Sitting of 3 February 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (FINANCE &c.)

    PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION)
    ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Bills read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Business School
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Office's relationships with the Scottish Business School.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The Scottish Office has no formal relationship with the Scottish Business School. On the occasion of the formal launching of the school on 13th January my right hon. Friend sent a message welcoming its establishment and expressing his good wishes.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is very important that this new venture in Scottish education should get off to a good start? Therefore, will he persuade his right hon. Friend to raise at an early opportunity the possibility of a conference organised by the Scottish Business School and the Regional Economic Planning Council, so as to draw to the attention of the business community in Scotland the advantages of this new institution?
    Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, too, for the prosperity of this school. My right hon. Friend and I will certainly consider his suggestion.

    New Towns (Sale of Houses)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have so far been sold by the development corporations in the Scottish new towns.
    Mr. Younger: 1,024, up to the end of 1970.
    Earl of Dalkeith: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which seem to show a substantial demand for home ownership. Can he tell us how many of those houses were sold under the present Government and how many during the term of office of the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend. I am afraid that I cannot give him the detailed figures for the period of the previous Government, but a considerable number of this total were sold during their period in office.

    Older Houses (Improvement)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the progress of improvement of older houses.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): During 1970 applications were approved for the grant-aided improvement of 23,400 houses, which is an increase of 57 per cent. on 1969. As I told my noble Friend on 2nd December, I will shortly be launching a special campaign to encourage still further progress.—[Vol. 807, c. 1262.]
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those figures will be warmly welcomed, but that there is still an enormously long way to go in bringing these out-of-date houses up to date? If he could keep us fully informed of the progress of his publicity campaign in making it well known that there are these excellent improvement grants available, this would be very helpful.
    Mr. Campbell: That is why I am launching this campaign. I understand that last year was a record for the number of improvements carried out in Glasgow.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this commendable Act, which was commended by both sides of the House, deserves a better reception than it is getting? Is he not aware that the rate of progress should be about twice that?
    Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his assistance in this. The improvement has been great, a 57 per cent. advance in 1970 on 1969. I hope that we can do even better than this.

    Blantyre Development Plan
    Mr. Alexander Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will speed up his decision about the Blantyre Development Plan, or hold a public inquiry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend will arrange a public inquiry as soon as the inquiry into the Bellshill Town Map is completed.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread anxiety in this area because of this indecision? Is he further aware that, should this project be started, it would do something at least to alleviate the mounting unemployment figures in my constituency?
    Mr. Younger: I have not had any formal representations of difficulties as a result of the time taken to have this inquiry, but I am aware that there is a desire to have the inquiry as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been a series of such inquiries in Lanarkshire and it is not easy for the county council to cope with more than one inquiry at a time. This is why we must wait for the Bellshill inquiry to be completed before we can have the one for Blantyre.
    Mr. James Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Bellshill, in my constituency, may I ask when this inquiry will be finished, as this matter is causing a great deal of concern to my people?
    Mr. Younger: We hope to arrange for the Bellshill Inquiry to take place in April.

    Winter Work Programmes
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has
    1644
    taken to obtain accurate information on the number of jobs created or saved by his allocation of £1·75 million to winter work programmes for the relief of unemployment; and if he will state the number of jobs created or saved.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the winter special relief programme has had on the unemployment situation; and what further steps he intends to take to solve this problem.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is not possible to make reliable estimates of the emloyment effects of particular projects of this kind; and I note that estimates were not given for similar schemes in recent years. I am confident that the scheme as a whole is well worthwhile.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 115,000 unemployed can be equated to a national disaster in Scotland'? Is he further aware that his allocation of £1·75 million for the relief of the unemployed, a contemptible little measure, shows the callous disregard of the Tories for the plight of the unemployed?
    Mr. Campbell: I was well aware on arrival in office—when I found within a few days of arrival in office that there were 93,000 unemployed in Scotland in the mid-summer—that a situation of this kind was bound to develop as the autumn and winter drew on. A deputation of hon. Gentlemen opposite came to see me in September and urged me to launch such a scheme urgently, although they recognised the limitations of any such emergency scheme. I launched it as soon as I could.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is not the honest answer that no jobs have been created by this miserable scheme? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman at least match the much greater figure which was produced earlier in the year by the former Secretary of State?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "No". Jobs have been created—
    Mr. Hamilton: How many?
    Mr. Campbell: —and in other cases where men would have been laid off, they are being kept on. It is impossible to

    1645
    make a reliable estimate of the numbers. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they made no attempt to give public estimates of similar programmes.
    Mr. Dempsey: Would the right hon. Gentleman put aside party points for a moment and recall that only two weeks ago it was announced that 750 jobs had been lost in North Lanarkshire? What practical steps does he propose to take to try to replace those 750 lost jobs?
    Mr. Campbell: I will have an opportunity to answer that supplementary question at some length in the debate which will follow this Question Time. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the first supplementary question from his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), was not political.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is my hon. Friend aware that one marvels at hon. Gentlemen opposite having the nerve to make some of the comments that they have been making about the present unemployment figures, bearing in mind the fact hat when they were in office they were responsible for the loss of about 85,000 jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I never marvel at the irresponsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am getting used to it.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: We envy the right hon. Gentleman's record in this regard. How much of this total of £1·75 million is represented by 100 per cent. grant schemes to local authorities? Is it one or none? Would he post hoc be good enough to tell us how many jobs this programe has produced and how much of the money was actually spent by the time limit, remembering that we did both?
    Mr. Campbell: I have already answered several questions about the composition of and allocation within this scheme. I am prepared to answer more of such questions if hon. Gentlemen opposite will table Questions on the subject. I will also consider whether it is possible, post facto, