employees to try artificially to maintain unviable units. The industry, as a whole, accepts this and has, by its announced investment intentions, shown that it has faith in its own future.
Employment has been referred to by my hon. Friend. There has been a drop in the number of insured persons in employment during the period 1964 to 1969 of 7 per cent. This has been due primarily to the need for restructuring and modernisation of the wool textile industry. But this ultimately can bring only benefits to Bradford's oldest and most important industry.
The present unemployment position is by no means satisfactory. Undoubtedly it must give concern to Bradford, as it does in other parts of the country. Bradford's unemployment, according to the March figures, is 4·2 per cent., which is above the national average. Nevertheless, it is well below the average for development or intermediate areas. For example, in the Yorkshire coalfield intermediate area the figure is 4·7 per cent. and in North Humberside the figure is 4·8 per cent.
I am glad that my hon. Friend did not press for special development area status. He did not hold out the begging bowl, but recognised that we shall keep the position under review whilst at the same time giving a period of stability following our recent decisions for industry as a whole.
I.D.C. policy has been touched upon. My Department's policy has been liberally interpreted. Some 89 certificates were issued between 1968 and 1970 for projects estimated to provide additional jobs for 1,890 workers. No I.D.C. applications were refused in Bradford during 1969 and 1970. I propose to continue the present policy, subject only to the requirements of the development areas whose needs must remain paramount in view of the limited amount of mobile industry available.
The coming local government reforms, by making Bradford part of a metropolitan area in West Yorkshire, will be of substantial help to the future development of the area. This is one way in which the Government are assisting Bradford. By providing an improved infrastructure, the new authorities will be able

785
to tackle the problems involved. This in turn should enable industries in the area to operate with confidence in future.
I believe that the outlook for Bradford can be optimistic. I was pleased that my hon. Friend indicated that the outlook of his constituents was one dedicated to self-help and to assisting themselves and not always crying out for financial assistance.
The Bradford area has its difficulties, but in the light of all the known facts
786
I am firmly convinced that it can look forward to an essentially sound future. When the period of restructuring is over, Bradford's unique wool textile industry should emerge strongly adapted to hold its own in both home and world markets.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock till Monday, 19th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 25th March.

DEFENCE
  Gurkha Brigade
  Gurkha Brigade
  Territorial Army Centres
  Territorial Army Centres
  Royal United Services Institution
  Royal United Services Institution
  Computers
  Computers
  Linesman Mediator
  Linesman Mediator
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Persian Gulf and Mozambique Channel (Forces)
  Persian Gulf and Mozambique Channel (Forces)
  Service Wives Overseas (Payments)
  Service Wives Overseas (Payments)
  Trainer Aircraft
  Trainer Aircraft
  Command-through-deck Cruisers
  Command-through-deck Cruisers
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
  Service Accommodation, Plymouth
  Service Accommodation, Plymouth
  Shipborne V/STOL Aircraft
  Shipborne V/STOL Aircraft
  Territorial and Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial and Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve
  Lightweight Torpedoes
  Lightweight Torpedoes
  Illegal I.R.A. Activities (Publicity)
  Illegal I.R.A. Activities (Publicity)
EMPLOYMENT
  Selkirk (Unemployment Benefit Claims)
  Selkirk (Unemployment Benefit Claims)
  United Kingdom and E.E.C. Countries (Unemployment)
  United Kingdom and E.E.C. Countries (Unemployment)
  United Kingdom and E.E.C. Countries (Wages)
  United Kingdom and E.E.C. Countries (Wages)
  Wool Textile and Engineering Industries, Bradford-Shipley Area
  Wool Textile and Engineering Industries, Bradford-Shipley Area
  Brad ford
  Brad ford
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Caterpillar Tractor Company, Birtley
  Caterpillar Tractor Company, Birtley
  Wythenshawe Employment Exchange
  Wythenshawe Employment Exchange
  Male Unemployment (Durham)
  Male Unemployment (Durham)
  Plymouth Area (Unemployed Persons)
  Plymouth Area (Unemployed Persons)
  British Productivity Council
  British Productivity Council
  Unemployment Benefit and Redundancy Payments
  Unemployment Benefit and Redundancy Payments
  Cost of Living Index
  Cost of Living Index
  New Year's Day (Paid Holiday)
  New Year's Day (Paid Holiday)
  Oundle School (Work Permits)
  Oundle School (Work Permits)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  R.A.F. (Rolls-Royce Spares)
  R.A.F. (Rolls-Royce Spares)
  Helicopters (Portuguese Army)
  Helicopters (Portuguese Army)
  Aircraft (Reduced Take-Off and Landing Characteristics)
  Aircraft (Reduced Take-Off and Landing Characteristics)
  Rolls-Royce Ltd. (Snecma 45H Engine)
  Rolls-Royce Ltd. (Snecma 45H Engine)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-German Offset Agreement
  Anglo-German Offset Agreement
  General Gowan
  General Gowan
  Northern Ireland (Murdered Policemen)
  Northern Ireland (Murdered Policemen)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  I.R.A. Gunmen (Training)
  I.R.A. Gunmen (Training)
  Egypt (British-owned Property)
  Egypt (British-owned Property)
  Sea Bed (Static Weapons)
  Sea Bed (Static Weapons)
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Kenya (Farmers)
  Kenya (Farmers)
  Lesotho
  Lesotho
SOCIAL SERVICES
  South-West Regional Hospital Board (Pay Beds)
  South-West Regional Hospital Board (Pay Beds)
  Old-Age Pensions' Associations
  Old-Age Pensions' Associations
  Leicester (Waiting Lists for Operations)
  Leicester (Waiting Lists for Operations)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Plymouth Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Plymouth Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Hospitals (In-Patients)
  Hospitals (In-Patients)
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work
  Census (Unemployed Persons)
  Census (Unemployed Persons)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Preventive Medicine
  Preventive Medicine
  East Europeans (Citizenship Registration)
  East Europeans (Citizenship Registration)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Warley (Bankruptcies)
  Warley (Bankruptcies)
  Tanker "Panther" (Grounding)
  Tanker "Panther" (Grounding)
  Oil Pollution (Brussels Convention)
  Oil Pollution (Brussels Convention)
  Territorial Waters
  Territorial Waters
  Steel Scrap Supplies
  Steel Scrap Supplies
  Heathrow (Aircraft Flights)
  Heathrow (Aircraft Flights)
  Steel Prices (European Comparisons)
  Steel Prices (European Comparisons)
  Chester-le-Street (Job Opportunities)
  Chester-le-Street (Job Opportunities)
  Imported Coal (Cost)
  Imported Coal (Cost)
  Denmark (Import Restrictions)
  Denmark (Import Restrictions)
  Trade Descriptions Act (Prosecutions)
  Trade Descriptions Act (Prosecutions)
  Knitted Clothing (Labelling)
  Knitted Clothing (Labelling)
  Offshore Airport, Holland (Consultations)
  Offshore Airport, Holland (Consultations)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Unemployment, Wales
  Unemployment, Wales
  Jute Textile Imports
  Jute Textile Imports
  National Coal Board (Chairmanship)
  National Coal Board (Chairmanship)
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax (Scotland)
  Selective Employment Tax (Scotland)
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Hydro-Carbon Oils (Excise Duty)
  Hydro-Carbon Oils (Excise Duty)
  Cloth and Knitting Wool (Purchase Tax)
  Cloth and Knitting Wool (Purchase Tax)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Oil Prices (Balance of Payments)
  Oil Prices (Balance of Payments)
  Industrial and Provident Societies (Fees)
  Industrial and Provident Societies (Fees)
  Tax Deductions (Non-Cumulative System)
  Tax Deductions (Non-Cumulative System)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Agriculture (Credit)
  Agriculture (Credit)
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Foreign Currency and Gold Reserves
  Foreign Currency and Gold Reserves
  Direct Taxation
  Direct Taxation
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, Washington New Town
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, Washington New Town
  Rates of Growth
  Rates of Growth
  National Resources
  National Resources
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
SCOTLAND
  Schools, Glasgow (Charging of Fees)
  Schools, Glasgow (Charging of Fees)
  Public Bodies (Trade Union Nominees)
  Public Bodies (Trade Union Nominees)
  University Students
  University Students
  Local Authority School Building
  Local Authority School Building
  Teachers (Shortage)
  Teachers (Shortage)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Private Schools (Pupils)
  Private Schools (Pupils)
  Local Authority Schools (Sizes of Classes)
  Local Authority Schools (Sizes of Classes)
  Local Authority Schools (Pupils)
  Local Authority Schools (Pupils)
  Hunterston (Industrial Development)
  Hunterston (Industrial Development)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Industrial Derating
  Industrial Derating
  GERMANY (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  GERMANY (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  OIL POLLUTION
  OIL POLLUTION
  POSTAL STRIKE (CARDS)
  POSTAL STRIKE (CARDS)
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY (CHAIRMAN)
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY (CHAIRMAN)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS (PRIME MINISTER'S NOMINATIONS)
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS (PRIME MINISTER'S NOMINATIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Study of Capital and Finance
  Study of Capital and Finance
  Coypu
  Coypu
CIVIL SERVICE
  New Year's Day (Paid Holiday)
  New Year's Day (Paid Holiday)
  Computers
  Computers
EDUCATION
  Myo-electric arms
  Myo-electric arms
  Schools of Architecture (Representations)
  Schools of Architecture (Representations)
  Teachers (Drugs)
  Teachers (Drugs)
  Teachers (National Insurance Contributions)
  Teachers (National Insurance Contributions)
  Teachers' Pay Dispute (Arbitration Tribunal)
  Teachers' Pay Dispute (Arbitration Tribunal)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Oil Pollution (Detergents)
  Oil Pollution (Detergents)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Building and Construction Industries
  Building and Construction Industries
  Harrard Manorway, Bexley (Flyover)
  Harrard Manorway, Bexley (Flyover)
  Inter-Urban Traffic (Motorway Standard Route)
  Inter-Urban Traffic (Motorway Standard Route)
  Grimscar Valley (Proposed Highway)
  Grimscar Valley (Proposed Highway)
  Pollution (Tyneside)
  Pollution (Tyneside)
  Humber Bridge (Finance)
  Humber Bridge (Finance)
  Housing (White Papers)
  Housing (White Papers)
  Housing (Land Availability)
  Housing (Land Availability)
  Tidal Waters Orders
  Tidal Waters Orders
  A66 Road
  A66 Road
  Gravel Study Working Parties
  Gravel Study Working Parties
  M62-M18 Link
  M62-M18 Link
  Special Development Areas, Northern Region
  Special Development Areas, Northern Region
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Housing (Direct Labour)
  Housing (Direct Labour)
  Construction Industry (Effect of Budget)
  Construction Industry (Effect of Budget)
  Construction Industry (S.E.T. Levy)
  Construction Industry (S.E.T. Levy)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government Reform (Magistrates' Courts)
  Local Government Reform (Magistrates' Courts)
  Merseyside (Urban Aid Projects)
  Merseyside (Urban Aid Projects)
  Alcoholism and Habitual Drunken Offenders
  Alcoholism and Habitual Drunken Offenders
  Witnesses (Allowances)
  Witnesses (Allowances)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Public Houses and Hotels (State Management Districts)
  Public Houses and Hotels (State Management Districts)
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Northern Ireland (Consultations)
  Northern Ireland (Consultations)
  Soviet Jews (United Kingdom Admission)
  Soviet Jews (United Kingdom Admission)
  Overnight Lorry Parking (Tower Hamlets)
  Overnight Lorry Parking (Tower Hamlets)
  Unlicensed Road Vehicles (Use for Crime)
  Unlicensed Road Vehicles (Use for Crime)
  Official Secrets Act (Review)
  Official Secrets Act (Review)
WALES
  Cardiganshire (Advance Factories)
  Cardiganshire (Advance Factories)
  Welsh Office (Establishment)
  Welsh Office (Establishment)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members of Parliament (Appointments)
  Members of Parliament (Appointments)
  Television Annunciators
  Television Annunciators

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

KENSINGTON GARDENS: PROPOSED UNDERGROUND CAR PARK
BARONESS STOCKS: 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 the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Public Building and Works has received an application for the construction of the car park under Kensington Gardens.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, revised outline plans of a proposed scheme have recently been submitted by the borough council. These are at present being examined by my right honourable friend. His concern will be to consider the need for the car park in relation to its effect on the amenities of Kensington Gardens and on the neighbourhood generally.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I ask whether the two Ministries mentioned in my Question are the only Government Departments concerned? What part, if any, would the Crown Lands play, because I gather that Kensington Gardens are Crown property? Am I not right in thinking that?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, the Department have no power at all to grant leases. If we were to agree to this scheme, we should have to ask for legislation.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House any details concerning the plans submitted by Kensington Borough Council? What form does the car park take; under what part of the Gardens is it proposed to
406
make this car park and where would the entrance be?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the car park would be off Kensington Road, between Palace Avenue and Broad Walk. It is definitely not intended that this car park should be for commuters in general. The borough council are quite clear on this. It would be for the benefit of residents, the hotel trade and local people.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, is my information correct, that the car park under the Royal Garden Hotel is not normally full? If that is the case, why provide another car park for surrounding hotels?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have no definite information as to whether what the noble Baroness has told us is correct or not. Obviously, my right honourable friend will be taking these points into consideration.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is not a policy against having car parks under London Squares in future and, if so, what is the difference between that and Kensington Gardens? Will he also ask his right honourable friend to consult the history of Cavendish Square, where permission was given, with some reluctance, upon assurances that the appearance of the Square would not be harmed by the construction of an underground car park and to consider whether in fact it has been harmed?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, whatever the noble Lord says will be studied with very great interest by my right honourable friend, because we know of his tremendous interest in this matter. We are not going to do anything without due consideration, and my right honourable friend is taking all these things into account.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, speaking as one who strongly supported the recent reorganisation by the present Government of the Ministries concerned with amenity, may I ask the noble Lord whether or not the Secretary of State will say at once to all concerned that he is not prepared to tolerate or consider any further encroachments on the Royal

407
Parks, whether in the general interests of traffic or to meet the local convenience of some particular authority or private interest, and particularly of the erectors of large hotels?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have already said. We have not yet made any decision. My right honourable friend is considering the matter. May I point out that if this scheme were to be undertaken, the actual permanent loss of ground would be about 550 feet long by 12 feet wide. Obviously, there would be a temporary disfigurement, but in the long term that would be the amount of land lost. But I take the noble Lord's point.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, perhaps as a member of various committees of the Ministry of Works I may ask a further question. Is it not appreciated that any interference with Kensington Gardens, and particularly with the area which gives a magnificent view of the Palace, is entirely contrary to the public interest? The time of public officials ought not to be wasted in having to consider plans concerned with how many feet are to be taken out and how many put in.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as I have said, we are not yet wedded to any view, but I do not see how an underground car park can mar the view of the Palace.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, there are the road approaches; there are the trees and there will be the ventilating shafts. I should be very sorry to hear that the Minister concerned with the environment is ready to consider seriously any encroachment upon one of the most famous and beautiful surviving parts of London.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, if the Minister considers this scheme, will the noble Lord give an assurance that his right honourable friend will seek the authority of Parliament before he approves any scheme that would do anything at all to Kensington Gardens or interfere with any of the other Royal Parks?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. I have already indicated that legislation would be necessary before
408
we could make any alteration in a Royal Park. In this part of the Gardens there are twelve trees that would be interfered with, but no planning permission will be given without making sure that there is enough soil to replant these trees.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I point out—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, the sentence on which I was embarked when interrupted by noble Lords was in fact a question, a sentence which, if written, would conclude with a question mark and it is designed to elicit the answer, Yes or No. The question is: may I point out that this proposal would be widely opposed?
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness to say that that is not an interrogatory question in the sense in which it is understood in this House.

MENTALLY ILL PATIENTS' POCKET MONEY
11.12 a.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: 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 arrangements have now been made for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to provide pocket money to patients in hospitals for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped as they do in all other hospitals for all patients who are eligible, including the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped.]
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of of State for Social Services is considering whether it is possible to provide the additional money and manpower which will be necessary before the Commision could be expected to accept this additional responsibility. Meanwhile the hospital authorities concerned continue to discharge this function.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am greatly encouraged by that reply. May I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that the perpetuation of this longstanding anomaly is a grave injustice to patients in our long-stay hospitals? Would he consider, together with his right honourable friend, the possibility of introducing a change in selected areas where perhaps the burdens are not quite so heavy on members of the staff of his Department?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think we all recognise that there are anomalies here. The Supplementary Benefits Commission have asked that any new schemes should be introduced progressively, and therefore the second point raised by the noble Baroness would, I think, he covered in any case.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, is it not the case that when the Mental Health Act 1959 was passed it was intended that patients in mental hospitals should be treated in exactly the same way as patients in general hospitals?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. That is why we are trying to put this right.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in the case of the mentally handicapped, do not the Government recognise that an important principle is involved, as the mentally handicapped can accept advice as to the disbursement of any sums placed to their credit simply as a part of an aid to their education?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords, I appreciate that.

B.E.A. AIR FARES ON UNITED KINGDOM ROUTES
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: 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 realise that B.E.A.'s recent increase on domestic fares has placed a further burden on those in the United Kingdom who live a long way from the chief centres of population.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the increases in domestic fares which apply to all domestic airlines were necessary to enable them to continue to operate and develop the network of domestic services. Without them there would have been a real risk of some services having to be reduced or even closed down. The changes represent very small increases in real money terms.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, are the Government aware that. in so far as my own part of the world is concerned, in addition to the increase in ordinary fares, what are known as the cheap night fares—that is, fares for those travelling on the mail plane—are being abolished because B.E.A. are introducing special mail planes, and that this will be a further hardship on Northern Ireland?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I was not personally aware of the fact which my noble friend has mentioned, but Her Majesty's Government were.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to give approval of increases of fares by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. There is a regular procedure in these cases. First of all, application for increase of fares is made to the Air Transport Licensing Board. In this case it was turned down, and then my right honourable friend appointed an appeal commissioner to look into the whole facts of the case. The appeal commissioner reported on March 26, and I think it may be of interest and for the convenience of your Lordships if I place a copy of his report, giving his entire reasons, in the Library.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, are the Government aware that the air service from Northern Ireland to London is our lifeline? Advertisements are to be seen all over the Underground in London: "Why not travel by the overground to Edinburgh in under six hours?" We in Northern Ireland have not such a facility. This, as I say, is our lifeline. We are 300 miles from London,

411
and Edinburgh is 400 miles from London; yet we have to pay exactly the same fare as the Scottish people. So this is a further burden for us, on top of the burden imposed on the Scottish people.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I quite appreciate that; but as I said in my original Answer, without these increases there would have been a real risk that some services would have to be cut down; and the services more likely to be cut down would be those to the more out-of-the-way places which do not pay so well.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the increasing profitability of B.E.A. improved by the Government's decision to hive off profitable flights?
LORD PLATT: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government realise that this rigid devotion to the principle that everything has to pay can have serious repercussions? For instance, in the academic and medical world, I am sure that it influences recruitment to Queen's University, Belfast.
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords; of course the Government realise that. There are always disadvantages if fares are allowed to be put up in this way, but one has to balance one set of disadvantages against another.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
11.19 a.m.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to and with one of the Lords Amendments agreed to with an Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (72) as first printea for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Shipping casualties
".—(1) The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable where—

(a) an accident has occurred to or in a ship, and

(b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in the waters in or adjacent to the United Kingdom up to the seaward limits of territorial waters, and

(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State the use of the powers conferred by this section is urgently needed.

(2) For the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, the Secretary of State may give directions as respects the ship or its cargo—

(a) to the owner of the ship, or to any person in possession of the ship, or

(b) to the master of the ship, or

(c) to any salvor in possession of the ship, or to any person who is the servant or agent of any salvor in possession of the ship, and who is in charge of the salvage operation.

(3) Directions under subsection (2) above may require the person to whom they are given to take, or refrain from taking, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the directions may require—

(a) that the ship is to be, or is not to be, moved, or is to be moved to a specified place, or is to be removed from a specified area or locality, or

(b) that the ship is not to be moved to a specified place or area, or over a specified route, or

(c) that any oil or other cargo is to be, or is not to be, unloaded or discharged, or

(d) that specified salvage measures are to be, or are not to be, taken.

(4) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State the powers conferred by subsection (2) above are. or have proved to be, inadequate for the purpose, the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, take. as respects the ship or its cargo, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the Secretary of State may—

(a) take any such action as he has power to require to be taken by a direction under this section,

413

(b) undertake operations for the sinking or destruction of the ship, or any part of it, of a kind which is not within the means of any person to whom he can give directions,

(c) undertake operations which involve the taking over of control of the ship.

(5) The powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above shall also be exercisable by such persons as may be authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State.
(6) Every person concerned with compliance with directions given, or with action, taken, under this section shall use his best endeavours to avoid any risk to human life.
(7) If the person to whom a direction is duly given under this section contravenes, or fails to comply with, any requirement of the direction, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(8) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (7) above, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he has used all clue diligence to ensure compliance with the direction or that he had reasonable cause for believing that compliance with the direction would have involved a serious risk to human life.
(9) If a person wilfully obstructs any person who is acting in compliance with a direction under this section, or who is acting under subsection (4) or (5) of this section, the first mentioned person shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(10) No direction under this section shall apply to a ship—

(a) which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and

(b) which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship.

(11) No direction tinder this section shall apply to any vessel of Her Majesty's Navy, or to any Government ship, and no action stall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such vessel or ship.

In this subsection "Government ship" has the same meaning as in section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906.
(12) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000,

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(13) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to any rights or powers of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom exercisable apart from this section whether under international law or otherwise.
(14) Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing this section and this section is in that Schedule referred to as "the principal section".
(15) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires—
"accident" includes the loss, stranding, abandonment of or damage to a ship,
414
"specified", in relation to a direction under this section, means specified by the direction.
The Commons agreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:—
Line 69, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
(10) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that this section and Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act, together with any other provisions of this Act, shall apply to a ship—

(a)which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and

(b)which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom,

in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the Order, and subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be so specified.
An Order in Council under this subsection may contain such transitional and other consequential provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be expedient.
(10A)Except as provided by an Order in Council under subsection (10) above, no direction under this section shall apply to a ship which is not registered in the United Kingdom and which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, and no action shall be taken tinder subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I should say, first of all, that in view of the short notice we have had of the debate on this Amendment to one of our Amendments, if any noble Lord objects I shall not have any hesitation in moving that the debate be adjourned. On the other hand, we have the situation that the "Panther" case has illustrated that, although we have powers under international law to deal with accidents and the aftermath of accidents on the high seas involving foreign ships outside, our jurisdiction—a point that I stressed during the debate—when an episode occurs, as it did on the Goodwin Sands, just outside our territorial waters but in waters which affect and threaten pollution on our beaches, our own legislation, which we have introduced in this Bill, would be much more apt for the purpose than the powers we have to act under international law.
The purpose of this Amendment therefore, as I think the House will agree, is a worthwhile one. It is to ensure beyond all doubt that the Government will have

415
power to deal with foreign ships which may meet with an accident and give rise to the danger of oil pollution of our waters and beaches from a point just outside our own territorial waters. We should not want any shadow of doubt to remain that we lack powers to deal with any future cases similar to that of the "Panther". Accordingly, the Amendment would enable an Order in Council to be made authorising the Secretary of State to give directions and to take action in such cases. The new subsection which is introduced by this Amendment will enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to apply all or any of the provisions of the new clause (the one we introduced) and related Schedule to ships on the high seas which are not registered in the United Kingdom. The Order can be made to apply to these ships in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the Order. For example, it could in the light of experience be applied to oil tankers of a certain size, or in specified areas such as the English Channel. I should stress that it is these particular areas that are in mind and not some area right out in the middle of the Atlantic.
The new clause in its entirety may not be suitable for application to foreign ships on the high seas; for instance, the application of criminal penalties in subsections (7), (9) and (12). The new subsection enables the Order to make the application subject to exception, adaption and modification. There is a wide degree of very necessary flexibility. By virtue of Section 22 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955, with which this Bill will be construed as one, the Order will be subject to the annulment procedure. Perhaps I should stress here that this means that the Order in Council will not come into force without there being an opportunity of further debate in both Houses of Parliament, and this may be some reassurance to noble Lords who may very properly be anxious that we are taking too big a step here with too little consideration. I hope, with that explanation and this reassurance, the Amendment will commend itself to the House as a measure enabling us to deal with the type of situation with which we have been confronted in the past two days. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
11.23 a.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government are being overtaken by events in this field. We had the pile-up of three ships in the Channel several weeks ago during the passage of this Bill through our House. Amendments were made to the Bill to take account of that situation. We then had the "Panther" incident and Amendments were made to the Bill at about one o'clock this morning in the other place to take account of that situation. Oil slicks are all over the Channel; they come from God knows where, because there is no procedure for finding out, and they will hit the beaches. Month after month this situation continues of accidents, panic reaction and panic legislation. I think the whole House will agree that it is extraordinary that the freedom of the seas should be abolished in the other place at I am on a certain day and the House of Lords should be invited to endorse that at half-past-eleven on the same day. I am not going to claim that this is intolerable from the legislative point of view, because we on this side of the House appreciate the extraordinary urgency and swiftness with which the situation develops.
But there is one aspect of the matter which I cannot forbear from drawing attention to. On Third Reading of this Bill I put down an Amendment to delete the very section which has now been deleted in the other place. That was the section which said: "O.K.; the Government can order ships around in British territorial waters, but they cannot order ships around on the high seas." I moved to delete that section because I believed that the Government should have power to order ships around on the high seas. In col. 1194 of Hansard on February 25 I said:
"…although the Secretary of State may give these orders about British ships anywhere, and British ships in territorial waters and foreign ships in British territorial waters, he may not give them about foreign ships on the high seas. It may be that this is specifically set out in this way…because it is not necessary to write it into the Bill. I ask the noble Lord to let the House know whether that is so, and if so, whether he can say that the Secretary of State already has precisely equivalent powers over foreign ships on the high seas to those which he now proposes to assume over British ships on the high seas."

417
In col. 1195 the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, answered me:
"My Lords, I certainly can give those assurances, …".
He pointed out that one subsection of the Bill as it was before us excluded foreign ships on the high seas, and he said that this was because the procedure in the 1969 Convention relating to oil polution authorised governmental action, where there was a threat of oil pollution on a large scale. In other words, he said that you do not need to delete this saving provision for the high seas because the Government already have power over the high seas. I accepted that assurance and withdrew my Amendment to delete the saving provision. We now find, six weeks later, that the noble Lord was wrong about this and the Government did not have powers, as we on this side thought they should have, with the result that they have to assume powers on Commons' consideration of Lords Amendments and the House is invited to endorse the assumption of those powers on Lords' consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments to the Bill. An odd way indeed to proceed!
I have certain questions on the details of this Amendment. It all rests on an Order in Council. My first question is: does there have to be an Order in Council for each separate exercise of power? That is to say, if there is an accident on the high seas and the Government wish to direct the ship or the owners, or the salvor, what they ought to do, do they have to convene a Privy Council meeting, or meeting of three Privy Counsellors at dead of night, to get the precise power to do it? Or are we talking about blanket Orders in Council? If so what is the nature of the blanket? Will it cover certain types of accident? Will it cover certain areas of the high seas? Will it cover certain parties who may be ordered about as to certain other parties who may rot? What does the Order in Council mean?
Secondly, and more important, am I right in thinking that the Government have still not taken powers to order ships about before there is an accident? Is it not the case that now if you have a collision the British Government may step forth, wherever you are, provided that collision may cause oil pollution on British Government shores, and order
418
you to do this, that or the other but if you are steaming in the wrong direction without any lights and, to the knowledge of the British Government, without any communication equipment, if you are going straight into the traffic, if you are heading for a pile-up of wrecks, if you are heading straight for a sandbank, so long as you have not yet had an accident the Government have no power to do anything about it at all? Is that correct? If so, how long is it going to remain correct?
May we hope that after the Recess, whatever happens to this Bill now, we shall have a full Statement in either or both Houses of Parliament about what the Government are donig in the long run and in overall about the fact that the narrows between this Island and the Continent of Europe are now a regular accident black spot? Although it is very good to have powers to clean up after an accident, it is better to have powers to prevent the accident. What consultations will the Government have with Governments on the other shores? What instant international instrument will they propose to take what is, in effect, no more than civilised control over the dangerous operations to commerce going up and down those narrow seas?
11.30 a.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, far be it from us on these Benches to hold up in any way reform of the accident black spot in the Channel or anything that might help to prevent the pollution of our beaches. But I must say that we did—certainly I did—share the surprise apparently felt by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we should, at five minutes' notice, just before proceeding on holiday, be asked, in effect, to abolish the freedom of the seas. In this Commons Amendment there seems indeed to be a slight element of panic legislation, to say nothing else. After all, what is proposed is to take by Order in Council complete powers to divert, fine, or even blow up and destroy a foreign vessel, shall we say belonging to the Soviet Union or the United States, in any circumstances when we think it is a danger to our beaches, or for any other reason, so far as one can make out. It is to be done by Order in Council, at a moment's notice. Surely that is taking vast powers.

419
Now I would not for a moment suggest that the Order in Council would be likely to be abused by Her Majesty's Government. Theoretically under this Amendment they could send a frigate to the Straits of Malacca and blow up a Chinese ship, or even send a vessel into New York Harbour and sink it, if that were desired, under an Order in Council. Of course, Her Majesty's Government are not as mad as that and they will undoubtedly apply this provision properly; I would not deny that for a moment. But if they applied it in certain circumstances it might give rise to considerable international complications, unless presumably they have made approaches to our foreign friends and have told them what they are likely to do.
Therefore I should have thought there was a strong case for at any rate postponing consideration of this matter until after the holiday, and perhaps thinking again. There are surely other means of accomplishing what we want. Why cannot we, for instance, have this power by Order operative within only certain limits—shall we say, 20 miles of the coasts? That would make it less frightening, presumably, for foreigners even if they are careering up and down the Channel without lights. It would in any case make foreign Governments more conscious of the reasonableness of what is proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot really believe that there is very great likelihood of another "Panther" grounding in the Channel during the ten days when we are away from Westminster. I really should have thought we could hold up this matter and think about it during the holidays, and pass the necessary legislation when we come back, perhaps as amended by us once again at the end of the month.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I follow up what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn? I do not want to postpone a decision on this matter. The situation in the Channel and in the South Coast towns is now quite intolerable. The jamming of ships, the sinking of ships, the danger of loss of life, the appalling disturbance on the beaches of the South and of thousands of holidaymakers, demand action. I should however like to put one question to the Minister. This action intervenes in
420
issues of international law. We are taking steps that interfere with the right of ships of other nations on the High Seas. If we obtain consent to these measures, will the Government take action to raise this issue in the appropriate international agency which controls these matters?—because it would be disastrous for our international reputation if we took unilateral steps on these lines unless also we were raising in the relevant international agency reconsideration of the international law which covers these matters.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to say, without unduly lengthening this debate, that I hope this Amendment will go through. We have a very serious situation which calls for regulation. There have been a great many accidents this summer, and something must be done about the situation. But I agree with previous speakers, that this is going to precipitate a somewhat new international situation. I am sure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take appropriate measures to deal with it. It seems to me that this is essentially a question where the neighbouring and what one might call the riparian States—that is, France, Belgium and Holland—are equally vitally concerned and where other nations with large commercial fleets (I am thinking of Norway and Germany and perhaps Sweden and Denmark in the first instance) are all bound to be vitally interested. The Channel is their main thoroughfare. I should have thought that if we pass this Bill with the Commons Amendment this will, with any luck, give Her Majesty's Government a lever with which they will be able to make representations to these other Powers and get them to join us in producing a proper regulation.
I think the time has passed when we can hope to have this question dealt with piecemeal. It is time to think of a proper system of traffic regulation. I should have thought there might be an agreed system for helicopter inspection, to see whether anybody was pumping out oil in the Channel, and that if such a case was found the ship could be prosecuted when it came into port. I should have thought there was a very good case for destroying wrecks, as is proposed, but may I point out that if you destroy a wreck which contains oil you are bound

421
to produce serious pollution; and the danger to shipping has to be balanced to some degree against the danger to marine life and holiday resorts and ordinary life. I hope that the Government will be extremely careful before they order the destruction of more wrecks. I cannot help a suspicion that some of the oil now in the enormous slick in the Channel may have come from some of the wrecks which have been destroyed or run into.
When we think about a new arrangement for this area there surely ought to be a system of international traffic police; and ships which have not got radar operating—as seems to have been the case with the "Panther"; and I believe it was the case with one of the other ships involved in an accident this summer—perhaps ought to be obliged to take a pilot. I do not know whether a pilot is altogether necessary, but certainly if a ship has not radar it is, I suggest, more necessary that it should have a pilot.
I therefore hope, my Lords, that we shall pass this Amendment, and that the Government will regard this as a starting point for taking serious action to introduce a new international convention for this area; that the riparian States which are most closely concerned, including the ones I have mentioned, will be invited to participate with us in organising this action. And of course, as a general interference with existing law on the High Seas is involved, the Government will no doubt then wish to get those Governments to be associated with us in trying to obtain agreement on a general international convention on this subject.
11.39 a.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene at this moment to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, after the remarks that have been made, sustains his objection to taking this Amendment at this particular moment, there is nothing more to be said, and I will stick to my promise to adjourn the debate. But may I also say that I am happy to deal with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I am reasonably satisfied that I shall be able to reassure your Lordships on those particular points. I take the point
422
which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and I believe on balance there is a great deal to be said for accepting this Amendment now. I should like to know what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, feels about it.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, having heard what has been said, I still think that, in view of possible international complications and the rather remote danger of some major incident occurring in the Channel during the next ten days, it would be wiser to adjourn the debate. But I should like to hear the reply of the noble Lord to what has been said, because I think it would at least give us something to reflect on during the Recess.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, surely the international complications cannot arise until there is an incident, or until the Order in Council has been passed and some action has been proposed. I should have thought that if the Amendment were passed now there would be adequate time for consultation afterwards; because obviously there will not be much consultation before.
LORD SANDFORD: That is so, my Lords, and the point I made in my opening remarks is that an Order in Council will be subject to Negative Resolution, and both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity to debate such an Order in Council. There are other things that I could say by way of reassurance, but I did not want to prolong the debate if, despite anything I said, the noble Lord. Lord Gladwyn, indicated that he proposed to sustain his objection.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, at the cost of being somewhat disorderly in debate—I do not know whether we are allowed to speak two or three times—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD KENNET: Then, with the leave of the House, my Lords, may I say that I hope it may do something to calm the apprehensions of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—which I think are extremely well-founded—if I remind the House that this is exactly what the Canadian Government did. They passed legislation taking very far-reaching powers to order ships around on the high seas. It was delegated legislation, and under it they have to present each Order to Parliament, and each

423
Order is debated. I remember that at the time many voices in this country were raised in alarm against the Canadian legislation, but I think that it is working out fairly well, and it may be that if we follow that precedent we shall maintain Parliamentary control over details in a satisfactory way.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I should, of course, like to see the powers of our Government strengthened in this matter, and strengthened quickly. But I have had so much to do with international shipping that I feel we ought to give great consideration to the possible reactions on our own shipping interest if we take this action without any form of consultation or warning. I do not want to put an inconvenient question, but I was going to ask the Minister whether he has had time to sound our own Chamber of Shipping, who are well able to inform the Government as to the probable reactions and difficulties which may occur if we proceed now, as personally I should like to do. I am sure the House realises that it is not only a question of what some hostile or unfriendly foreign Power may say, but of how the shipowners of the world will react if we take these rather drastic steps. Perhaps the right solution would be to recover the Goodwin Sands and add them to the County of Kent.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, meant to say that the Order in Council would be subject to an Affirmative Resolution which would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak again to this Motion and to deal with the number of points which your Lordships have very properly raised. The first is the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as to what form this Order in Council would take. It is certainly envisaged that we should not wait until an accident occurred and then take the powers to deal with it, but that the Order in Council would be designed to cover particular areas, such as the Goodwin Sands, so that the powers were available when an incident occurred (as several have done) in that kind of area. It is this point that I think served to allay the
424
fears of noble Lords who feel that we are at one stroke abolishing the freedom of the high seas. If I may say so, I think the Amendment that the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, was urging at Third Reading would have had that effect, because it would have imported into the Bill powers which would have applied all over the world, from the Malacca Straits.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. I would not have imported anything into the Bill; I put down a probing Amendment, seeking assurances from the noble Lord. The noble Lord gave me assurances which satisfied me but which I now find are invalid. If at the time the assurances given by the noble Lord had not satisfied me the way would have been open to put down a reasoned and considered Amendment.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, does not the present House of Commons Amendment extend the potential powers of Her Majesty's Government effectively all over the world?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, only in the wildest theoretical sense. The Order in Council is subject to Parliamentary control and, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in our original debates, we have similar, although not identical, powers under international law which would be appropriate in much wider open spaces of the seas—the high seas—in the sense of somewhere out in the middle of the Atlantic. But I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the Goodwin Sands are a rather special case. We have there considerable shipping, congestion, which is what causes the trouble; it is only just outside territorial waters and any accident there is an immediate threat to our beaches. That is the problem we are facing. This particular Amendment is designed to enable us to extend the legislation which we have taken in the Bill, which is more apt for these particular kinds of accidents and these particular situations, so that we can deal with them.
This discussion raises the whole question of traffic control in the Channel, and if it were not for other things pressing on your Lordships' time I could at this particular moment give a very full statement as to what the Government are

425
doing in that respect. The Government have been by no means idle, but I do not think it is strictly relevant to the Motion now before the House. On the other hand, it is important that traffic control should be considered, and we might perhaps have a debate on that subject on some other occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, asked me about the Chamber of Shipping. I cannot say that there has been consultation with our own Chamber of Shipping, or with any other international organisations concerned here; but there would be further consultation before the Order in Council was made if opportunity provides—as we hope it will, because we hope that there will not he another pressing incident of this kind in the next few weeks. But I submit to your Lordships that, with the "Panther" case right before us, this opportunity not to take the powers but to provide for the powers to be taken, is one which in the circumstances it would be wiser to take rather than to lose.
For that reason, while very much welcoming this debate, and particularly appreciating the anxiety of noble Lords about taking this rather big step without the full consideration that perhaps we should have given it if all the circumstances had been different, I would commend the Amendment to your Lordships.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would the noble Lord reply to the question I put to him?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, was there any further question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, over and above the control of traffic in the Channel, which I hope I have dealt with adequately?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the question was whether in view of the fact that this relates to international law, the Government would give us an assurance that if they got this Amendment they would immediately raise at the appropriate international agency the issues which are involved.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we are already in touch and are in the middle of negotiations with IMCO on the whole range of these problems. I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance, because discussions are already going on.
11.50 a.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there is one question which remains unanswered in our minds. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that the Orders in Council we are talking about would be subject to Negative Resolution. The Lord Chairman of Committees said subject to Affirmative Resolution. I think the conflict of opinion remains unresolved. Is it possible to go any further?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I read again what I said in my opening remarks on this matter? By virtue of Section 22 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955, with which this Bill will be construed as one, the Order will be subject to the annulment procedure.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, could the noble Lord, before we proceed, deal with that part of Lord Hurcomb's representations which I think he left unanswered? Can he assure the House that there will not arise those misapprehensions on the part of the international shipping community which would cause serious action to be taken against our interests?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if, with the leave of the House, I may continue, I think it is difficult to give that assurance. It is certainly one on which we spent a great deal of time, and properly so, during the discussion of the Bill. I urged it myself. We are here creating legislation which may well be followed by other nations seeking to protect their own territorial waters and their own beaches. We have to be careful, therefore, that we are not importing into our own legislation powers which could be damaging to our own merchant marine. This is a difficult balance to sustain. I believe that we have got the balance right. But I cannot, of course, speak from this Box about what other nations will do in their own legislation and how they will apply it. I do not see how I can give the assurance asked for. It is certainly something we have had in mind and it was causing concern to our own merchant marine. I think we have given it full weight and tried to strike the right balance. As I say, I believe that we have got it right.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I find it very difficult to understand why this matter is being put before your Lordships to-day at all. As I now understand it, this cannot be put into operation save by Order in Council, and not until sufficient time has elapsed to ensure that no action under the Negative Resolution procedure can be taken in this or another House. If I am wrong in that assumption, perhaps the noble Lord will interrupt me now, and I will not detain your Lordships any longer. But I think that is correct. We are having a very short Recess. This Business has been put on the Order Paper without any notice at all. If we put it off until after the Recess, I cannot see that it could make any conceivable difference if any other such instance like the "Panther" were to occur, because a period would have to elapse to give this House and the other place the opportunity to put down a Motion against whatever Order in Council was made. It seems to me, therefore, that we are being unduly hurried for no reason whatsoever.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is in fact guiding the House correctly—I speak with great respect. My understanding is that it is possible to lay an Order which will come into force forthwith, though it may be cancelled by an adverse vote in either House within 40 days. I would certainly think that should an emergency occur we should be speeding up the possible action that the Government could take by agreeing to this Commons Amendment to-day, and that, if we did not agree to it, we should be delaying the action the Government could take.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I have delayed your Lordships unnecessarily, and I apologise.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I can speak again only with leave, but I would apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for misunderstanding what he said about the form of Order proposed in the Amendment, and thank him for making it clear to the House that what he is proposing is an Order subject to annulment and not to Affirmative Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
11.55 a.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to explain very briefly the purpose of the Amendments which I am asking your Lordships to agree to this morning and the procedure which I would propose to follow.
There are, as your Lordships will observe, a very large number of Amendments, and I have divided them into three separate groups according to their subject matter. I should like to make some brief remarks in explanation of each group, and then for the convenience of the House I propose, with leave, to move each separate group of Amendments en bloc.
The Amendments comprising group I are proposed to give effect to a number of transfer of functions orders made under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, which, as the House knows, changed the nomenclature and functions of Government Departments. That is all that is proposed by the Amendments in this group.
The Amendments in the second group are designed to make it possible for Petitioners against Private Bills and other documents at present required to be signed by the party concerned to be signed by the Parliamentary agent acting on his behalf. This relaxation of the existing rules follows representations that have been made, that it is sometimes difficult for such documents to be signed and sealed by the parties themselves within the strict time limits laid down by the Standing Orders. Amendments similar to those proposed in groups I and 2 have already been agreed to by the House of Commons, and these Amendments will bring us into line with those that have been accepted by another place.
The third group amends certain Standing Orders, peculiar to this House, relating to Personal Bills which provide for the protection of infants whose interests are affected by such Bills. These Amendments are to comply with Section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 and Section 1 of the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969, whereby a person comes

429
of age on attaining the age of 18, instead of on attaining the age of 21. The immediate need for these particular Amendments has arisen because, under the provision of Standing Order 167, a guardian has actually been appointed to protect the interests of a person of 19 who is or may be affected by a Personal Bill. The House will appreciate that it is inconsistent with the general law that our Standing Orders relating to Private Business should continue to require special protection of a person who has attained the age of 18. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be considered with a view to their amendment.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ORDERS MADE UNDER TILE MINISTERS OF THE CROWN(TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) ACT 1946
Standing Order 22
Line 21: leave out "Postmaster General "and insert Post Office".
Standing Order 27
Lines 61 and 62: leave out from "the" in line 61 to the end of line 62 and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 29
Line 8: leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Department of the Environment''.
Line 9: leave out "Ministry" and insert "Department".
Lines 9 and 10: leave out "at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government ".
Standing Order 30
Line 5: leave out "Ministry of Power" and insert "Department of Trade and Industry".
Line 6: leave out "Ministry of Housing and Local Government" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 30A
Lines 4 and 5: leave out "Ministry of Housing and Local Government" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 31
Line 6: leave out "Board of Trade" and insert "Department of Trade and Industry, at the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners".
Line 7: leave out "(Navy Department)".
Standing Order 34
Lines 3 and 4: leave out "or to a work of any description on the foreshore".
Line 10: leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 37
Line 14: leave out "Ministry of Housing and Local Government" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 39
Line 1: leave out from the beginning to the end of line 11 and insert "On or before the fourth day of December printed copies of every Bill shall be deposited as follows: three at the Department of the Environment; two at the Department of Social Services and at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and one at the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster."
Lines 11 to 38: leave out paragraphs (2) and (3).
Standing Order 45
Lines 29 and 30: leave out "pier, or works of any description on the foreshore" and insert "or pier".
Line 31: leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 46
Lines 4 and 5: leave out "Board of Trade or Ministry of Housing and Local Government" and insert "Department of Trade and Industry or Department of the Environment".
Line 5: leave out "Offices" and insert "Departments".
Line 5: leave out "or Ministry of Land and Natural Resources".
Standing Order 47
Lines 10 and 11: leave out "Ministry of Housing and Local Government" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 131
Line 5: leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Line 7: leave out "Ministry" and insert "Department".
Standing Order 132
Line 7: leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Line 9: leave out "Ministry "and insert "Department".
Standing Order 139
Line 11: leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Line 22: leave out "Ministry of Transport" and insert "Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 140
Line 4: leave out from the beginning to the first "the" in line 6 and insert "the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of the Environment".
Lines 8 and 9: leave out "Board or Ministry" and insert "Department".
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the first group of these Amendments be agreed to en bloc.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENTS TO ENABLE PETITIONS ETC AGAINST BILLS TO BE SIGNED BY THE PAR LIAMENTARY AGENT CONCERNED ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT
Standing Order 1
Line 66: At end insert Any provision in these Orders requiring or authorising a Petition or other document to be signed by any person shall, where that person is a body corporate, he construed as requiring or authorising the Petition or document to be signed by the Agent for the body corporate or any other person acting under the authority of the body corporate, expressed or implied.
Provided that, if the Petition is for a Bill or for an additional provision, the Petition shall be under the seal of the body corporate."
Standing Order 73
Line 2: after "shall" insert "be signed by the Petitioner and shall".
Standing Order 76
Line 3: after "Examiners" insert "and signed by those parties or their Agents".
Line 7: after "Orders" insert "or his Agent".
Line 12: after "although" insert "neither".
Line 14: leave out "has not" and insert "nor his Agent has".
Standing Order 77
Line 6: after "Examiners" insert "and signed by him or his Agent".
Standing Order 79
Lines 3 and 4: leave out "by the Agent who deposited the Memorial" and insert "his Agent".
Line 5: leave out "signed by" and insert "deposited by or on behalf of".
Lines 5 and 6: leave out "person signing the Memorial" and insert "of those persons".
Standing Order 83
Line 17: after "Examiners" insert "and signed by those parties of their Agents ".
Line 21: after "Orders" insert "or his Agent".
Standing Order 88
Line 9: after "be "insert" signed by the party or his Agent and".
Standing Order 101
Line 3: after "Petition" insert" "is signed by the Petitioner or his Agent and".
Standing Order 103
Lines 3 and 4: leave out "by the Agent who deposited the Petition' and insert "his Agent ".
Lines 4 and 5: leave out "signed by" and insert "deposited by or on behalf of".
Line 5: leave out "person signing the Petition" and insert "of those persons".
Standing Order 109
Line 15: after "Petition" insert "signed as required by Standing Order 101".
Standing Order 123
Lines 3 and 4: leave out "Agent for the Bill" and insert "Promoters of the Bill or their Agent ".
Line 5: after "the" insert "Promoters or their ".
Standing Order 150
Line 4: at end insert "Promoters or their ".
Standing Order 154
Line 25: leave out "Agent for the Bill" and insert Promoters of the Bill or their Agent ".
Standing Order 181
Line 19: after "although" insert "neither".
Line 21: leave out "has not" and insert "nor his Agent has".
Standing Order 184
Line 1: after "be" insert "signed by the Petitioner or his Agent and"
Standing Order 206
Line 2: after "be" insert "signed by the Petitioner or his Agent and".
Standing Order 207
Line 5: after "Chairman" insert "and signed by him or his Agent".
Standing Order 210
Lines 10 & 11: leave out "presenting the Counter-Petition" and insert by whom or on whose behalf the Counter-Petition is presented ".
Line 16: at end insert "signed by the counter-petitioner or his Agent and ".
Line 23: leave out "depositing it" and insert "by or on whose behalf it is deposited".
Line 25: leave out or Agent who signed "and insert" who signed or whose Agent signed ".
Standing Order 211
Line 4: leave out from "or" to "and" in line 5 and insert "his Agent".
Line 6: leave out "signed by" and insert "deposited by or on behalf of".
Line 7: leave out from "any" to "may" in line S and insert "of those persons".
standing Order 216
Line 47: after "be" insert "signed by the Petitioner or his Agent and".
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the second group of these Amendments be agreed to en bloc.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS RELATING TO PERSONAL BILLS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION I OF THE FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT 1969 AND SECTION 1 OF THE AGE OF MAJORITY (SCOTLAND) ACT 1969.
Standing Order 167
Line 1: after "which" insert "a person who has not attained the age of eighteen, herein-after referred to as".
Standing Order 168
Line 1: leave out "under age" and insert "who has not attained the age of eighteen".
Standing Order 170
Line 7: leave out "is of lawful age and" and insert "has attained the age of eighteen and was".
Line 16: leave out "is of full age and" and insert" has attained the age of eighteen and was".
Line 25: leave out "is of full age" and insert "has attained the age of eighteen".
Line 53: leave out "twenty-one" and insert "eighteen".
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the last group of these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS BILL
12 noon
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDI.ESIIAM): 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 Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Uses of premises for which fire certificate is compulsory]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be convenient if I said a word or two on this clause about the two important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, on Second Reading, concerning hospitals. The noble Lord drew attention to the cost of bringing old hospital buildings up to the standards envisaged in the Bill, and also to the fact that in certain hospitals equipment might not be an effective precaution unless there were adequately trained staff. The Government share the noble Lord's concern on both of these matters, and I can confirm that hospitals generally will fall within the scope of the Bill under Clause 1(2)(a) and (b). This applies to mental hospitals as well, the exceptions in Clause 40 being confined to the special hospitals such as Broadmoor.
The Department of Health and Social Security has been doing a great deal in recent years by way of guidance and advice to encourage regional hospital boards to review and, where necessary, to bring up to standard their fire safety arrangements (especially the arrangements for means of escape), including alarm systems. In carrying out this work hospital boards commonly seek the advice of the fire authority, and while we accept that there are still necessary improvements to be made, there is no reason to believe that means of escape generally in hospitals are inadequate. Moreover, where other fire safety measures are thought necessary, these too are being carried out by hospital authorities within their normal budgets as and when possible. The noble Lord rightly stressed the need for adequate financial resources. As he well knows, hospitals boards constantly face the problem of conflicting priorities in allocating the funds available to them, but there is no doubt that they are aware of the importance of adequate fire precautions.
The noble Lord also stressed the need for adequate staff training. This, too, is a matter which receives close attention, and in which fire brigades already give a great deal of help. The Bill indeed makes special provision in Clause 6 for persons working in premises covered

435
by a fire certificate to receive appropriate instructional training. The shortage of financial resources to modernise old hospital buildings, both as regards improved fire precautions and in other ways, is of course a matter that goes outside the scope of the Bill, but in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Burnt-wood, on Second Reading, and his considerable knowledge and interest in hospital administration, the Government thought it right to make a brief statement at this stage for the Record.
LORD BURNTWOOD: I must apologise to the Committee for not being present when the noble Lord began his statement. I think there may be some deficiency with the postal services, as I did not know that the statement was to be made. However that may be, I will study what the noble Lord has said more carefully, and perhaps I shall be in correspondence with him. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Premises exempt from s.1]:
12.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 32, after second ("premises") insert ("(other than those in which musical entertainment is supplied)").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I draw attention to what is, I am afraid, rather a complex situation. Your Lordships will see from Clause 1(2)(c) that the Secretary of State is able to designate premises which are used for the purposes of entertainment as being premises to which the fire certificate procedure, under the Bill, will relate. There are certain premises which are used in the purposes of entertainment which, rather surprisingly, already come under the provisions of the Offices. Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. Your Lordships will see, if you look at Clause 2(a). that any premises which are caught by that Act of 1963 cannot be brought into the fire certificate procedure under the Bill.
There is an additional complication. These premises which fall under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act are usually places where there is music and dancing. They are places like public
436
houses, bars and lounges, public restaurants and dining and banqueting halls, and hotels. The present procedure is, of course, that premises of this sort have to comply with the code relating to fire precautions under the 1963 Act. Those provisions are to be found in Sections 28 to 38 of that Act, but they are not anything like so comprehensive as the provisions for fire precautions made under this Bill. Indeed, I think it would have been possible for the Minister in charge of the 1963 Act to make regulations to extend the scope of the code under that Act, but he has not done so; he has never made the regulations that he could make under Section 37.
The result is that we have a supervisory power in the local authorities under the 1963 Act which is mainly to deal with the provision and maintenance of means of escape and fire fighting equipment and, to some extent, fire alarms and the instruction of staff, but it does not deal with control of the people who have come in to take part in the entertainment. The local authorities concerned, therefore, had to fall back upon the licensing powers and there are, therefore, in many places, two separate codes of fire precaution machinery being operated in relation to premises of this sort. I say "in many places" because the strange situation is that although some county councils have powers to deal with this under licensing procedure, in other areas it is not the county council but the local district council which has to take these steps under the licensing procedure, and some of these local district councils do not have the power at all. Therefore, there are areas where there is no machinery whereby the public who come into these entertainments can be properly provided for in the way of fire precautions, and the 1963 Act is not adequate.
What my Amendment seeks to do is to bring premises of this sort within the scope of the Bill. There will then be available to the local authorities all the extra conditions over and above those in the 1963 Act, and they will be able to take advantage of any regulations, for instance, that the Secretary of State makes under Clause 12 which would not otherwise apply because Clause 12 regulations will not apply to premises at the present moment exempted under Clause 2. Equally, the provisions of Clause 6 will

437
apply if my Amendment is made, but not otherwise.
If something is not done, we shall be left with what I suggest to the Committee is an unsatisfactory situation whereby there is, in all places, a somewhat inadequate provision in the 1963 Act available, which only in some places can be supplemented by the licensing provisions; and those provisions are sometimes under the local authority and sometimes the licensing justices, if they operate at all. I would suggest to your Lordships that the most satisfactory thing to do would be to stop this complex situation and bring these premises within the scope of this Bill thus giving the public the full protection which this Bill would provide everywhere for the first time. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Viscount has given of his Amendment. He is right in saying that restaurants are required by the 1963 Act (that is the Act covering offices, shops and railway premises) have adequate means of escape from fire in certain circumstances. Where more than 20 staff, or more than 10 elsewhere than on the ground floor, are employed, they must have a fire certificate. Furthermore, if there is music and dancing on the premises, the restaurant will normally require a licence in addition under the appropriate licensing Acts; and, as the noble Viscount pointed out, these vary for different parts of the country. Therefore these premises are covered at present as regards fire precautions, even though more than one piece of legislation applies.
The fact that more than one Act applies to the same premises is unavoidable, and this affects both premises corning within the scope of the Bill and premises such as restaurants which fall outside it by reason of the exclusion of Clause 2. A cinema, for example, will still need a licence under the Cinematograph Acts, as well as a fire certificate under the Bill, because the licensing provisions extend to matters other than means of escape. There is therefore no advantage from this point of view in bringing restaurants where there is a floor show within the scope of the Bill rather than leaving them under the control of the 1963 Act. In either case, a licence
438
will be needed in addition to a fire certificate.
It is arguable, indeed, that this Amendment would complicate matters even further. As I have explained, there are two licensing provisions already affecting these premises, and the effect of the Amendment would be to bring the premises referred to in the noble Viscount's Amendment within the scope of the Bill, without of course repealing any of the provisions of the 1963 Act. Accordingly, it would seem that a restaurant offering entertainment of the type envisaged in the Amendment would require two fire certificates instead of one, as well as being subject to licensing conditions; that is, it would need a fire certificate under the 1963 Act, and a fire certificate under what will become the 1971 Act as well. That seems to us an unnecessary complication.
Even if the intention of the Amendment were acceptable, there are difficulties about its form. The words musical entertainment "are not defined, and would presumably include not only a floor show, such as in the larger type of restaurant providing musical entertainment, but also "canned" music which is a feature of, for example, railway stations, shops and small restaurants. To take premises of that type out of the scope of the 1963 Act and bring them all under the Bill does not seem to be a desirable innovation. Moreover, as I have explained, small restaurants employing less than a certain number of staff do not require a fire certificate under the 1963 Act; but if they were brought under this Bill by means of this Amendment they would. This would greatly increase the fire authorities' burden of work, and the increase does not seem to be justified in the interests of the safety of the public. I hope I have explained why the Government feel that it is not wise or, on the whole, desirable to accept this Amendment. I do not know whether, with that explanation, the noble Viscount will be willing to withdraw it.
LORD SOMERS: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question about places where there is "canned" music, such as railway stations? Can they be described as being provided for the purpose of musical entertainment? They are really provided for the

439
purpose of transport. Musical entertainment is, unfortunately, there and we cannot avoid it; but those places are not provided for that purpose.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It could be said that the railway buffet was provided for the purpose of refreshment of the passengers, and that the recorded music played in the buffet was for the entertainment of those using it. I should not like to give a more considered reply than that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If there is something wrong with the wording of the Amendment, then, plainly, I shall have to ask leave to withdraw it, but I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Windlesham a few extra questions about this subject. The reason why I understand a certain amount of concern has been expressed about this matter is that under subsection (2)(d) of Clause 6 there is power to make provision for limiting the number of persons who may be on the premises at any one time, and in the case of a large restaurant, or a large public house bar, this, one would have thought, was an extraordinarily relevant provision. There is no such provision, so far as I know, under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. It is because there is not that sort of power under the 1963 Act that the local authorities have to use licensing provisions, if they can, to supplement the 1963 Act. That is all very well where the licensing provisions apply, but then there are large areas of the country where they do not apply. The result is that you are left with what is a very much less widely drawn code under the 1963 Act, directed primarily to protecting the employees rather than those resorting to the premises.
I quite see that there may be difficulties when premises have to have yet another fire certificate. But the whole point of this Bill is to provide an extensive and comprehensive code so as to protect all the people on the premises at the time, whether employees or those who are resorting to the premises for entertainment. My noble friend's answer simply does not meet that point. I do not see how the Government suppose that the 1963 Act is going to be adequate, unless
440
my noble friend is going to tell us—which he has not done so far—that the Department is going to make regulations under Section 37(2). They have not done that so far, but Section 37(2) of the 1963 Act allows regulations to be made prescribing requirements as to the internal construction of the premises and the materials used, and it provides that somebody instead of the occupier shall be responsible for a contravention. Probably other things, which go further than the powers in existence at the moment under the Act, can be done as well. Is my noble friend really not prepared to go any way in order to meet this practical point? I will certainly withdraw the Amendment if it is technically invalid, but I should have thought that the substance of it remained.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is true, as the noble Viscount has said, that in a number of country districts there is no power under the 1890 Act to license premises used generally for music and dancing. But the point is that a restaurant is covered by the fire safety provisions of the 1963 Act, wherever it is. In a country area, where, after all, a large restaurant with floor shows is not very likely to be encountered, the 1963 Act provisions are in practice more than adequate to ensure the safety of the customers in the restaurant in the event of fire, even if occasionally a small orchestra or a small floor show is provided. I am advised that it is not right to say or to imply, as the noble Viscount has done, that the powers in the 1963 Act are less rigorous than those contained in the present Bill. It is right to say that they are somewhat more limited, but not that they are less extensive.
What I ought to do, in view of the noble Viscount's strong feelings on this matter, is to leave with him the considerations that I have advanced, which are considerable ones. Is it really wise, at a time when people are worried about increasing unnecessarily detailed administration, to have three certificates for one set of premises—two fire certificates and one general licence? Is it really wise to bring the small restaurant, which is outside the 1963 Act, within the legislation? And then there are the detailed points about the nature of the musical entertainment provided. I should like my

441
noble friend to consider those points, and any local authorities specially concerned to consider them, too. In return, without giving any specific assurance at this stage, I can say that I will look again at the central argument that my noble friend has advanced, which is that some aspect of the 1963 Act might give additional protection to the public in certain circumstances which would be beneficial. So if my noble friend is happy to settle on that basis, I will willingly give an undertaking on those lines.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. I think that probably, although formally it may be very difficult, the practical difficulties are really fairly easily overcome. It is obviously insane to have three series of applications and to overburden the authority, but it seems to me that if under this Bill we have the best and most comprehensive code then there is no reason why we should not also in this Bill provide that premises dealt with under that code do not have to be dealt with under either of the others, and I do not see any difficulty in providing an Amendment which does that.
Equally, if we are going to have some trouble about actually deciding which sort of premises, or what sort of size of premises., are to be covered by this comprehensive code, and if my noble friend wants to leave some under the existing control, by far the best way to do that is to give the Secretary of State powers to designate under Clause 1 on a rather more detailed basis than he at present has and to give him power to designate some premises which at the moment come under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. We can then segregate the ones which we want to be dealt with comprehensively under this Bill from those which my noble friend thinks it is not necessary to deal with in so comprehensive a way. At the moment there is no latitude in this at all. But I will look for a way to bring this about. It may be fairly complex, but I should not have thought that it was entirely impossible to achieve. Anyway, I will leave that point with my noble friend and certainly I will take account of what he has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Change of conditions affecting adequacy of certain matters specified in fire certificate, etc.]:
12.24 p.m.
LORD CROWTHER LORD CROWTHER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 11, line 17, after ("dwelling") insert ("or sleeping accommodation").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment and that of Amendment No. 17, which stand in my name, are identical, and I hope that it will be within the rules of order if I explain the purpose of both Amendments at once. This Bill is to cover, among other premises, hotels (I do not know whether the fact that I have for many years been actively associated with the hotel industry is an interest that I ought to declare, but if it be so I do declare it), boarding houses, residential clubs, hostels and a great variety of other such institutions indeed, in the words of the Bill, all those which are in
"use as, or for any purpose involving the provision of, sleeping accommodation; …"
Now in many cases rooms in institutions of this kind are the occupant's home in the very fullest sense of the word. They may be, in long period, in almost permanent occupation, and the occupant may have no other home anywhere in the world. Even in the case of an hotel, where rooms are let by the night, it is I think by law, and certainly by common consent and custom, regarded as the case that the occupant, having taken the room, is entitled to privacy in it.
The Bill as it stands at present does not provide any protection for the privacy of the occupants of homes of this kind. A fire authority can require an inspection of the premises wihout notice. The difference, I might say, between the two clauses—the one we are now dealing with and the clause to which Amendment No. 17 applies—is that there are two different sorts of inspection. The first sort of inspection is the inspection prior to the granting of a fire certificate, and the second inspection is the subsequent inspection to make sure that the conditions of the certificate, when granted,

443
have been complied with. But in either case, in the Bill as it is drafted a fire inspector (or, indeed, he may delegate his powers to an officer of a fire brigade; and, in circumstances which he is to judge, he may be accompanied by a policeman) has the right to enter any of these bedrooms at any reasonable time without giving notice.
What is a reasonable time? I think that as a matter of practice it can only be assumed that, at any rate until there is a body of case law on this Act, a reasonable time would be a time which the fire inspector thought to be reasonable, because the only way to establish the contrary would be to deny him access, to run the risk of being summarily convicted and fined £50, of appealing and hoping after a vast expenditure of time and money that the courts of the land, possibly including your Lordships' House, might in the end conclude that the time had not been reasonable. So I think one must accept that in practice a reasonable time means a time which the fire inspector thinks is reasonable.
Would 10 o'clock in the morning be a reasonable time? I feel quite sure that all inspectors would regard it as a reasonable time; but from the point of view of the occupant of a room which may be his home, it may be a highly unreasonable time. He or she may have been working on night shift, or may be ill, or perhaps be indulging in one of those few liberties in this land which are still both legal and untaxed, of just having "a good fie in". And yet, under the provisions of the Bill, a fire inspector, accompanied if he sees fit by a policeman, can burst in and ask questions which have to be answered under pain of the law.
Now I cannot bring myself to believe that the Home Office drafted this clause with the deliberate intention of producing this result. They have exempted dwellings. Where it is a dwelling which is concerned—a dwelling covered by the Bill, that is to say—then 24 hours' notice has to be given. That would seem to imply that the giving of notice is not regarded, at any rate where a dwelling is concerned, as being destructive of the purposes of the Bill. If notice can be given where a dwelling is concerned, then surely it can be given in the case of a bedroom which may be the occupant's
444
home and where, so long as he is the occupant, he is entitled to reasonable privacy. The purpose of these two Amendments is simply to put bedrooms, sleeping accommodation, in the same position in the Bill as dwellings are already in it.
I confess that, on re-reading the Bill and my Amendment this morning, I wondered whether it went far enough. I am not sure whether what I am about to say is strictly relevant on this Amendment, but I think I can bring it into order by asking your Lordships to contemplate what the position would be if this Amendment were accepted. Bedrooms and dwellings would then be in the same position; that is to say, a fire inspector or, if he has delegated his powers, a member of a fire brigade (and, as I have said before, accompanied, in circumstances in which he is the judge, by a policeman), may enter dwellings and, if the Amendment is accepted, bedrooms at 24 hours' notice; but there is no requirement for the consent of the occupant, and I seriously ask your Lordships whether it is right that anybody's home should be invaded, on notice (very short notice) of 24 hours, but without consent for any purpose—let alone the purpose we are considering in this Amendment, an inspection prior to the grant of a fire certificate.
I am no lawyer, but I suspect that this is really a vast extension of the powers of the police to make domiciliary visits; nor should it be thought that it will apply only to a relatively few places. The dwellings that are brought in under the Bill I have seen described—I do not remember whether it was on Second Reading in this House or in another place—as being high rise fiat blocks. But in the Bill this definition applies to any building divided into separate dwellings which has either a basement or is more than two storeys high. I think that the dwellings covered by the Bill would amount to a very substantial proportion of the total dwellings of the country.
Although it arises in connection with this particular Amendment only by my asking your Lordships to contemplate what the result would be if it is accepted, I seriously ask the Committee whether it is right that there should be slipped into a Bill on fire precautions a vast increase in the powers of officials

445
and police to enter into the homes of citizens. What happens if a family is away and a 24-hours' notice is never received? It seems to me that under the Bill the officials then have the power to break down the door. They have a power of entry, they have given notice and the period has expired. I have difficulty in thinking that this was intended; and I suspect—though I confess that since I arrived from America only at breakfast time I have not had time for verification of my suspicion—that the language used in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, which may or may not have been proper for inspection powers for shops and offices and railway premises, has, without sufficient thought, been written into a Bill designed to deal with these domestic and semi-domestic situations. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is particularly appropriate that this Amendment should refer to sleeping accommodation when the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has just spent all night in an aircraft coming from the West Coast of the U.S.A. Although I am afraid that the change in time at which the House is meeting—in the morning rather than the afternoon—must have inconvenienced him, perhaps he may be consoled by the thought that if he misses his lunch, as I think is likely, he will have been better sustained on his flight than some of us who spent the night in bed.
As the noble Lord explained, Clause 8(1) empowers a fire authority, so long as a fire certificate is in force for any premises, to inspect at any reasonable time (or after 24 hours' notice in the case of dwellings) any part of the relevant building for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been a "change of conditions" affecting the means of escape and fire precautions. Clause 19 provides the inspector with general powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of the Bill. Again in the case of dwellings, 24 hours' notice must be given before the power of entry can be exercised as of right.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to require 24 hours' notice to be given in the case of premises used as sleeping accommodation as well as in the case of dwellings. The noble Lord explained that he has mainly in mind
446
bedrooms in an hotel or in a residential establishment which might be the only home an individual has. The requirement to give notice in the case of a private dwelling follows from a similar provision in the Public Health Act 1936—Section 287(1). It is based on the belief that it is wrong to provide a right of entry without notice for any purpose to a private home. We must bear in mind that the reason for this, as much as anything else, is the factor of convenience. The occupier may be out, or he may need to be away from his home on a particular day, so that it would not be convenient for him to be visited by an inspector on that particular day.
The position in an hotel or similar residential establishment is really quite different. These are establishments offering a service to the public, usually by way of trade, and the inspector needs to take the use of the premises as a whole into account for the purposes of his inspection. In practice, what happens is that he conducts his negotiations with the hotel manager or with some other responsible person, and it is important—and I hope we can agree on this—that, where a public risk of this kind, a fire risk, is in question, the inspector should not be prevented from carrying out his inspection at any time that seems to be necessary.
However, we find it difficult—and I have checked on this since the noble Lord put down his Amendment—to envisage circumstances in which the inspector needs to visit a hotel room at all when guests are present. What happens in practice is that he is concerned far more with the public rooms in hotels, the staircases, corridors, and bedroom floors en bloc. Where he needs to make a visit to an individual bedroom, this is arranged through the hotel management, as a matter of course. This general power of entry, I am advised, has existed for many years under the Public Health Act 1936 in respect of hotels, and we should have heard if hotel guests had been inconvenienced or embarrassed.
The noble Lord in the later part of his speech went on to raise some of the general considerations in his mind about the powers given to inspectors under this particular Bill. We have Amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, himself on

447
this matter, on Clause 19. So if it is convenient to the noble Lord, I suggest that we discuss the extent and justification of these powers when we come to Clause 19 and confine our considerations on this Amendment to the rather narrower issues that he raised.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has a point here, although I would not go with him on the general issues that he dealt with in the later part of his speech. What we want to achieve here is a code of sensible practice. It could be intolerable if the inspector of a fire authority arrived at, say, one o'clock in the morning, claiming that this was a reasonable time to inspect hotel bedrooms. This kind of thing has never, to my knowledge, happened but it is just the kind of point which can reasonably be covered in a circular to the fire authorities. When this Bill becomes law, unquestionably the Secretary of State will need to send a circular to the fire authorities explaining the provisions of the Bill. I should have thought it quite possible that the Secretary of State might point out in that circular that what may be a reasonable time to inspect a place of entertainment may not be a reasonable time to inspect hotel bedroom; and ask the local authorities please to take that fact into account. In that way we should avoid legal proceedings and strengthen the assurances that we would get reasonable action taken. Perhaps my noble friend would consider that possibility.
LORD AUCKLAND: I think this is an interesting Amendment. I am quite certain that the hotels of which the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, is a distinguished director are extremely well maintained; and the Amendment, so far as Trust Houses and modern hotels are concerned, is extremely reasonable. But there are a number of small hotels near railway stations, and some of them are very old. I remember a nightmarish experience at one in Nottinghamshire several years ago. All the electrical wiring in this hotel was in a terrible state. It is just possible that there could be a disastrous event in the small hours of the morning in a hotel of that kind. Having said that, I would add that most of our hotels in this country have been reasonably modernised, and I
448
think that the Government should pay some heed to a reasonable Amendment of this kind, if it is moved by a person experienced in hotel matters such as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther.
12.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps I might comment first on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which I think goes to the heart of the matter. What really determines human behaviour is what seems to be reasonable, whether or not people are aware of the legislation in a matter of this sort. It is very doubtful whether a private citizen would be aware of the legislation, but a hotel manager would be. In this context the practice which takes place, if it can be codified, is extremely important. For this reason I can tell noble Lords that we are about to produce a voluntary code of practice concerning fire precautions in hotels.
This code has been prepared by a working party of the Joint Fire Prevention Committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils, on which the Government, fire authorities and the hotel industry have all been represented. I will say a little more about this on Clause 12. But once this Bill has gone through, it is the intention to proceed in other areas, by way of consultation with the interests affected, to draw up codes of practice where none exists; and to consider at a later stage whether these should be given statutory backing. This process of consultation with those who have the day-to-day experience seems to be the best way to proceed.
I should point out one further difficulty regarding the noble Lord's Amendment. The reference to "sleeping accommodation" extends beyond hotels. It would include the dormitories of hostels, residential institutions of various kinds, boarding schools and so on. In these cases, I think noble Lords will agree, it is essential for regular inspections to be carried out, particularly of means of escape, to see that they are unobstructed and in good order. If 24 hours' notice had always to be given, the effectiveness of an inspection of this kind, which would be directed to the normal conditions and practice, would be

449
very much reduced. I take very seriously the concern of the noble Lord and the considerations which he has advanced. We can certainly continue to bring these to the attention of those concerned, the fire brigade, or the local authorities who provide inspectors. But for the reasons I have given—and I will come back to the wider considerations on Clause 19—I feel it necessary to advise the Committee that it would not be wise to accept the Amendment as it stands.
LORD CROWTHER: May I deal with one or two points in the speeches that have been made which seem to me to show a misapprehension of what I was after? To begin with, though I did disclose my interest in the hotel industry, it was not mainly of hotels that I was thinking when I put down this Amendment. I am quite sure that between any reasonable hotel proprietor and reasonable fire authority the practical difficulties of inspecting hotel bedrooms could be overcome. I was thinking more of residential clubs, and especially of places where people e for years on end, and in the fullest sense regard the rooms in which they live as their homes. It seemed to me to be wrong—I confess that it still seems to me to be wrong—that it should be possible, under this Bill or under any Act, to be able to invade the privacy of their homes without giving them notice.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, somewhat mistook: my purpose, and this was perhaps my own fault in having spoken at such length about reasonable time. The Amendment does not alter the reasonable time; the reasonable time is in the Bill. My purpose was to secure that there should be notice. Suppose you are, say, a schoolteacher living in a residential club, and have lived in your room for any number of years; and suppose that you come back and find that, without warning or notice, at a wholly reasonable time—let us say 3 o'clock in the afternoon—someone has come into your room and has inspected it. Whatever may exist in the law at present, or as it is proposed in this Bill, that seems to me to be a wholly unreasonable invasion of the privacy of an individual.
However, I am faced with a dilemma, as the Government are unwilling to accept
450
this Amendment. I was not very sure how far-reaching were the assurances that the noble Lord was prepared to offer. What I am after of course, is the practice almost as much as the law: whether, in the communications passed between the Home Office and fire authorities, guidance could be given to the authorities that, wherever possible (I put that in to deal with the case of boarding school dormitories and the like), not only should the hour be reasonable to everybody concerned but also notice should be given before any room used as sleeping accommodation was inspected. If I am right in thinking that that is the assurance and that was what was intended—but perhaps I may have an answer before I finish my sentence.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think that a very prudent request for the noble Lord to make at this stage. It would be a mistake for me to try to give him a form of words on behalf of the Government. What I can say is that I should like to see what can be done and to come back on Report stage with a form of words. We need to look with some care into the practical implications. If the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, does not feel that I have been able to meet him when we get to the Report stage, he will still have an opportunity to press his alternative.
LORD CROWTHER: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 11, line 23, leave out ("the occupier") and insert ("any person")
The noble Viscount said: I think the Committee will be pleased to know that in moving this Amendment I can also speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 10, because they are all on the same point. This is a very simple point. We are dealing, at any rate to start with, with Clause 8(2). Your Lordships will see that it deals with the proposition that where there is already a fire certificate in force in relation to premises, in the case of certain changes which may take place the person in charge of the premises—to use a neutral term—has to tell the fire authority about them, and they can see whether the certificate is adequate.
This is considered to be a very serious matter. One has only to look at subsection (7) to see what happens if you do not give notice. You can be fined up to £400 in the magistrates' court; and if it is a bad case, and you go to what is, at present at any rate, quarter sessions, you can receive an unlimited fine and two years imprisonment. So it is plain that the Government consider that the evasion of the provisions of subsection (2) is a very serious matter, not only serious from the point of the person who may be making plans but equally serious for people who may resort to the premises after the material changes have taken place and find them without adequate precautions, made necessary as a result of what he has done having been put into effect at the instance of a tire authority.
I may have a nasty, suspicious mind, but I wanted to see whether anybody could possibly get round this requirement. Faced with a serious penalty and the possibility of a fire certificate which might require costly adaptations to the building to bring it into adequate accord with safety requirements, an occupier might seek a method of getting round this provision. And of course there is one. In almost every case the natural person to make the proposed alteration would be the occupier, but a disreputable occupier might get in touch with his landlord and make an arrangement whereby the owner, with the occupier's consent but not at the occupier's instance, might make the alterations. If that happens, nobody gets notified, the fire authority is not invited to act, the penalty does not apply and nobody can be prosecuted, because the clause deals only with the occupier. I am suggesting that we should take out the words "the occupier" and put in "any person" in order to make it comprehensive. Then nobody can "fiddle" their way round the provisions of this subsection. This is much more desirable than leaving a possible loophole for the disreputable and the dishonest. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This proposal was considered at considerable length during the drafting of the Bill, and the Government concluded that the duty should lie only on the occupier, or,
452
in respect of premises covered under Clause 3, on the notified person, who would usually be the owner or principal landlord. Under the Bill the obligations relating to means of escape and other fire precautions will rest on the occupier of the premises whose use attracts the provisions of the Bill. These premises may be a club or small theatre or the like, which may often be part of a larger building and possibly on one of the upper floors. The fire authority will be anxious to ensure that the means of escape, and so on, are devised so as to be self-contained in relation to the premises concerned. But there may be cases where part of the means of escape can be ensured only by laying contingent obligations on an occupier of another part of the same building—for example, an obligation to keep the door of a boiler room shut, if this happens to be close to the main staircase common to the building.
If the other occupier accepts this obligation—and he cannot be compelled to do so—he will thereafter be guilty of an offence if he is in breach of that obligation. We do not think it right in the circumstances to subject the other occupier to controls which might affect the business he runs in his own premises, simply because someone else in the building carries on activities which attract the provisions of this Bill. It would be no fault of the other occupier if someone upstairs had a business which required a fire certificate. Therefore we thought it right to keep to the absolute minimum the contingent obligation which falls on somebody else. I emphasise that the principal obligations under the Bill must rest on the occupier of premises the use of which attracts the need for a fire certificate.
That is the reason for narrowing the category of persons concerned to the occupier, and not to any person. With that general explanation, I will conclude. This is an extremely technical matter and I could give a much longer explanation of it, but I hope that the arguments I am using commend themselves to the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Crowther, who think we are going too far in some respects. Here is an instance where we think that liability should be narrowed so far as possible and should not cover somebody who might be affected by the use

453
of premises for which he is not responsible.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I see the noble Lord's point. I turn to the provisions of Clause 25 to see what defence there may be for an entirely innocent person. I have not considered all the technicalities, but I should think that these provisions would go some way to meeting the point. If my noble friend is saying that the loophole I have pointed out is one that the Government are prepared to accept and live with, there is nothing I can do about it. They have made a policy decision on it. I hope that they realise what is going to happen. I do not know whether my noble friend would agree that the provisions of that defence would be acceptable without putting any undue burden on another innocent person. I quite see the reason for wishing to avoid it. Perhaps my noble friend and I could discuss these technicalities in order to avoid taking up the time of the Committee, and see whether before the next stage of the Bill we could get somewhere in the middle of this point and stop up the loophole I am suggesting exists, while providing the protection my noble friend wishes to retain.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should certainly be willing to discuss this and any other point with the noble Lord. What we have to assess here is the extent to which legislation imposes liability on people and the reasons for it, and what element of risk may be regarded as acceptable and what as not acceptable. In Clause 8 we are concerned only with change of conditions and with the system of inspection of the building. One would expect the Bill to have regard to the sort of circumstances which an inspector, who will often be a member of the local fire brigade, who will be spending a great deal of his time on this work and who will be aware of the position, would regard as a risk. Having said that, I shall be willing to have a talk with the noble Viscount about the matter and, if he is convinced that there is any way in which this part of the Bill could be improved, I shall be glad to consider it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My noble friend is always most helpful. I think that the most profitable thing would be to take up his invitation, and
454
in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 27, after first ("or") insert ("in relation to any premises used as a place of public assembly,")
The noble Viscount said: This is a slightly different point. It relates to material alteration in the furniture or equipment with which premises are provided. At various stages in the passage of this Bill this provision has been examined carefully, but if one were in a position of advising a client on what this means, looking at the penalties involved if proper notice is not given, I think one would take a pretty strict view of what would be a material alteration. One would tend to err on the side of caution and give notice to the fire authority of something that is comparatively minor, in case it should turn out, in their view or in the view of the court or whoever is prosecuting, to be material. The result, I should have thought, would be an inundation of the fire authorities with notices of the sort here concerned.
All I am doing in moving this Amendment is to see whether there is any way in which we can try to limit the application—or defer, define or refine it—of this requirement. I can see that there are circumstances in which furniture and equipment are most important and should be drawn to the attention of the fire authority. But I would ask my noble friend whether he is satisfied—whether it be because of the nature of the wording of the Bill itself, or because of some indications that are going to be given in a circular, such as was referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor—that we are going to get a clearer definition of the circumstances in which this provision is to be operated. At the moment, it is very broad, however much Members in another place may have tried to pin it down. This is a probing Amendment, and I seek my noble friend's guidance.
LORD WENDLESHAM: As my noble friend has said, this subsection of Clause 8 was the subject of a good deal of debate in another place, and in its present form it reflects Government Amendments

455
which were made on Report. It should now be clear that the word "material", as applied to the alterations, has to be understood in terms of the means of escape as a whole in relation to the normal conditions of use of the premises, as explained to, and seen by, the fire authority at the time the fire certificate was issued.
We are aware, as my noble friend has said, that there has been some concern that a great many unnecessary notices might be received from occupiers of the premises concerning alterations which are not material to the means of escape. The intention of this Amendment would therefore be, so far as changes in furniture and equipment are concerned, to limit the operation of Clause 8(2)(b) to places of public assembly. But, as my noble friend has explained, he has put this down more in the nature of a probing Amendment. I think that is as well, because if the Bill were amended in this way. to confine the subsection to places of public assembly, we should be without a definition of "places of public assembly" unless one were put in later in the Bill The term would probably exclude a bingo club, open only to members; it would probably exclude those parts of hotels with guests; and there is the question of hospitals, institutions for treatment or care, schools and so on. In all these premises it is easy to envisage substantial alterations of furniture or equipment which would seriously affect the means of escape. It would be quite wrong that alterations of this kind should not be notified to the fire authority.
However, I can say to my noble friend that the intention of the wording in Clause 8(2)(b) will be explained to fire authorities in administrative guidance on the Bill. It will also be possible to include reference to it in any published guidance to occupiers, and particularly in the codes of practice for particular uses, which I have already said it is our intention to produce. All this should help to keep unnecessary notifications down to a minimum. Even so. I think we have to bear in mind that in questions of fire risk it is better that the fire authority should be consulted too often rather than too seldom. Having given the information that I think my noble friend is seeking as to the nature of the guidance that
456
will be given, I hope he may feel that I have been able to meet him in his intention in putting down this probing Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Indeed my noble friend has. I, who am a lawyer, find it comparatively easy to understand what "material" is meant to mean here when the noble Lord explains it to me. What others may understand is quite a different matter. I have a letter here from somebody who is advising certain hoteliers. They look at the clause, as it now stands, and they say:
"It would now seem to be obligatory on hoteliers whenever they make a material alteration in the wall coverings, ceiling coverings or floor coverings to the rooms in the hotel to give notice to the fire authority."
Every time they re-paper, re-paint or re-floor their rooms in goes a notice to the fire authority. That is what they genuinely think. That is far too wide, of course, and it must be wrong: it is not what the Bill is about at all. But it is just this sort of explanation which I think is so necessary, otherwise we shall be getting an inundation of quite unnecessary notices into the office of the fire authority. However, I am sure that my noble friend's solution to this by way of published information, and also information to the fire authorities in a circular—which is available, incidentally, to legal advisers as well—is probably the best way of dealing with it. I am grateful to him, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 11, line 39, at end insert:
"() For the purposes of subsection (2) a fire certificate shall be deemed to be in force with respect to any premises to which requirements imposed by the certificate have been applied under section 6(3)(b) of this Act.
() On receipt of a notice under subsection (2) with respect to any premises the fire authority may require the person giving the notice within such time as they may specify —

(a)to furnish them with such plans as they may specify; and

(b)if the premises consist of part of a building, to furnish them, insofar as it is possible for him to do so, with such plans of such other part or parts of the building as they may specify."

The noble Viscount said: There are really two points in this Amendment, and I had meant it to be put down as two Amendments. Perhaps I may explain them one at a time. This Amendment still concerns Clause 8 and the same part of the clause that I have just been discussing. The first new subsection relates back to the provisions of Clause 6. The situation here, as I understand it, is that under Clause 6 a fire certificate (my noble friend has already mentioned this) may only technically refer to part of premises, but because of the interconnection, or because of other physical situations, it is necessary for other parts of the premises which are not actually designated to be dealt with for the purposes of the fire certificate. Then those other parts of the premises conic within the fire certificate, and the Bill applies to them.
It appears to me that if somebody were to propose alterations to those other parts of premises which are brought under control by Clause 6, then they would not have to notify the fire authority although of course when the certificate was originally issued in relation to the main part of the building the fire authority required certain alterations to be made to the other part of the building under Clause 6. The first subsection that I suggest would require any alterations (which I suppose would be material in the other part of the building) to be notified in the same way as alterations to the main part. That is the first matter that I seek to draw to the attention of the Committee.
The second is a matter to which I shall refer several limes, and it is quite simple. Whether or not the point about the subsidiary part of the building is met, at the present moment Clause 8 does not contain the same provisions as Clause 5 whereby a person applying for the fire certificate has to send plans if the fire authority requires them. That is Clause 5(2).
One can easily understand the administrative ease which is provided if plans are sent instead of the authority having to go there and inspect. Particularly if it is a minor matter, it may be quite sufficient to look at the plans. But at the moment, under Clause 8 the fire authority cannot ask for those plans as of right. Perhaps they can as a courtesy, but there is no equivalent provision, so
458
far as I know, to subsection (2) of Clause 5. Therefore, the second of my new subsections seeks to import that power to ask for plans: and I think it would probably add to the expeditious handling of Clause 8 notices from the point of view of both sides. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As my noble friend has explained, this Amendment proposes to add two quite distinct subsections to the Bill. The first new subsection would have the effect that if requirements were made in a fire certificate relating to other parts of the building in which the premises put to a designated use were situated, then the occupier of the other parts would be treated as if his premises were subject to full fire certificate procedure. The object is presumably to place a duty of notification of change on that other occupier. But the Amendment would also seem to have the effect of requiring him to notify changes which were irrelevant to the premises which originally required the fire certificate. We do not believe that this is acceptable or necessary. Even if fire authorities were willing to receive unnecessary notifications—something which is hardly likely—the Bill should not impose unnecessary obligations on an occupier of other parts of the building for which no fire certificate is required. The other occupier should be hound—always assuming that he is willing to be bound—only so far as is necessary to safeguard the means of escape from the relevant premises. For example, take the instance I gave earlier of seeing that a boiler room door is closed when it fronts on to a main staircase.
The second new subsection would have the effect of enabling the fire authority to require such plans as they may specify after receiving a notice of proposals to make alterations to the premises. We have considered this matter since the noble Lord put his Amendment down, but have come to the conclusion that this would really be unnecessarily burdensome for the occupier. We must remember that in many cases no drawings are likely to be needed at all, and it seems wrong to allow the fire authority to require them for the purposes envisaged in the Amendment. The outline plan envisaged on a first application is intended to facilitate the first authority's work in issuing the

459
certificate, but it is not wholly essential. Once the initial plan has been called for and duly submitted, there seems less need to empower the fire authority to require further plans every time there is a change of conditions.
I should remind the Committee that we are talking here about change of conditions. Until now fire authorities under the 1961 and 1963 Acts concerning places of work, have had no power to require plans on the initial application and have often had to prepare them themselves. Under this Bill they will be spared from that work. We do not see why they could not make any necessary alterations to the existing plan when they are considering subsequent applications that are made to them. There is also a real danger that, if occupiers got to know that they might have to submit plans to the fire authority on every minor change, they would become somewhat reluctant to notify the fire authority. For those reasons, we are inclined to feel that the Bill is better as it stands and I hope that, with the explanation I have given, the noble Viscount may feel willing to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am bound to say that I have not read Clause 6 in the narrow way that my learned friend seemed to think it operates —
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am not learned, either.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry. I keep on getting myself into the wrong tribunal. I beg your Lordships' pardon—my noble friend. I thought Clause 6 applied to other premises inside the same building which were occupied by a different occupier, but that it also applied to other parts of the same building occupied by the same occupier. I cannot see anything in it that prevents that occurring. If the man is the same occupier, both of the part which requires the fire certificate, and also an occupier of an ancillary part which has to have ancillary measures in order to protect the main part, it does not seem unreasonable that if he chooses to make alterations in the ancillary part he should notify the fire authority. I
460
see that it would be unreasonable if it was a different occupier. It would be unreasonable if the separate occupier's alterations were not material to the fire precautions on the main part. I did not intend to go so far as that, and I am sorry if I gave the impression that I did. I should have thought that there was an intermediate point here that was perfectly reasonable and did not impose undue hardship on anybody at all. I will look at what my noble friend has said, and perhaps he could consider that, too.
So far as the plans are concerned, I imagine that the situation is that no sane fire authority would ask for them except probably under paragraph (a), which is the material structural alterations to the plans, in which case they would no doubt receive them under the building regulations anyway. It may be that it is covered in that way. I was concerned about paragraph (b) and, possibly, about paragraph (c) because it might be material to know where he was going to keep the explosive and highly inflammable materials. Perhaps a plan would be useful for that. My noble friend cleared up paragraph (b) for me by telling me what is the meaning of "material", but I think there is still something to be said. I will not press this at the moment. I shall come back to the 1961 and 1963 Acts on plans, because that is the subject of a later Amendment. Without asking my noble friend to say any more at this stage, perhaps he could look at the point again. Meanwhile, if the Committee agrees, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 2, leave out from ("occupier") to end of line 3.
The noble Viscount said: This is another point on which I am puzzled. It may well be that as a result of my noble friend's administrative actions there will not be a huge flood of notices about changes of condition, particularly in relation to subsection (2)(b) of Clause 8. There is, and very understandably, a requirement that the notice shall be dealt with by the fire authority within two

461
months of its receipt. Everybody is in favour of expedition; everybody is in favour of seeing that the fire authority hurries up. I am a little concerned about what happens if, for administrative reasons, they do not.
There are many provisions on the Statute Book which require local authorities to do something within a certain time. One with which I am most familiar is the time within which they are allowed to give a planning decision. If they do not do it within a certain time then there is a deemed refusal. The general development Order allows them, by agreement with the applicant, to extend the time. If the applicant agrees that they should have another month because they have not finished looking at the plan or consulting somebody, then usually that time is allowed. Of course he need not give his consent, and if he does not there is a deemed refusal. There is no such latitude in this Bill, and if the answer is not given within two months I am not sure what happens. I suppose that if the answer is not given in two months they can always say "No". Then we have the performance of going to appeal under Clause 9. But if an extension of time were provided for—it may be for only a few days—the applicant would be able to say, "Yes, you can have your extra few days", and the fire authority would then agree and there would be no appeal.
There is something to be said for writing a little more flexibility into the Bill on this point, though certainly not in order that the local authority may sit on the application for ever. But the provision of flexibility similar to that which I have suggested in the Town and Country Planning Acts could be added to this Bill so that, with consent, the time could be extended. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: We feel that the difficulty about this Amendment is that the occupier has a right to receive the fire authority's decision within a reasonable period. If the time limit were removed, as it would be by this Amendment, the fire authority could come along months or years afterwards and require work to he done. Clearly, a fire authority would not normally delay a decision unduly. But it is right that a
462
period of time within which they must reply should be written into the Bill, so that the occupier knows where he stands and those whom the noble Viscount has mentioned who are concerned to interpret the legislation—legal advisers and others—can find fairly easily in the Act what the period of time is.
Two months seems to us a reasonable period. The reason why it has been selected is that, as the noble Viscount indicated in moving the Amendment, it is based on the time within which plans deposited in connection with building regulations must under Section 10(2) of the Public Health Act 1961 be passed or rejected by the local authority. This seems to be a useful and deserved protection for the occupier. What I should like to do is to find out what the practice is where a short extension is required. This is the point the noble Viscount put at the end of his speech. I am not familiar with the practice myself and therefore do not have an answer immediately available, but I take note of his argument on that point. He is not concerned with the long period ahead; he is speaking about the borderline area where somebody may be just outside the two months' period. I will look into that point for him and provide an answer at a later stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In view of that reply, I am happy to leave the matter to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 33, at end insert
"(12) The duty placed on a fire authority under the foregoing provisions of this section to amend a fire certificate (or to cause to be amended a copy thereof) or to cause any document to be attached to it or to a copy of it shall be deemed to have been complied with if the amendment or document, as the case may be, is sent to the holder of the certificate or copy thereof with a request to attach it to the certificate or copy."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, again, is tabled in order to clear up a point which at the moment I do not think is entirely plain. The two preceding provisions of Clause 8—that is, subsections (10) and (11)— require certain

463
action by the fire authority. They say, for instance, that a fire authority shall
"cause to be attached to it a copy of the notice together with a written statement…";
and, in subsection (11):
"they shall cause the like document to be attached to the copy of the certificate required to be kept in the premises…".
I am not quite sure how they are supposed to cause this to happen. What I am suggesting in this Amendment is that they can do this by post by sending to the holder of the certificate, or copy, the necessary document and requesting him to attach it to the certificate or the copy in his possession. This would seem to me a sensible and happy way of dealing with it. I want to know from my noble friend whether that is legal as the Bill is at present drafted, or whether the fire authority must go along with their drawing pin and with their own fair hand actually put it on the wall in the premises. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The point of principle here is who should have the responsibility for amending the fire certificate. The effect of the new subsection proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, would be to leave the amendment of the fire certificate to the holder of the certificate; whereas in the Bill we have placed the responsibility on the fire authority, so as to be sure that the amendments will be made to the certificate itself, and so that nobody will be able to evade responsibility by claiming that an amendment was never received. How the fire authority cause an amendment to be affixed is of course left entirely to their discretion, but they have ample powers of inspection. The fire certificate must be kept on the premises concerned by virtue of Clause 6(8) and Clause 6(9); and, moreover, it must be produced if required. It seems desirable that this responsibility should rest with the fire authority.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not think I would dissent from that, but it also sounds to me as though the Amendment is unnecessary because the fire authority under the Bill are to do exactly what I suggest. What they do is to send an amendment by post, and the next time the fire inspector is round there he can go and see whether the amend-
464
ment has properly been made. What they do not have to do—and this is really the point I had in mind—is, every time, to write to the holder of the fire certificate, saying, "Please will you send us the fire certificate," or alternatively, go there and get it and wait for it to come back to the fire authority's office; re-type it, and then take it back again and stick it up. This would be too laborious for words. There must be a quicker and easier way to do it. Certainly I would judge from what my noble friend has said that the postal system, followed up by inspection, would be a fulfilment of a duty which, I entirely accept, should be upon the fire authority. I see my noble friend nodding. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Building regulations as to provision of means of escape in case of fire etc., and related power to amend local Acts]:
1.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 17, line 6, after ("requirements") insert ("(i)").
The noble Viscount said: It will be no surprise to the Committee if I say that this Amendment and the following one go together. The point is a simple one. It is a probing Amendment, to ask my noble friend a question about the Report of the Holroyd Committee. That Committee recommended two things: first of all, that the building regulations, with which this clause is concerned, should cover the provision and protection of means of escape; and that is in the Bill. They also recommended, in the same paragraph, that the building regulations should deal with other structural measures to assist fire brigades in fire fighting. Those are the kind of things concerned: adequate access for the fire engines, or "appliances" as I believe they are called; rising mains; fire lifts, and so on. All that is sought here is power to include these matters under the building regulations.
Some local authorities are puzzled why it is that, half this recommendation of the Holroyd Committee having been accepted, the other half does not appear. I should be grateful, as I am sure others would be too, if my noble friend would explain what is the answer to that question. Is it too difficult to implement the other half of the Holroyd Committee's recommendations in the building regulations; are they thought to be bad recommendations; or is it proposed to deal with them in some other way or at some other time? And, generally, what is the situation? I beg to move.
WINDLESHAM: I did not realise that this was a probing Amendment and that the noble Viscount intended to put the question he has on the Holroyd Report. The best thing I can do is to study exactly the question of which he has now given me notice, and provide him with a full and considered reply on Report stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thought possibly the terms of the Amendment would draw the noble Lord's advisers' attention to the Holroyd Committee's Report because it is exactly on this point that they made their recommendation. It is, I believe, Finding 147. But if my noble friend wants to study this matter with his advisers, I shall be happy to leave the matter until Report stage. Perhaps, also, he will in the meanwhile tell me how the matter is progressing, so that I know whether to put down another Amendment. I am sure he will do that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power of Secretary of State to make regulations about fire precautions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am quite ready to say something on this important clause concerning uniformity of regulations, following representations which were made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther. If he would like to speak first, and would put any further points he wishes before Members of the Committee, I should be happy to follow after him.
1.30 p.m.
LORD CROWTHER: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I will try not to detain the Committee for too long. To my great distress I was prevented from being in my place when the Bill was read a second time. If I had been here I should have sought an opportunity to say—without any authority to speak for the hotel industry, but as someone who is actively concerned in it—how much I welcome this Bill; that I support it in principle, and indeed with some enthusiasm. It seems a lamentable lacuna in our legislative arrangements that there has not hitherto been a national code of fire precautions for hotels in this country, and it is high time that that situation was remedied. If I have any apprehension at all it is that these greatly increased powers are probably being put into the hands of many fire authorities up and down the country without adequate co-ordination from the centre, and it is on the degree of the central co-ordination that is contemplated that I should like to put some points to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
I suppose that my company probably has more experience of the vagaries of fire authorities in respect of the sort of buildings—or at any rate some of the buildings—that are sought to be covered by this Bill than almost anybody else in the country. The fire authorities vary very greatly in their requirements and in their approach. We find that many of them are willing to follow the London Fire Brigade (or perhaps I should say the Greater London Council), and if what is proposed falls within what would be approved in London many of them are willing to say, "Well, that is good enough for us." But there are many who seem to operate (such is human nature) almost to the opposite principle, and if something is approved by the larger authorities they are the more determined to show that they are going to be different in one way or another.
I should like to give your Lordships two examples of what seems to me to be the necessity for a very high degree of national uniformity in these matters. In recent years there has been a trend among fire authorities to require the insertion of smoke-resisting doors in corridors, particularly where they impinge upon staircases. If indeed these doors do reduce

467
the risk of fire—or perhaps it would be more proper to say the loss of human life and property as a result of fire—then indeed nobody will resist their being placed there. But as any of your Lordships must know, if you have either battled your own suitcases up to a bedroom, or watched a porter doing the same thing, these doors, substantially made (as they must be), kept closed by heavy springs (as they must be) and made to open only one way (as they must be), are a confounded nuisance. Quite recently a device has been developed which could get over many of these difficulties. This is, broadly speaking, a device which holds the doors open by electro-magnets, the magnets being wired in with the smoke control and fire alarm system, so that at the very first sign of fire or smoke the magnets go dead and the doors close. It can be seen what an advantage this would be.
Within the last few weeks this device has been approved by the Greater London Council for some work that is being done in London. That was done, as was proper, only after considerable demonstration and discussion, and the asking and answering of a great many questions. It seems unreasonable that when a device of that sort has been established to the satisfaction of a competent authority on one occasion the same demonstrations and arguments should have to go on, possibly with differing results, all over the country.
Alternatively, let me give another example, which relates to a slightly different principle. Every precaution that is sought to be imposed must be balanced against other considerations. It must be reasonably necessary. After all, if precautions against fire were the only consideration in any building, your Lordships would not be sitting in this Chamber this afternoon. This building is not as safe as it possibly could be made; it is, I hope, as safe as it reasonably can he made. And the same should apply elsewhere.
Fire authorities have a liking for the device of sprinklers. I am sure that I need not describe this device to your Lordships. The device is put in the ceiling of a room, and if it detects any considerable heat anywhere near it then it squirts water under considerable force
468
all round it. In certain cases these can be admirable devices, but they suffer from the defect of perhaps going off when there is no need for them to do so—sometimes out of sheer cussedness, or by accident—and it has to be considered whether devices of this sort should be put in hotel bedrooms. This is a question of balancing the additional security against fire which they would provide against the risk which experience suggests would happen much more frequently—the risk of suddenly, without notice, soaking the occupant of the room (who may very well be in bed) and all his private property displayed around the room. I hasten to add that I know of no case where sprinklers have been insisted upon in hotel bedrooms in this country, but I do know of cases in other countries; and I do know that fire authorities, egged on by the insurance companies, are getting more and more interested in them. It seems to me that this is a case where it would be unfortunate if the decision up and down the land were left to each individual fire authority. The fire authority has no concern whatever except to prevent fire.
Here again I would suggest that devices of this sort really ought to be judged, and a decision reached, by some central authority, such as the Secretary of State, who can take into account the reasonableness of the precaution that it is desired to impose. In this particular case, my own wish would be that the verdict should go against the sprinklers. But if it were decided, after careful examination, that they are a necessary precaution, and that they should be enforced everywhere, then one would swallow hard and accept them and trust that our soaked guests would blame the Government and not us. I give those as two illustrations of what seems to me to be the desirability, and indeed the need, to have a substantial degree of uniformity throughout the country. Clause 12 provides for that possibility, because it provides not only that the Secretary of State can make regulations but also that, when he has made regulations, nothing more may be required by any fire authority than appears in those regulations.
Therefore the questions I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, are three. First, can he give

469
an assurance that the intention is that the Home Office—the Secretary of State —will proceed with reasonable dispatch to the drawing up of very precise and comprehensive regulations, such in fact that we shall have a national code of fire precautions for the types of premises covered by the Bill; end that the duty of fire authorities will be not so much to devise what the precaution should be as to see to the application in their districts of this national code?
Second, can the noble Lord give me an assurance that in drawing up those regulations the factor of reasonableness, with the other considerations coming into the question, will be given their full weight? Third, can he give me an assurance that in the course of drawing up those regulations there will be consultation with those who have practical knowledge of the consequences of them in actual operation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think I can give the noble Lord each of those three assurances. He points out with great force that a national company should be prevented from wasting time and energy by arguing the same point over and over again with different fire authorities and being subjected to different standards, and I think we can all agree that that situation is undesirable and wasteful of time and money. I ought to say, before moving on to the detailed answer to his questions, that the regulation-making power under Clause 12 is in the nature of a reserve power, the main system of control established under the Bill being the fire certificate procedure. The advantage, of course, of the fire certificate procedure is that it can be precisely tailored to the particular premises which are concerned, so that the occupier knows exactly what is required of him.
But we are at one with the noble Lord that the aim must be to achieve the greatest degree of uniformity possible, and we believe that this can be achieved by another route, not via the regulations the Secretary of State has power to make under this clause, but by means of drawing up codes of practice. I mentioned this in the debate on Second Reading. I said that we do not intend to make designating orders under Clause 1 for any particular use, unless there is a
470
matter which is too urgent to allow of any delay, until we have worked out a code of practice dealing with the basic requirements for the particular use. We shall certainly do this by the widest possible consultation between the central Government, the fire authorities and the representatives of the undertakings concerned. I think in this way we shall achieve the uniformity of practice which the noble Lord is seeking, because everyone will know what the basic requirements will be.
The advantages of this procedure—of drawing up codes of practice for different types of premises or different categories of use—are illustrated by the fact that we have already reached agreement on a voluntary code of practice on fire precautions in hotels. I mentioned this in speaking to an earlier Amendment in reply to a question raised by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. This code was not specifically prepared for the purposes of this Bill, but rather, I understand, in response to a general feeling that against the background of a number of serious hotel fires everyone concerned would welcome up-to-date guidance on what should be done, regardless of the extent to which statutory controls did or did not apply.
Until this Bill, there was no fire legislation as such which applied to hotels. There were some parts of some measures—I think the public health legislation applied in part to hotels, but there was no fire precautions legislation designed specifically for hotel use. Therefore, I can take this opportunity to pay tribute to the help that the hotel and boarding house representatives on the Working Party have given the Government and the fire authorities in preparing this code. This certainly augurs well for the code that will now have to be prepared before the Bill is applied to hotels, and I think we can have no doubt that the code will draw heavily on material already prepared, although doubtless it may be in somewhat different form.
The final point I make is that if, in the light of experience, the code of practice needs to be amended, it can be done very much more quickly than if there are regulations made under an Act of Parliament. But once that particular code has proved its worth in practice, we shall certainly be open minded as to whether or not advantages may be gained by giving

471
statutory backing to it by means of regulations under this clause. Experience of the voluntary code, for example, may well reveal basic requirements which, by common consent, apply to all premises devoted to a particular use; and if such requirements were incorporated in regulations which will apply generally there would be no need for the fire authorities to spell out such requirements each time they issued a certificate.
Therefore, I think the answer to each of the three questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, is, yes; we hope it will be possible to achieve the maximum degree of uniformity, both as regards hotels and other premises and uses, and to proceed by way of drawing up voluntary codes with the interested parties before considering whether or not these should be given statutory backing in the form of regulations.
LORD CROWTHER: May I ask the noble Lord a supplementary question? I am most grateful for what he has said, and, of course, have no objection to proceeding by codes of practice rather than by regulations. But if the uniformity is achieved by a code of practice will the provision of the Bill apply whereby no fire authority—and some of them are run by very curious people —may require more? They cannot require more than the regulations allow, but could they require more than is required under a code of practice?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I hesitate to speak with complete authority on that question without notice, but it certainly would be the intention that fire authorities—who, after all, will be involved in drawing it up —should abide by what is contained in the code. That is inherent in what I have said.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Powers of inspectors]:
1.47 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 25, line 32, after ("therein") insert ("which it may be reasonably necessary to inspect for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I think it may be some relief to the Committee, and
472
possibly to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, if we stop talking for a moment about fire precautions and sprinklers, and speak for a little while on the subject of liberty and individual rights. On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed some misgivings, and indeed alarm, about the sweeping powers which appear to be given to inspectors under Clause 19. First, there are the powers to enter upon premises; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has pointed out, the premises with which the Bill is concerned under Clause 3 are dwelling-places, places where people live, and it may well be that there are a very great number of dwellings of this kind. The first thing that Clause 19 does is to give inspectors power to enter premises, for the most part without notice, and at the best with only 24 hours notice. Then it gives the inspector, once he has entered the premises, the right to inspect the premises and things in the premises; and it goes on to give him rights of interrogation of various people found on the premises.
These are, at first sight, very sweeping powers; I do not know of any other official or enforcement officer who is armed with such wide and sweeping powers as these are. It may be that it is necessary for the enforcement of this law that there should be powers of that kind. Nevertheless, I do suggest—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would go along with me on this—that when we are affording and conferring upon some official powers of that kind, which touch upon this very delicate field of privacy and intrusion upon privacy, it is desirable, and indeed necessary, that we should try to accomplish two things. The first is that you should very clearly and exactly define what the powers are; and, secondly, that you should ensure that you limit the powers to what is strictly necessary for the enforcement of the law, and for the carrying into effect of the provisions of the Bill.
If your Lordships would look at Clause 19—and I leave out the immaterial words—you will see that it provides that:
"…a fire inspector, shall, for the purpose of the execution of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following things, namely—

(a) at any reasonable time to enter any of the following premises, and to inspect the whole or any part thereof and anything therein…"

473
Thereafter the premises are set out and they are, of course, the premises with which this Bill is dealing. As I said before, they include a great number of dwellings.
I ask myself this question: is it really necessary and reasonable that an inspector should have the power and the authority to go in and inspect anything which may be on the premises? That is, as it appears to me on the face of it, what the Bill precisely says. Is he entitled, for example, to call upon somebody to produce his private records or papers? Is he entitled, for example, to look in somebody's safe? Is he entitled to look at and inspect the books that are on the shelves, and things of that sort? On the face of it, he is, and so in my Amendment I have suggested that, in order that sonic curb and limitation should be put upon that power, after the words,
"anything therein—"
we should insert the words,
"which it may be reasonably necessary to inspect for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act".
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is very innocent. I hope he will agree that it in no way circumscribes or curbs an inspector in the proper exercise of his powers, and, at the same time, gives to the individual against whom, or over whom these powers are exercised, the protection of not having an intrusion into his privacy which goes beyond what is necessary for the enforcement of the Act.
I have tried to foresee what the noble Lord is going to tell me is wrong with my Amendment. At the least, I am asuming that he will tell me that it is not necessary, and I am assuming, for the purposes of the moment, that he is not going to accept my argument. I have been trying to foresee what he is going to say to me, and I fancy that it will be:
"It is all right, you need not he alarmed, because, as the Bill is at present written, your purpose is actually met."
I fancy that he will say to me:
"If you read again Clause 19(1) you will see it says 'a fire inspector, shall, for the purpose of the execution of this Act, have' the following powers…".
I foresee that the noble Lord may say:
"Well, there you are, that is all right. We are only giving him powers for the purpose of the enforcement of the Act, and that is your safeguard."
I very much doubt whether it is, partly because of the place where those words appear. If those words appeared, as I am suggesting, after the words "anything therein", qualifying the power that he could inspect "the whole or any part thereof and anything therein" in so far as that is necessary for the purpose of the execution of the Act, then I think my point would be met. But, as it appears to me by the position in which the words "for the purpose of the execution of this Act" appear in this clause, they are not intended to qualify the power but they are simply introductory or, if you like, just saying why the inspector is being given these powers at all "for the purpose of the execution of this Act".
I may be wrong about that. It may be that the noble Lord is going to use this argument, and it may be that he is right, but I am suggesting that there is nothing whatever wrong in putting the matter beyond any doubt by inserting the kind of words I have suggested here. I have no doubt that the Minister, and the Government, will agree with me on my intention. if the noble Lord is going to say that it is all right now, I am afraid—and I speak now after having spent most of my life trying to interpret Statutes—that I do not think this is good enough, and I do not think that we have written into this clause the safeguard that should be there. I beg to move.
1.57 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was somewhat critical of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition because we had not leaped to the defence of freedom and put down some Amendment ourselves, or threatened some Amendment on this particular clause. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that one reason why I did not voice any fears about this clause was that I have no knowledge at all that there has ever been any question of these powers being abused. There has been no suspicion that in the exercise of their authority the inspectors have overstepped reasonable bounds. Therefore, if we are to err, it seemed to me reasonable that we should err on the side of caution, and ensure that the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are solely concerned to reduce the risk of fire.

475
I certainly agree with him that, on the face of it, his words are innocent, but, on the other hand, I would be interested to know whether the noble Lord himself has any evidence to support the suggestion that there is any reason to be anxious that the powers now in the Bill would be misused by those in whom they are to be vested.
LORD WILLIS: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his Amendment. It seems to me that the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Beswick is rather like the argument which one sometimes hears from from road safety officers at borough councils, who say. "We have no knowledge of any fatal accident occurring at these crossroads, and therefore we do not think there is any point in putting up a Halt sign." Of course, two days later there is in fact a fatal accident.
LORD BESWICK: May I interrupt? I have no doubt that my noble friend is going to develop a very interesting argument, but I am sure he would agree that the example which he gives is exactly the opposite. In his case certainly we should err again on the side of caution and put up the road sign t in the case I am suggesting we should err on the side of caution and make absolutely sure that the necessary precautions are exercised.
LORD WILLIS: If my noble friend will allow me to complete the argument, what I was going to say was that one hears continually this kind of reply. I have recently been in touch with a local borough council about some traffic on a road in my locality, and the argument I have heard is, "We made a study, and there have been no accidents ". I have seen about seven near accidents there, but the council will do something only when there is eventually an accident.
LORD BESWICK: I agree with my noble friend.
LORD WILLIS: I think my noble friend will agree with that argument. My noble friend Lord Foot—I refer to him as "noble friend"—is asking that there should be some protection for the public. If we should have one single case in which a fire inspector abused his rights, then, with the Amendment of the noble
476
Lord, Lord Foot, the person who had been victimised by that fire inspector would have some right of redress, because he would be able to quote the Act, as it would be, in the courts. But as the Bill stands at present he would have no redress, no matter how sympathetic the court might be to his arguments, and Parliament would be faced with the necessity of amending the Act in some way or another. Therefore I suggest that this is a matter of putting up a very simple "Halt" sign, making this Amendment, and being very safe.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think we want to be very safe, and that is why I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said. I appreciate and respect the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to safeguard personal liberty. I always want to safeguard liberty, but, even more, I want to safeguard life; and when fire gets hold of a building it does not ignore those parts of the premises which it might be argued it had not been reasonable for the inspector to inspect. I find it hard to see what effective addition these words would make, because it seems to me that, as between the occupier of the building and the fire inspector, it must always be the fire inspector who is the expert. It must always be he who will know better than the occupier whether it is essential to inspect certain parts of the premises. I could not follow the noble Lord, Lord Foot, when he said that this provision might be claimed as giving the inspector a right to inspect documents in filing cabinets, and that sort of thing. I have read the whole of the subsection and I can see nothing there which would enable him to do that.
But with some experience of fire risks, I would beg your Lordships in considering this clause to pursue a policy of being safe rather than sorry. If there were evidence that fire inspectors were the sort of people who would wilfully and unjustifiably infringe personal liberty, then perhaps we should think further about it, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, and as I believe to be absolutely true, no single case has ever been reported of a fire authority sinning in this matter of infringement of liberties. That being so, I suggest that we should not take the risk of weakening this clause in any way and making it in the slightest degree more

477
likely that a fire should take place through some infringement of the certificate not having been detected.
LORD CROWTHER: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Foot, both in general and because I fail to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. We should all agree with the proposition that it is better be safe in the matter of preventing fire; but how on earth does it make us any safer not to prohibit the inspector from looking into things that it is not reasonably necessary to inspect? The inspection of anything that it is reasonably necessary for him to inspect would be permitted by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and how it makes us any safer not to adopt the Amendment I cannot for the life of me imagine.
Then there is the general argument. I was brought up in the tradition that if it is a matter of choosing between the powers that officials need to carry out their duties and the essential liberties of the subject, it should always be the practice of Parliament and of the law to lean over backwards in defence of the liberties of the subject. May I go back to the example that I gave the Committee on a previous Amendment, of the schoolteacher living in a residential club who comes back one afternoon from her school and finds that her room has been entered, and that everything therein has been inspected? Is this really what is necessary for the purpose of preventing fire. Surely, all that is necessary is that those things that it is reasonably necessary to inspect should be inspected. I do not see that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, reduces the efficacy of fire inspections by a jot or a tittle.
LORD SILKIN: It seems to me that the addition of the words in the Amendment is going to lead to complications and is not going to help the purposes of the Bill. Surely, these words might very well create an argument between the occupier and the inspector as to whether for the purpose of his inspection it is really necessary to visit certain parts of the premises. In such a case, if the occupier refuses, the inspector could take action against the occupier. In so far, as those words mean anything at all,
478
or add anything to the plain meaning of the clause as it stands, they would give rise to a possible conflict between the parties. I think it is far better not to insert them.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said in moving his Amendment, we have been considering some of the far-reaching implications of this Bill. Therefore most noble Lords have spoken on the underlying considerations rather than on the detail of the Amendment which is before us, and I ought to reply in the same way. This part of the Bill, concerning the powers of entry and the questioning by inspectors pursuing their duties under the Bill, raises a fundamental principle of legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has referred. Where the interests of the public require some form of intrusion into the privacy or activities of the individual, and perhaps into his home, we must make sure, first of all, that the powers are necessary—that there is a justification for them—and, secondly, that the circumstances in which they are used are defined and understood.
On the first of these two criteria, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that these powers are necessary to prevent risk to life from fire in the premises covered by the Bill. Now how do these powers stand up to the second test: that the circumstances in which they are used are defined and can be understood? The noble Lord, Lord Foot, drew attention to the words in Clause 19(1), that
"a fire inspector, shall, for the purpose of the execution of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following things…"
That is the beginning. Subsection (1) governs every case which is contained within Clause 19. Now we should look further, because this power is carefully limited and carefully spelt out in this clause, and one must not assume to the contrary. First, he must act for the purpose of the execution of the legislation; and, secondly, he can inspect only—
LORD FOOT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think that inadvertently he said "he can act", but, of course, the Bill does not say that. It says that he
"shall, for the purpose of the execution of this Act, have power…"
LORD WINDLESHAM: In the exercise of his power, because, after all, that is what we are discussing here. We are not discussing the inspector who sits at home and does not act: we are discussing the inspector who goes out to exercise the powers given to him in this part of the Bill. He can only use this power to inspect the premises which are set out very precisely in Clause 19(1)(a), on the second half of page 25—and the premises are here explained. They are:
"any premises requiring a fire certificate…under…this Act…";
secondly,
"any premises such as are mentioned in section 10(1)(a) of this Act —"
these are premises where there is a specially high risk of fire; thirdly,
"any premises to which section 3 of this Act…applies" —
these are the high buildings; fourthly, where there is a partial use; and, fifthly,
"any premises which he has reasonable cause to believe to be premises falling within any of the foregoing sub-paragraphs;…"
Therefore, the premises which he can enter under these powers are limited in the Bill. But more than that, the matters about which he can make inquiry are also limited in sub-paragraph (b) of Clause 19(1), and these are set out on page 26. I need not go through them because your Lordships have the Bill before you; but there are four categories there in which the inquiries that the inspector can make are described in the legislation itself.
The next point is that these powers are not new. We are not discussing these powers for the first time. They have applied since 1961 in the factories legislation, and since 1963 in the legislation concerning offices, shops and railway premises. We are dealing, therefore, with powers that are known and powers that have been used by largely the same people; admittedly in relation to other premises, but in the case of small shops, offices, restaurants and places of this sort inspectors have been exercising these powers.
When, on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, expressed his concern, the immediate response I gave him when I wound up the debate was that if in recent years these powers of entry and of Questioning had given rise to instances
480
where people felt that undesirable intrusion had occurred, we should have heard about it at the Home Office. In saying that I spoke without prior notice, so I did not want to take this assertion too far without checking up on the facts. But I have now done so, and after the most careful inquiries I find that neither the existence nor the exercise of these powers has resulted in a single complaint of which the Government are aware. It seems to me that this is a remarkable testimonial to the tact and skill with which the inspectors have carried out their enforcement responsibilities under the existing legislation. Since, as I have just said, under this Bill it will be largely the same inspectors carrying out largely the same responsibilities, I really do not sec any reason why this situation should change in the future. There is not only a precedent, but one which has been well tested in practice.
The third point that I would make in reply to this debate is that the fire service stands high in popular regard, and rightly so. I do not think, for reasons which we may come on to when discussing subsequent Amendments, that the analogy with the police is at all an exact one; it is one which we should really put out of our minds. The function of the fire service in this respect is to offer advice for people's own safety, and this is recognised by the public as a whole.
In advising the Committee not to accept this Amendment I would nut a final point before your Lordships. There is no need to say specifically that the inspector must act in a reasonable way, because what he does must necessarily be for the purposes of the Bill or he has no right to act at all. Therefore, to put in the qualification suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, not only is unnecessary but, in our view, would not, on the whole, be to the advantage of the people for whom this legislation is designed. I should like to hear what Lord Foot has to say in reply but I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
2.15 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: I have heard it said that an Englishman's home is his castle; I have never heard it suggested that a factory or shop or office or, for that matter, railway premises are a man's castle. I am quite sure that the Minister appreciates, as does everybody else, that

481
there is something very special and precious about the entitlement of a man to privacy in his home. I do not feel that the Minister has made an adequate case against the Amendment and I should be disappointed if the House does not decide to accept it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think the noble Lord would wish to mislead the Committee. Is he implying that this Bill applies to private dwellings as a whole?
LORD AIREDALE: No; the comment that I was trying to make was that the Minister has drawn precedents from the application of similar provisions in respect of factories, shops and offices and so on. I am simply saying that the case of one's private dwelling is quite different.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As those who study Clause 1 are aware this Bill is mainly concerned with places of public amusement and resort. This is what has brought forward this Bill. The provisions of Clause 3 cover certain private dwellings in particular circumstances and bring some of these private dwellings within the scope of the Bill. What I have said about offices and shops is very relevant to the premises in this category.
LORD FOOT: Since the Minister indicated that he is not going to accept this Amendment, I shall in due course withdraw it because it would be foolish of me to divide the Committee on this. I can be very brief in what I have to say before withdrawal, partly because it seems to me that the arguments addressed to us by the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Beswick, were completely destroyed by those of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that the words I am seeking to put in are already there in the words "for the purpose of the execution of this Act." He is saying that my words are unnecessary and that they mean exactly what the words in the Bill mean. If that is so, and if my words add nothing and detract nothing from the Bill as he thinks it now stands, why should he object to the words going in in order to put the matter beyond peradventure and beyond doubt?
The logic of the noble Lord's argument seems to be for putting the words in rather than leaving them out. Why should the
482
matter be left in doubt? Why not eliminate doubt? I hope that the noble Lord may be prepared to look at this again because it seems to me that my Amendment detracts in no way from the exercise of the powers which are given to inspectors; it requires only that they exercise them properly. The Minister says that there had been no complaints at all. I do not think that that is the proper approach. There should be no legislation en the Statute Book which is capable of abuse, under which a person, without involving himself in any criminal activity, can clearly abuse powers. It is not a sufficient excuse to say that there have been no complaints and that fire inspectors are a good lot. Of course, nothing I say is meant to reflect in any way on the fire brigade. But what we do not want, in relation to private and individual rights, is something on the Statute Book which permits a person, if he is so minded, to do something grossly in excess of his powers. That is the risk of abuse about which my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Willis was speaking. I hope that the Minister will look at this point again. In a moment I shall be moving a similar Amendment, and I shall be brief in doing so because no doubt I shall get the same sort of answer. It may be that my form of words is not as good as a form of words which the Minister could devise, but I ask him to look at this matter again before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.20 p.m.
LORD CROWTHER LORD CROWTHER moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 26, line 37, leave out from ("answer") to ("such") in line 38.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment appears in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and myself, though it is not a collaborated Amendment. It happens that the noble Lord and I both put down Amendments of exactly the same wording and purport, and Lord Foot suggested that I should move it. I am not saying this in order to disown the alliance; I should be proud, at any rate on this Bill, to work in the closest alliance with the noble Lord. But he and I may perhaps approach this Amendment from slightly different angles; or shall I

483
say that I have a special reason, which I think that he might not advance, for proposing this Amendment.
The words that we seek to remove permit a fire inspector, when asking questions of anybody he finds on the premises whom he has reason to believe to be the occupant or who is employed there—there are various other words in the Bill—to prohibit anybody else from being present. He can deny to the person of whom the questions are asked any assistance in answering those questions. Again, this seems to me to be an astonishingly far-reaching provision. If a man is questioned by the police on a charge of murder, he is allowed to have the assistance of a solicitor or a legal adviser. This is simply for a fire inspection; yet the inspector is to have power to say, "I am not going to allow anybody else to be present. I am going to ask my questions of this particular chap that I have seized; and, what is more, he has got to sign a declaration at the end."
In general, this seems to me to be licensing third degree methods. I am not saying "introducing" them—we all agree that the fire inspectors we know would not use them. But as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, why permit things to happen? Why have a law that enables these things to happen, if somebody is so minded—perhaps in some future circumstances, when the attachment of the authorities in this country to the principles of civil liberty is less than to-day? Why allow this to be done?
My particular reason for moving this Amendment is this—and once again I hope I may be forgiven for referring to the circumstances of the hotel trade. As is common knowledge to your Lordships, a very high proportion of the employees in the hotel trade are foreigners. Often, I regret to say, they have a very imperfect command of the English language. A young Spanish girl probably would not understand the questions that were being put to her; and if the inspector—I repeat exercising the powers he is given by this Bill—brought a Policeman with him, she would be terrified. She knows what the appearance of a policeman means in her own country. Why on earth should this be necessary for a fire inspection? When the citizen who is suspected of being a criminal is protected in all
484
sorts of ways with which we are familiar, why is it that in regard to a fire inspection someone like this Spanish girl is not allowed to have the assistance of the manager unless the inspector wishes it?
All through Clause 19 there are these little sections that give immense powers to the inspector and seem to have no regard at all to the basic liberties of the citizen. This one seems almost to be the worst. In what conceivable circumstances is it right to override the natural right of a person when being interrogated by authority to have assistance in making his answers, and in what, after all, is not a criminal investigation but simply a fire inspection? I beg to move.
2.26 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: I support this Amendment very strongly. In discussing the Amendment, it seems to me that your Lordships are in a certain kind of moral difficulty. When a noble Lord speaks of the police, it seems that before going on to make a complaint, he always has to preface his remarks by saying that the police do a difficult job in difficult circumstances and they are a wonderful body of men. I am reminded a little of the story told during the McCarthy era in America, when a poor little man got up at a town meeting and said, Ladies and gentlemen, I do not like Lenin, I do not like Stalin, I am anti-Marxist and I am anti-Communist in every possible way, but I think my rent is too high".
It seems to me that we are in this kind of dilemma here. A great deal is being put on fire inspectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, they are a wonderful body of men. But does anybody suggest that there may not be one among them who is not quite of such a high moral standard as the rest, who does not in the mildest possible way abuse his power? The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that his Department had not had one single complaint. Now, really, he is a little too long in the tooth to swallow that one, as I am sure we all are. In fact these men have considerable powers, and I know of certain instances, as I am sure do many of your Lordships, where a fire inspector, simply because of his considerable powers, is able to prevent complaints. I do not want to suggest for one moment that fire inspectors go about blackmailing people or

485
asserting undue power—in other words, they are a wonderful body of men—but it does happen that a little man who is approached by a fire inspector will not make a complaint because he knows that somebody at the town hall will come down on him or because he is afraid that that may happen.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that he had experience of cases of this sort, or is he speaking of what might happen?
LORD WILLIS: I want to be careful in what I say about this, but I think that I may be able to tell the noble Lord of examples of cases where people have been afraid (because not all people are educated, intelligent, or bright) to take full complaints forward about attitudes, because they are afraid of bringing clown the full weight of bureaucracy upon their shoulders. I am sure that this is an experience the noble Lord must have heard of many times.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This is a line of argument with which I am completely familiar in relation to some services but, as I said on Second Reading and again to-day, I have not heard of it in connection with the powers already held by fire inspectors.
LORD WILLIS: Is that not exactly the point? The noble Lord will not hear of such complaints.
LORD WINDLESHAM: But why have I not? If this is a widespread feeling, why has it never been raised before? This is the first time that what the noble Lord is saying has come to my attention. If there is widespread apprehension, why has nobody become aware of it?
LORD WILLIS: The noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that it was widespread. I do not suggest that the whole country is trembling under the threat of fire inspectors or anybody else. What I am suggesting is that the possibility exists. To my certain knowledge, there have been one or two cases where complaints might have been made, but have not been made because of a kind of a quid pro quo: "Well the chap will be down next year; I want him to be reasonable, and therefore I will not complain." It happens in every area of life.
486
I have known of stallholders in market places. It is the easiest thing in the world to get hold of a stallholder in a market place, because there are so many regulations. If they have a single basket of fruit one inch over a certain line they can be caught by the market inspector. They all have baskets of fruit two or three inches over a certain line, and they work on a kind of quid pro quo with the market inspector. But they know very well that if certain things do not go right the market inspector will get them in one way or another. I know of an example of the one Jewish policeman I ever knew. He once told me that in the East End of London some of the Gentile policemen, when they were a bit short on their case books, would go down to the local market place and "knock off" a few Jewish stallholders. There was no real malice in it. In order to put the balance straight, he would go down to the market and knock off a few Gentile stallholders. It was not difficult to do.
This happens in any area where there is created a bureaucratic organisation. By and large, you rely on the good sense, the humanity and the human understanding of the people who operate it. We in this country are grateful that we have in the police and the fire inspectors people who carry out their duties in a good way. But I have no doubt at all that before the year is out we shall be reading in the newspapers of a corrupt policeman—because that is what life is all about—and it is quite possible that we shall be reading about a corrupt fire inspector. The noble Lord may tell me that he has never heard of such a case, but it is quite possible, as he must know.
Therefore I support the noble Lord, Lord Crowther. Why put it in the Bill? Why not put in some elementary precaution and protection for the ordinary citizen? Why enlarge it in this way? That is why I strongly support the Amendment.
LORD FOOT: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther, gave an illustration of a foreign girl without an adequate command of the language, and of how frightening it might be for her to be confronted with an interrogator, perhaps backed up by the police. There are two other illustrations which I think are useful to bear in mind.

487
On the occasion of the Second Reading, I put the illustration of the person who wants to call in his solicitor, or who has his solicitor at hand. Under this power, the inspector can say: "No. You are not entitled to consult your solicitor; you are not entitled to speak to him or to have him here. I am going to interrogate you and require answers from you in the absence of your legal adviser."
Take the case of a minor. It would be quite easy to find children,
"employed to work therein or otherwise having responsibilities in relation thereto."
What about the little girl who helps out on the premises? Is the inspector entitled to say: "No. Your parent is not to be present; you will be interrogated on your own "? In the case of minors who are being interrogated by the police, it is laid down that the parent or guardian ought always to be present when the child is being interrogated. It could, I suggest, be a frightening experience for a child if she or he were required to answer questions put by the inspector in the absence of anybody, even of her employer, even of her guardian or even of parents or friends.
What would be lost? In what way would this Bill be damaged, in what way would the enforcement procedure be curbed and curtailed, if these words were left out? I suggest that there would not be a single extra fire in the land in the next twenty years as a result of our leaving these words out. We should have taken steps in advance to avoid the possibility of abuse of power by the fire inspectors. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that this is something which may happen very rarely, but it is something which is made more possible, more likely to happen, by putting this parenthesis into the Bill.
2.36 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May we remind ourselves—because the debate has gone rather wide—that the provision that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, would omit is that which enables the inspector to decide whether or not any one else may be present when he is questioning a particular person. Here again this provision is in the existing legislation in the 1961 Act concerning factories, and in the 1963 Act concerning
488
offices, shops and railway premises. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, asked "What is the justification for this particular provision?". It was beyond their imagination to envisage circumstances where it could be justified. There are circumstances in which it can be justified, and that is why it is in the Bill which is before us to-day. It did not just get in there by accident, nor did it get into the earlier legislation by accident; it got in by intent. The reason is that in the experience of the fire service and those who exercise powers under fire prevention legislation a measure of this sort is needed for the protection of employees, not for the reverse.
Let us consider the case of junior staff in some premises, who may be asked questions by an inspector concerning failures to comply with the requirements of a fire certificate. Would not these people feel embarrassed? Would they not feel inhibited? Might they not even be intimated by the presence of a manager, or a more senior official, who might have had responsibility for not implementing the contents of the fire certificate? In those circumstances how could the inspector expect to get an accurate and truthful account from a junior member of the staff? The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said very confidently that he could not envisage that a single fire would be prevented in twenty years by the use by inspectors of powers of this sort. I do not know how he can be so confident. This provision is in the Bill on the basis of the experience of those who have spent a lifetime in trying to prevent fires from breaking out.
I can say quite unequivocally that it is not the object of this provision to keep out persons, whether an interpreter in the case of foreign staff, or a solicitor, or a colleague who might be needed to help the person concerned in answering the inspector's questions. There is no evidence whatsoever that the fire authorities have ever placed this construction on this particular provision in the legislation to which I have referred. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, in the course of a speech that did not really touch on the Amendment until the closing sentences, made some fairly serious allegations concerning inspectors. I hope that he will either be able to justify them, in private

489
if he wishes to do so rather than in public, or qualify them in some way. I spoke earlier about the regard in which the fire service is held by the public. I believe that this is generally true, and that the way in which it carries out its functions and responsibilities under existing legislation has not given rise to circumstances of the type the noble Lord envisaged.
LORD WILLIS: May I intervene? I think the words "serious allegations", the phrase just used, are a rather serious allegation to make. What I was commenting on was the usual process that goes on in the case of a bureaucratic organisation (and I use the word "bureaucratic" in the best sense) involving people at the other end of the bureaucratic process. I was referring to no more than that. I should not want, as I was very careful to say at the beginning, to denigrate the police, the Fire Inspectorate or the fire brigades, or any other body. But they are bureaucratic organisations and this kind of quid pro quo goes on.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Well, maybe; but the noble Lord was making assertions, and I do not know their basis. What I have said is based on advice that I have been given by the Fire Service itself and by people who have spent, as I say, a lifetime in this particular field. Therefore I think I can speak with considerable, although second-hand, knowledge and experience. If the noble Lord can speak from similar experience of something he has seen or has knowledge of, so be it. But if not, I think that to speak in these general terms is really not helpful.
LORD WILLIS: I disagree. May I ask the noble Lord whether it is impossible for him to envisage a situation in which a small man is visited by a fire inspector who is a little brusque and orders certain things to be done to the premises in order to make them safe against fire? Perhaps the inspector is in fact imposing the full letter of the law, but his manner, or something in his attitude, gives cause for complaint. Can the noble Lord not envisage a situation in which the man concerned says, "Well, I should like to report him to somebody in authority, but if I do he will only come back next year and make it even
490
tougher for me"? Does the noble Lord not also believe that there are certain circumstances in which a fire inspector will turn a blind eye to certain minor deficiencies because he understands the difficulties of the owner, and that therefore this in itself is a kind of quid pro quo? Can the noble Lord not imagine those circumstances, which must be going on all the time?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord is speaking of a hypothetical case; what I was asking him to do is to come forward with some actual examples. I do not think we should speculate further on this matter. We have had a fairly long debate on this Amendment and we have others which cover some of the same ground. Let me say a word or two to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, because he raised a point concerning the position of a solicitor, in the discussion on this Amendment and on Second Reading. The noble Lord pointed out that the police were forbidden to require a person to answer questions in the absence of a solicitor in the case of criminal proceedings, but that such a situation was permitted under this Bill. It is true that every person at any stage of a police investigation should be able to communicate and consult privately with a solicitor. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther, also mentioned the analogy of the police. I do not think, however, that the analogy really holds good, because in the case of an examination by a police officer, the person being examined is suspected of having committed an offence.
LORD CROWTHER: Will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? It was not an analogy. Under the Bill as drafted a fire inspector may take a policeman with him.
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is not the exact point I was dealing with at this stage. I can cover it at some later stage, but I have spoken for quite some time already. What I should like to do now is to draw a distinction between the circumstances envisaged in the Bill and the circumstances in which somebody is being examined by a police officer, when he is entitled to have his solicitor with him. In those circumstances the man is suspected of having committed an offence. That is the position the individual is in.

491
On the other hand in the case of a fire precautions inspection the inspector, making inquiries under this provision of somebody, let us say, who has the overall management of a building under his control, is asking only whether the requirements of a fire certificate have been complied with. The individual is not in the same position as the man suspected of an offence and is in no danger of being charged with an offence as a result of what he says.
LORD FOOT: But surely he is in grave danger of being charged with an offence as a result of what he says, because the words in Clause 19(3) are:
"A person who—

(a) without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an inspector under subsection (1) above…"

That includes answering questions. If he fails to answer a question which is put to him he then becomes liable to a penalty. When one turns to Clause 22 one finds that if a person
"in purported compliance with any obligation to give information to which he is subject under or by virtue of this Act, gives any information which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly gives any information which is so false."
he is liable to a fine not exceeding£400. So in both circumstances the person is in danger.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If the noble Lord will study subsection (4) of Clause 19 he will see that there is no risk of self-incrimination. As I understand the position, the reason why somebody being question by the police is entitled to have a solicitor with him is because he may incriminate himself by what he says. I see the noble Lord nodding, and I think we are in agreement. Subsection (4) of this clause specifically says that the answers which are given are not admissible in evidence against him in either criminal or civil proceedings. I think I have spoken long enough in reply to the debate on this Amendment. For the reasons I have given we do not think it is desirable, and I must ask the Committee to reject it.
2.48 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: I think the Minister's reply shows up the defect in the
492
words which this Amendment seeks to leave out. These words not only enable the fire inspector to exclude from the interrogation those people who the Minister fears might be the sort of people who would intimidate the person being questioned, but they also enable the fire inspector to exclude from the interrogation people whom the person being questioned wants to have present, such as a parent or the employer, or whoever it may be. Surely what we want here, if we want anything at all, is a form of words which allows the inspector to exclude from the interrogation persons other than persons whom the person being interrogated wishes to have present at the interrogation.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to make a brief comment here. I think it is difficult, not only for noble Lords interested in the drafting of legislation but also for the draftsman himself to try to take account of motive in the circumstances we have been discussing—of whether somebody who was apprenhensive that a manager or senior employee might be present would or would not wish that other person to be present. It might be difficult to contain that thought within the precision expected in Parliamentary drafting.
LORD AUCKLAND: Before we finally come to a decision on this point, may I say that I wonder whether we are not in danger of getting into some kind of legal crossfire here. Can my noble friend enlighten the Committee as to what kind of rank the inspector has, and if the person concerned does not wish a particular inspector to become involved in this has he a right of appeal to a higher authority on these grounds?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I cannot without notice, give the noble Lord a complete answer to that question, but I think that what noble Lords opposite are apprehensive about is the way in which the inspector, who will normally be a member of the local fire brigade or the local authority, which is the fire authority (he may be a civilian employee) uses the power that he has. So, whether or not a more senior officer could be sent for, it would not quite meet the anxieties of noble Lords opposite.
LORD CROWTHER: I find myself in something of a dilemma. On the one hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot said on the previous Amendment, in a thin House of this kind there is little point in seeking to divide on a matter of this sort. On the other hand, I have to say, with great respect to the noble Lord, that none of the answers that he has given on this point has satisfied me in the least. Most of them have been answers, if I may again say with respect, which it astonishes me to hear fall from the lips of a Minister of the Crown. Its actual application in fire inspections is perhaps not terribly important, but the point we are discussing seems to me to be one of the greatest importance for the liberty of the subject. What are the answers? We have been told that these words appear in the Factories Acts and in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Well, if they do, perhaps they ought to be taken out. In any case, as one noble Lord said, we are not talking about shops and offices and factories; we are talking about people's homes and semi-domestic situations.
LORD WINDLESHAM: And—with great respect to the noble Lord—all the other premises which are covered under the Bill.
LORD CROWTHER: Very well; if that be the explanation, let the domestic ones be excepted from this clause. We are talking about a clause which could be applied to people's homes, and I am astounded that it is treated so lightheartedly. It is said that there have been no complaints. Even if there have been no complaints, why should we have to create a law that would enable it to be done? Surely the whole bias of the tradition of English legislation on this matter is that the safeguard should be on the side of the subject, not of the fire inspector.
It was suggested in the course of the little debate we have had—the nearest thing, if I may say so, to a respectable argument—that it could, in conceivable circumstances, be necessary to protect the employee by removing a bullying manager. But when it was suggested that the words should be adjusted to make it clear, no, the noble Lord prefers language which leans over too far in the
494
direction of officialdom. In order to cope with this possible necessity to protect the employee against a bullying manager, it opens the door wide to a bullying fire inspector. I used the words "licensing third degree", and I repeat them. Nobody thinks to-day that fire inspectors are going to use these methods, but under this clause in the future they could. These words would enable the sort of thing that we detest and abominate in this country to be done under the power of this Bill.
I confess that I am very disappointed that the noble Lord has given us such a completely blocking answer to this Amendment that he appears to be unwilling to open his mind to the very serious and deep-reaching principle that is behind it; that is to say, that legislation of this kind should not be drafted simply for the convenience and protection of officials but that it should bear in mind the liberty of the subject as well. I deeply regret that I do not feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
2.55 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 26, line 39, after ("ask") insert ("and as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I, too, should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, said in closing just now. I, too, am deeply disappointed at the lack of response that we are getting from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. It is not only disappointing but rather surprising, because I would think the noble Lord's natural bent of mind to be wholly sympathetic to the arguments we are addressing to him. On this particular Amendment I am afraid I shall get the same sort of answers as we got to the earlier Amendments. Therefore, I shall be fairly brief.
If your Lordships look at Clause 19(1)(b) you will see that an inspector who enters premises in the way we have been talking about, then has the power to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary to verify certain matters; to identify the owner and to ascertain who has the management of the premises, and then to ascertain whether the fire certificate is being complied with, and so on. Then in paragraph (d) it is

495
there provided that the inspector has power
"to require any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be the owner or the occupier of the premises or to be a person employed to work therein or otherwise having responsibilities in relation thereto, to answer "—
and I leave out the parenthesis we have been talking about,
"such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask and to sign a declaration of the truth of his answers".
The Amendment that I am proposing would be to insert certain words after the word "ask", so that it would then read that he can require this person,
"to answer such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask and as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act."
My point is very similar to the one I was making upon my first Amendment; that is to say, that the inspector ought not to be free to ask any question he thinks fit to ask. He ought to be obliged to limit his questions to those which are relevant to his enforcement powers under the Bill.
I have no doubt that I shall get the same sort of answer from the noble Lord to this Amendment as I got on my first Amendment. I have no doubt he will tell me, "You need not worry. It does not mean what it says. It does not have the meaning it appears to have. If you look right back at the beginning of paragraph (b) you find that the inspector has power 'to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary' ". I expect that the noble Lord will argue to us that those words,
"to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary"
govern the whole procedure thereon, with the result that the inspector cannot ask a question which is not necessary.
If the noble Lord uses that argument to me, or even if he goes further back to his original case, that all this is governed by the provision that it must he for the purpose of the execution of this Act, then I say why not make it explicit? Why not put it beyond doubt? I suggest that it is open to very considerable doubt as the Bill now stands. I think it is very much in doubt as to whether or not he is entitled to ask any question he pleases, whether it be rele-
496
vant to his inquiries or not. All my Amendment does is simply to require that he shall not be entitled to demand an answer to a question which has nothing whatever to do with the enforcement of fire precautions, and things of that kind.
My Amendment would in no way reduce the inspector's powers in their proper exercise. What it would do is to make it perfectly plain that the inspector is not entitled to go beyond his proper duties. The matter is the more serious on this account: that if a person fails to answer a question he then commits an offence under subsection (3), for which he is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50. If he says to the inspector," I am not going to answer your question ", then the inspector can prosecute him for refusing to answer. Would it be a defence under the Bill, as it now stands, for a person who is called upon to give an answer to any question that the inspector thinks fit to ask, to say, "That was an improper question"? I suggest that it would not, because the questions which are admissible are any questions that the inspector thinks fit to ask.
If the words in the Amendment are inserted in the Bill, then they will make it perfectly clear that if a person refuses to answer a question because he considers that it is improper and he is then prosecuted for it, he will be able to say in his defence, when he is brought before the court and charged with having failed to answer a question, "But it was an improper question. It was not a relevant question. It was a question that the inspector was not entitled to ask." In those circumstances he would be afforded a defence. I suggest that the proper construction of the Bill as it stands is that if an inspector goes in and asks somebody a wholly improper question which has nothing to do with the matter in hand and the person refuses to answer, then, theoretically, the inspector can prosecute that person and it will not be any defence to say that the question was irrelevant, because the Bill states precisely that the inspector can ask any question he thinks fit. For those reasons, I again suggest that nothing would be lost in the enforcement procedures if these words of mine were inserted. Indeed, the rights of the individual and

497
the rights and powers of the inspector would be precisely defined so that everybody knew where he stood. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The questions asked by the inspector will have to fall within clearly defined limits. It is not right to say that any question which he feels inclined to ask can be put. The limitation in the opening words of Clause 19(1), "for the purpose of the execution of this Act" of course applies to Clause 19(1)(d), as I have already explained. Furthermore, Clause 19(1)(d) itself limits the inspector's questions in two further ways. First, questions can deal only with the matters specified in Clause 19(1)(b); that is, to verify a belief that the premises are covered by the Bill, to identify an owner or occupier or a person having overall management, or to ascertain that the provisions of the Bill and the regulations made under it, or the requirements of the fire certificate if one is in force, are complied with. Secondly, those questions can be asked only in connection with the premises which are covered by the Bill, or which the inspector has reasonable cause to believe are covered by the Bill. Therefore, there already exist the limitations contained within the subsections of Clause 19 to which I have referred.
Let me say a word or two in reply to the strictures made by Lord Crowther at the end of the discussion on the last Amendment and by Lord Foot in moving this Amendment. Of course, it is right that the Government collectively and myself personally are concerned to see that excessive powers are not given to officials in this Bill or in any other Bill. We are agreed on that; and I should like to apologise if, in the heat of debate with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others, I gave any impression other than that. Our concern is their concern, and so it always must be in a debate of this sort. My difficulty has been—and I cannot believe that I am the first person to find myself in this position—that I do not agree with their Amendments. These are the words they have chosen to express their concern, and it seems to us that the words they propose to put in the Bill are, on balance, less desirable than the words which are already in the Bill.
But let me say here and now, if I have not made it clear before, that I will
498
certainly study this debate. I will consult my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my colleagues in the Home Office. I will consult with the officials concerned, and we will go through this Part of the Bill, Clause 19 in particular, for I think it has been the focus of the apprehension expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. If between now and Report stage we can find some way to meet the general concern that has been advanced, I shall certainly be very ready to do so, and I should like to have that on the Record at this stage.
LORD CROWTHER: I thank the noble Lord very much for those words—for which, if I may say so, we have been waiting for a very long time without hearing a mutter. May I also commend to him, as he confronts the officials of the Home Office in the course of that examination, a story which is told of a previous Home Secretary. Sir William Harcourt, who, on appointment to that Office, is said to have summoned the officials and said, "Gentlemen, my job is to make sure that you gentlemen are not hanged from lamp-posts in Whitehall".
LORD FOOT: May I also thank the noble Lord for his assurance? That is the first bit of encouragement we have had in the discussion on this clause, and I am very grateful to him. It offers a ray of hope. If I may say so, when the noble Lord comes to read this debate again, particularly when he reads the speeches that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, I think he will be persuaded that, intellectually, the balance of the argument is on this side of the Committee, and I hope that he will be able to persuade his own officials at the Home Office likewise. In the circumstances, and in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CROWTHER: As I said in moving Amendment No. 2 Amendment No. 17 serves the same purpose as that Amendment, and since I withdrew that one on the assurance of the Minister I do not propose to move this one. May

499
I add that, in view of the assurance we had a minute ago from the Minister, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
LORD FOOT: As my noble friend Lord Crowther has withdrawn his Amendment, I do not move Amendment No. 20.
3.10 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 27. line 24, at end insert—
("Provided that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this subsection unless it is proved that the inspector had previously warned that person that any failure or prevention or obstruction as aforesaid might make him liable to a fine.")
The noble Lord said: On this Amendment I cannot take exactly the same course as my noble friend Lord Crowther did with his Amendments, because it raises a slightly different point and I should like to say a few words upon it if I may. Your Lordships will see that under subsection (3) of this clause a person commits an offence in certain circumstances, first of all if he:
"without reasonable excuse… fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an inspector under subsection (1) above "—
and that, as has already been pointed out, includes failing to answer a question. Secondly, a person commits an offence who:
"prevents, or attempts to prevent, any other person from appearing before an inspector or from answering any question to which an inspector may, by virtue of that subsection, require an answer".
Thirdly, a person, commits an offence who:
"intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise or performance of his powers or duties under this Act."
Then it goes on to provide what the penalties will be.
My Amendment is to insert at the end of that subsection the words:
"Provided that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this subsection unless it is proved that the inspector had previously warned that person that any failure or prevention or obstruction as aforesaid might make him liable to a fine."
I put down this Amendment to avoid the possibility of a person's inadvertently committing an offence and rendering himself liable to a fine because he does not
500
know that it is an offence to refuse to answer or to fail to answer the questions, or to prevent somebody from answering a question. The object of the Amendment is to secure that people do not unwittingly commit an offence. A precedent for this warning procedure is in the Road Traffic Act 1967, where a person who is taken to the police station and asked for a sample of blood or urine must be warned that if he fails to give the specimen or refuses to do so he renders himself liable to a penalty. I suggest that for the protection of the individual this proviso should be written into the clause so that the person must be warned by the inspector that the failure to answer renders him liable to a penalty. Nothing is lost by including this proviso. It does not put the inspector at any disadvantage if he gives this warning at the beginning of his interview. I suggest that unless this warning is given there a successful prosecution cannot be brought. I move the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: While I am sympathetic with what lies behind the words of the noble Lord, there are some practical implications which need to be taken into account. The general assumption in numerous Acts where offences are prescribed is that those concerned should be expected to know the law. There seems to be no particular reason why an offence under Clause 19(3) should be regarded as so exceptional that a caution has to be administered by an inspector in the way that a police officer gives a caution in interrogating somebody suspected of a criminal offence. The terms of the Amendment would place a heavy burden on the inspector. We must remember that inspection under Clause 19 is made for the purpose of obtaining information so that the fire authority may be satisfied as to the safety of persons on the premises in the event of fire. In these circumstances the need to consider proceedings against anyone under this clause will rarely arise, and the inspector would be in a difficult position if on each and every occasion when he spoke to somebody he had to utter a cautionary form of words, as is envisaged by the Amendment. That would be the only course that he could adopt, because he would not be able to decide in advance which answer was true or false or which question was likely to be answered or not answered.

501
I am inclined to think that a caution which always prefaced an inspector's conversation would be regarded as rather threatening, rather formal; that it would tend to make the staff suspicious and perhaps even resentful, and so it might have the result of creating unnecessary friction and destroying the good relationship which an inspector normally builds up over a period of time. These are practical implications which one has to keep in mind when considering whether a change of this sort would be a desirable innovation.
LORD AIREDALE: I should have thought that there would not be a great practical difficulty. It would not be until the interviews became "sticky", and the person being questioned was found to be unco-operative, that the fire officer would give this warning. He would give the warning and then continue with his questions. Surely the justification for this, and for the road safety exception to the rule that everybody is supposed to know the law, is that in these two situations you have people, fire officers and policemen, who would know that the person concerned was liable to commit an offence without realising that he was doing so. Therefore it seems fair that the officials should give the warning to try to prevent an offence being committed; which would be much better than prosecuting someone after he had committed an offence.
LORD FOOT: May I adopt those two arguments? They were the ones that I was going to use in reply to the Minister. I do not think that there is the practical difficulty of which the Minister speaks. I do not foresee that a general warning would be given at the beginning of every interview; I do not think that that would be necessary. All that is necessary is that where a person refused or failed to answer a question, the inspector should say to him. "I think, for your own protection, you ought to know, and I am required to tell you, that you are under a duty to answer these questions; and you commit an offence if you do not do so". I do not see that there is any necessity for a general caution or warning at the beginning of every interview.
So far as I know, under the Road Safety Act this has proved a very valuable method in preventing people from committing an offence inadvertently. The noble Lord said that he thought that most
502
people would realise that it is the law of the land. But take the illustration used by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, of a Spanish kitchenmaid being interviewed by an inspector. Is she to be expected to know that if she does not answer questions she is liable to be prosecuted and fined £100? Take the case of a minor, a child, or anybody who is not particularly well educated. I claim that even a solicitor would be surprised to find a provision of this kind in a Statute. Far from people being likely to know that they are committing an offence, I should have thought that it would be highly unlikely. If the noble Lord were able to give me some little help by saying that he would look at this point again, I would be content to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: There may be some way of meeting this point through administrative direction issued by the fire authorities. I would certainly be willing to look into this matter, without giving any specific assurance at this stage, and see what can be said on Report.
LORD FOOT: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.21 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No.22:
Page 27. line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A) below").
The noble Lord said: May I take Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 together. They cover a point very similar to the one we have been discussing and I will not take up any more time of the Committee on them, because of the assurance the noble Lord gave me a moment ago. If he will tell me that he is willing to look at this matter again, to see if it can be dealt with administratively, then I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am certainly willing to look at the points covered in Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 together as they are all related.
LORD FOOT: In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Amendment of Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963]:
3.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 33, line 36, at end insert:
"() in subsection (2) the words following 'prescribed' in the second place where it occurs shall be deleted;
() after subsection (2) there shall be inserted as subsection (2A)—
'(2A) On receipt of an application for a fire certificate with respect to any premises the appropriate authority may require the applicant within such time as they may specify—

(a) to furnish them with such plans of the premises as they may specify; and

(b) if the premises consist of part of a building, to furnish them, in so far as it is possible for him to do so, with such plans of such other part or parts of the building as they may specify;

and if the applicant fails to furnish the required plans within that time or such further time as the authority may allow, the application shall be deemed to have been withdrawn at the end of that time or further time, as the case may be.' "
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that part of my Amendment No. 7 proposed an Amendment dealing with the submission of plans. This related to Clause 8 and my noble friend Lord Windlesham said he thought it was inappropriate that applicants for the change of condition of notice should submit plans. He said at the same time that the Bill provides for the submission of plans under Clause 5, when the original application for a fire certificate is made. He also mentioned that there are two other statutory provisions under which people may apply for fire certificates. One is the Factories Act 1961 and the other is the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.
Section 40 of the Factories Act enables the Department concerned to make regulations whereby plans have to be submitted with an application for the first fire certificate. Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act enables the Department concerned to make similar regulations. Unfortunately, the Departments have not made any regulations. The result is that when they are considering applications for fire certificates, they have sometimes to go so far as to draw the plans themselves because they are not supplied, and there
504
is no procedure by which they can ask for them to be supplied. This seems to me to be an absurd situation. Here we have a provision in the Bill where a certain part of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 is being amended, and it would seem to me—and I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that it is sensible—that we should take the opportunity to put right what has so far apparently gone wrong.
I am really speaking to both this Amendment and the following one, because the point is exactly the same. I suggest that we should make a small 'amendment to the Bill which would bring it into conformity with what is already in Clause 5, so that all the people who make application for fire certificates under any of these three Acts ease the work of the fire authority concerned—and, I have no doubt, expedite the procedure in regard to their application—by supplying plans. That is all that these two Amendments say. I hope that, in view of what my noble friend has already said, he may feel inclined to say that there is something good in what I suggest. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I can reply quite briefly to my noble friend on these two Amendments. I am advised that these are outside the scope of the Bill. They are substantial Amendments to the two Acts to which my noble friend has referred: namely, the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. Whatever the arguments for and against the submission of plans to fire authorities, which we were debating earlier in connection with this Bill, it would be wrong to place Amendments of this sort in this Bill, which would change substantially the content of the two Acts in question. It would have to be done by amendment to those two Statutes rather than by an Amendment to this Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry that my noble friend takes that line and, with respect, I do not think it will do. The principle as enunciated in the Bill seems to me to be perfectly plain: that on the original application for a fire certificate under this Bill plans have to be submitted. If my noble friend does not want it put in the Bill, what about the Acts to which I refer?

505
Section 29(2) of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 says:
"An application for the issue of a fire certificate with respect to any premises must be made to the appropriate authority in such form as may be prescribed by order made by the Minister and state the greatest number of persons employed to work at any one time in the premises or proposed to be so employed and such other (if any) particulars as may be so prescribed, and, if regulations made by the Minister so require, must be accompanied by such plans of the premises as may be specified in the regulations."
The section in the Factories Act is remarkably similar. Is my noble friend saying that the Government still continue to refuse to make regulations? There is nothing to prevent them from doing so. If they will not have my Amendment in the Bill, will they make regulations under those powers? The thing would then be perfectly all right without need of amendment. But he gives no undertaking on that.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am certainly willing to look at that point. But we are debating the Fire Precautions Bill. To ask suddenly if regulations have been made under two other Statutes seems to me to be irrelevant to our proceedings. I will, however, look at the point to see whether I can tell my noble friend anything on Report. But to attempt to alter in a substantial way regulations dealing with premises under cover of the Fire Precautions Bill, which is the subject of our Committee stage proceedings to-day, does not seem to me to be a correct way of going about things. But I will look into whether regulations have been made, or could be made.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is a very acceptable offer, but it seems to me to be inconceivable that when they read the two Amendments standing in my name it never occurred to my noble friend's Department to see whether they had ever made regulations under these other two Acts. That it should come as a surprise to my noble friend is absolutely astonishing. I shall certainly amend the Long Title and move these Amendments again if I cannot get an assurance from my noble friend that something will be done under the existing powers. I really cannot see any difficulty about this. The Long Title can be amended, and everything will be perfectly in order.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think this is a point on which we should detain the Committee. I have said earlier that I am willing to meet my noble friend on other points which we shall be considering and discussing together, and we can certainly include these on our agenda.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 33 to 36 agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
Loans to meet expenditure to reduce fire risk on Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments.
". The purpose of expenditure for or towards which loans may be made under section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and section 1 of the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962 shall include—

(a) the taking of steps necessary to obtain a fire certificate under this or any other Act; and

(b) any other works necessary to reduce the risk of spread of fire in buildings of architectural or historic interest in respect of which such loans may be made whether or not fire certificates may he required."

The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick. He had anticipated that this Amendment would have been called much earlier, and he regrets that, as a result of the late sitting of the Committee, he has been called away. The purpose of the Amendment is reasonably clear. Historic buildings, almost by definition, are an above-average fire risk. Also by definition they are unlikely to be owned or maintained by wealthy commercial concerns. This Amendment is moved in particular because the Youth Hostels Association of England and Wales have a particular and expensive problem with 29 hostels actually listed, and another seven on the supplementary list of buildings of architectural and historic interest. They are uneconomic to run, and those who maintain them are deserving of support, and this is recognised to varying extents by local authorities, who are empowered to make grants or loans.
The object of this Amendment is to extend the purpose for which loans can be made. Probably the Amendment would be the better if it also included the word "grants". Perhaps this point can be looked at later. My noble friend recognises that not much time has been given for consideration of the Amendment, and if assurances could be given he would be happy for me to withdraw it now. My noble friend would, if he was encouraged to do so, put it down again at the Report stage if that course was necessary, but it would be better still if the matter could be dealt with by the Minister to-day.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This new clause would have the effect of extending the loan-making powers under Section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962 to include steps necessary to obtain a fire certificate and work to reduce the risk and spread of fire in buildings of architectural or historic interest. These Acts are designed to preserve certain buildings or historic interest. It is true that this Bill will cover a number of historic buildings if they are open regularly to the public, or if they have been converted in such a way that they come under Clause 3 of the Bill. This being so, it is conceivable that certain improvements in the fire precautions may be necessary before a fire certificate can be issued. The Amendment is based on the assumption that if, for other reasons, the State is empowered to make loans towards the maintenance of historic buildings, it should also be empowered to make loans towards the cost of any additional works in such buildings which may be necessary under the Bill. I am afraid that there are some practical difficulties here which I ought to itemise for the noble Lord.
The first one is that the purpose of the two Acts that I have mentioned, which are referred to in the Amendment, is quite different from the purpose of the Bill. There is, I think, an objection in principle to using an Amendment in an unrelated Bill to widen the scope of existing Acts. Secondly, even if this were not so, paragraph (b) of the noble Lord's Amendment, which refers to
508
"works necessary to reduce the risk of spread of fire",
is related to the protection of buildings, rather than to means of escape for persons in buildings in the event of fire; and it is therefore outside the scope of the Bill. Thirdly, the reference in paragraph (a) of the Amendment to the provision for loans towards the cost of works needed to obtain a fire certificate under legislation other than the Bill seems to us to fall outside the limits of expenditure which have been approved in Clause 39 in another place.
Having raised some of the practical difficulties which I am afraid make it difficult for us to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, let me go on to say that the general question of historic buildings and the way this Bill will affect them has received a good deal of careful consideration, and we believe that the position is secured under the provisions of Clause 43(2) of this Bill. The effect of that clause is that the Bill will not override legislation which is directed towards the preservation of historic buildings. If, therefore, a fire authority specified work to be carried out which conflicted with the legislation relating to the preservation of historic buildings, the occupier would be under no duty to comply with the fire authority's requirements. In practice, any possible conflict of this kind would doubtless be resolved in consultation between the owner, the fire authority, the local authority and the Government Department concerned.
We do not expect any serious difficulties, especially as the problem is by no means a new one to the Fire Service. Take, for example. a town like Brighton, with its very large stock of Regency buildings, which are classified under one or other of the two items of legislation I have mentioned. Therefore, I can say that we welcome this Amendment to discuss, at the end of our rather lengthy Committee stage, the position of historic buildings under this Bill. What it might perhaps be helpful for me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is that if the Youth Hostels Association, which he mentioned in opening, have a particular concern with this measure, the best course might be for us to arrange a meeting for them so that they can

509
discuss the position of the actual building with i hose in my Department who are concerned with the fire precautions.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I very much appreciate what has been stated so fully and so clearly by the Minister. I would make it quite clear that the Youth Hostels Association believe that they have a considerable problem here. I am sure they will be delighted to take note of what has been said. I can only express the hope that something of great value to them will come out of it. Judging by the tone in which the Minister has spoken, I personally am quite encouraged to think that they may be able to find some solution to their problem. In the circumstances, in view of the very helpful reply that has been given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE BILL [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Punishment of Offences]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("ten") and insert ("seven").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in that of my noble friend Lady Serota. The sole question raised by this Amendment is whether the maximum punishment for the simple unaggravated offence of criminal damage is to be seven years' imprisonment or ten years' imprisonment.
I am sure that, this being the last item before us before we go away for Easter, the House will not complain of any step taken to shorten the proceedings this afternoon. It has therefore been made known to the usual channels that I do not propose to divide the House on this Amendment this afternoon. There is to be another stage to the Bill, and I understand why the Government wish to complete this stage before we go away. Secondly, my noble friend Lady Serota has asked me to apologise for the fact that she has been unable to remain, the preceding item having taken longer than was, I think, anticipated. But again the House will not complain of one speech rather than two, I am sure.
When we adjourned the discussion of this point on the Committee stage of the Bill there were really two outstanding points. First, it being agreed that my noble friend and I were not seeking to reduce the present penalties for these offences, and that the Government were not seeking to increase them, I found it difficult to believe that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, whom we all know to be so reasonable, had realised when he stuck to his ten years that the Home Office themselves had been unable to find any case in the five years covered by the Law Commission's Report in which any sentence of more than seven years had been imposed. Therefore the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would consult further with his right honourable friend, and no doubt he will tell us what the response to that has been.
The second point was simply this. I was puzzled, on reading the Report of the Law Commission, to observe that they did not tell us whom they had consulted, but in Appendix B they gave a list of individuals and organisations under the heading of those who had offered comments on the Working Paper. Obviously a very material body to consult was the Advisory Council on the Penal System, which appeared in that list, with afterwards, in brackets, the word "consultant". It being the understanding of my noble friend and myself that they had not in fact been consulted, I put down a Question for Written Answer asking to what individuals and organisations the

511
Law Commission had sent their Working Paper. That Question was duly answered, and we saw that the Advisory Council on the Penal System was not one of them.
It was in this confusing state of affairs that, at the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his reply, said that the Advisory Council on the Penal System was consulted on the paper as a whole. My noble friend tells me that she has since then received a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying that this was not accurate. What I understand to have happened is simply that one member (I think the chairman of a sub-committee) was personally consulted, but that neither the Advisory Council nor its sub-committee was consulted; and I think the only consultation with the individual was on the compensation clauses. This raises a question as to whether this is just the usual muddle between the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Home Office. Your Lordships may remember that on the same day that we discussed this matter in Committee we also had an interesting discussion on which Minister was responsible for the state of the law.
I would venture to ask again a question which I asked then but to which I did not receive an answer and that is, what happened to the unanimous recommendation of the Estimates Committee:
"That the Home Office and the Treasury, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Office, should take immediate steps to reorganise the present division of responsibility between those Departments?"
That was the result of their finding a state of muddle. I asked the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to say, when he replied, whether that recommendation was ever carried out; whether a meeting with the Treasury took place and, if so, what reorganisation there was.
It is curious that we should have had an example so soon to illustrate what I was saying. What I understand has happened is that although the Advisory Council were one of the first, most obvious, bodies to be consulted in the matter now before the House—a body much more important to consult, I should have thought, than the Parliamentary draftsmen of Northern Ireland or the Law Reform Committee of South
512
Australia—the Law Commission apparently did not like to consult them because the Law Commission, in a sense, come under the Lord Chancellor and the Advisory Committee under the Home Secretary. If that is so—it is really an absurd position—one wants to know what is to happen in the future.
I speak with personal knowledge of this matter because I remember a speech by my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins, when he was Home Secretary, saying that the Law Commission were going to codify the criminal law. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, knows, no Minister has any right under the Law Commissions Act to tell the Law Commission what they are to do. They are an independent, statutory body who put up their own programmes of law reform. I had to ask them whether they would be good enough to include this subject in their next programme, which they did, and I was then able, on behalf of the Government, to approve the programme.
It shows an extraordinary state of muddle between the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Home Office if the Law Commission are going to take the view that although they were carrying out this programme of codification of the Criminal Law, so to speak at the original suggestion of the Home Office, because they report to the Lord Chancellor they cannot ask the valuable opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Penal System because that body comes under the Home Secretary. I still feel that it is a very simple point. I still feel that as the Government agree that they do not want to increase the penalties for these offences and I do not want to decrease them, and as the fact is that the Home Office, with all their resources, have not been able to find one single case during those five years in which a longer sentence than seven years has been imposed, that figure of seven years is the one which ought to appear in the Bill, rather than ten. I beg to move accordingly.
3.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the succinct way in which he has moved this Amendment. As he told the House, on Committee I promised to consult my right honourable friend again, without commitment,

513
because, as I explained to him, we had spoken about it twice, once after the Second Reading and once prior to the Committee stage when the noble and learned Lord and his noble friend put down the Amendment, but each time we came to the same conclusion. From every personal point of view I am sorry to say that my right honourable friend adheres to his decision about the maximum, because it is in line both with the considered opinion of the Law Commission, which was arrived at after consultation—and I told the Committee some time ago, on the Committee stage, how very weighty the figures were who had warned the Law Commission about the inadequacy of the seven-year maximum—and because of the fact, too, that it is in tine with the maximum penalty which the noble and learned Lord himself imposed for theft under Section 7 of the Theft Act 1968. It is in fact a part of the policy of this Bill to standardise maximum penalties as between offences inside the scope of the Bill and with comparable offences.
As I explained to him, and as probably he will accept on reflection, when you are putting a maximum on a penalty you deal with every conceivable case, and not only with a likely case, and you probably leave a margin above that. It simply is riot the case that courts, in practice, impose the maximum at all often—indeed I believe they practically never do in cases where there is a term of years. Where the maximum is life, life is sometimes imposed, and the matter k left to the Parole Board and to the prerogative to reduce the sentence after part of it has been served. I can never recollect a case of my own in which a maximum terms of years was imposed. No doubt they do exist, but they are very rare. My right honourable friend has adhered to his decision, and for the reasons that I gave before I personally agree with him, although it gives me some lack of satisfaction to have to disagree with the noble and learned Lord.
I am sorry about the misinformation I gave to the noble Baroness, which I put right as soon as I could when I was aware of it. It did not occur as a penalty of any muddle, as the noble and learned Lord put it, between my office and the Home Office. I was then, was I am now, speaking on behalf of the Home Office on
514
a Home Office Bill. I was being served by Home Office officials when I gave the information, and the information came straight from the Home Office without going through my office at all. As noble Lords who were present at the Committee stage probably saw, I was asked a question by the noble Baroness, and the message came from the Box and I read it out. However, I am sorry it was not accurate. I will convey to my right honourable friend what the noble and learned Lord says about the advisability—and what the noble Baroness has conveyed to me privately—of consulting the Advisory Committee on Penal Treatment on matters of this kind. My impression is that they are concerned with broad questions of penal strategy and not with the more limited question of how you relate a statutory maximum in one set of offences to another, However, I fully appreciate that there is much to be said in favour of it.
As I understand it, in the first place they were consulted about the compensation aspect, which was a matter at that time occupying their attention. I think it is true to say that Lord Justice Widgery was shown the general result at a much later stage, and probably the individuals of the Committee were never individually consulted. At any rate, I will convey what the noble and learned Lord says about that. He also asked me a question about the Select Committee, which I regret I did not answer specifically when I came to reply to his Unstarred Question. Certainly in the few months that I have been Lord Chancellor nothing further has been done since the Select Committee's Report. I think that I can confidently say that without making a mistake. On the other hand, equally, according to my information, nothing was done during the three years after the Select Committee reported and during which the noble and learned Lord himself was Lord Chancellor. Therefore, each of us bears whatever burden of guilt there is in that proportion.
I realise that this is a matter for further discussion. I did not pretend to be dogmatic on the subject of the division of responsibilities in criminal law when I replied to the Unstarred Question. I dare say that the noble and learned Lord will realise how I feel by what he must

515
have felt himself when he was sustaining the same burdens in much the same circumstances. At all events, I am sorry not to gratify him, but I am afraid that the answer is still, No.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I hope that for the future the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may think fit, with his right honourable friend, to take steps to see that the Law Commission do feel free, in a proper case, to consult the Advisory Committee, because it would be too absurd that they should feel compelled to refrain from asking somebody who can give them advice in a proper case merely because they come under one Minister and the Committee come under another Minister.
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Serota will wish to consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, and I shall want an opportunity of discussing the matter with her to see whether or not we should revert to this point on the Third Reading of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think there may be some misunderstanding, because, as I understand the position, the Standing Order has been suspended and my intention had been to move the Third Reading of the Bill now. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord. Lord Gardiner, will make some observations on that.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I looked very easefully, and the Third Reading appears on the Orders of the Day for to-day, though, curiously enough, the last issue of our printed Minutes stated, "Report stage". But if the Government are particularly anxious—I think it unlikely that we should desire to revert to this matter on the Third Reading of the Bill—and the noble and learned Lord wishes to take the Third Reading to-day, I shall not oppose him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I now have to call the second Amendment, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, before I reach that stage.
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
3.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("or tree").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has asked me to say that, most unfortunately, he is unable to be present this afternoon, I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in his name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed, both to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for raising this matter now, because I promised to look at it again between the Committee and Report stages. If I may revert to the problem in the form in which it was originally put to me, it revolves around the definition of "property" in Clause 10 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook expressed anxiety as the matter was left at the end of the day, particularly in relation to trees—he having previously discussed the question of plants and flowers—and I promised to look at the matter again.
The particular problem which occupied his attention was the question of self-regeneration, and I told him provisionally that it was my opinion that self-regenerated trees and saplings, growing inside a plantation or a stand of timber which was being properly looked after—not just being allowed to drift, as one might say—would not be growing wild within the meaning of this clause. I hold that view even more strongly today, because, if timber is being, properly afforested, it is, as I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, pointed out, a crop and any tree of the same species is part of the crop. Of course if a weed tree—say, an elderberry or something like that—sowed itself in such a plantation, it would be growing wild within the meaning of the clause. But I am quite sure, in my own mind, that if it is part of the crop it is not growing wild within the meaning of the clause.
However, I then proceeded to think of the awful possibility that I might be wrong, and I considered the matter further in the light of that possibility; because no lawyer who has any sense retains very long his belief in his own

517
infallibility. I have now been a lawyer for forty years, so I do not retain any belief in my own infallibility. It then occurred to me, quite plainly, that the problem is an unreal one, and it is an unreal one for this reason. What the exceptions to Clause 10 cover in the definition of "property" is neither a tree nor an ordinary plant on which flowers grow. They are property and they are protected by the Bill; they are not covered by the exceptions.
In other words, if you destroy a tree or a plant, or damage a tree or a plant, you are committing malicious damage if you do it maliciously, or, as we now say, criminal damage if you do it criminally, within the meaning of the clause. What is not protected is the foliage of a tree—that is to say, its leaves, its fruit or its flowers—and the same applies to a plant. If you damage, for instance, a crabapple, you are not committing malicious damage, although if you damaged a cultivated apple in an orchard you would be. Quite clearly, if you damaged a plant or a tree by tearing off (to take the example of a plant) all its leaves in such a way that it was seriously damaged or even killed, you would be destroying the plant and not merely destroying the foliage; you would be damaging the plant and not merely damaging the foliage. Therefore, to that extent the problem does not arise.
If I may apply that second point to the point which was specifically raised by my noble friend, I think the simple answer to the question is not the more difficult answer that I gave on Committee about its growing wild, which I concede is something about which I might conceivably be wrong (although my own opinion actually coincides with the advice I have received from the experts), but that damage to a sapling of that kind would be damage to property and would not be simply damage to the foliage, damage to the fruit or damage to the flower, and therefore it is already covered by the Bill whether the sapling is growing wild or whether it is not growing wild. I feel fairly confident that this simpler answer is the true one, and that therefore the Amendment is not necessary. I was perhaps making it too difficult on Committee by trying to tackle the point at the more complex base upon which it had been put to me. I hope that that
518
reassures people who are genuinely concerned about the protection of property from vandalism. I think myself that the Bill as drafted is adequate without the Amendment, which would omit the word "tree" from the exception; and with that assurance my noble friend may probably be able not to press it at this stage, because I really think I have gone a long way to reassure him.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, my mind is now in a maze. I can see much profit to lawyers in the future, because as I understand what the noble and learned Lord has said it would be an offence to pick a daffodil right down by the bulb because then you would be taking part of the plant itself, whereas if you chopped the flower off at the top it would not. I can see some pretty pickings for the lawyers in the future if that sort of thing is going to be the subject of litigation even in petty sessions. But having had the assurance from the noble and learned Lord, even if I do not quite understand his assurances, that my apprehensions are not well founded, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3ªand passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Industry Act,

Land Commission (Dissolution) Act,

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,

Mines Management Act,

Oil in Navigable Waters Act,

British Aluminium (Saltburn Pier)Order Confirmation Act.

ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
  COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (ORE BERTH) BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 17 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  GIBRALTAR AND PROPOSED CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
  GIBRALTAR AND PROPOSED CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND TREATY OF ROME
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND TREATY OF ROME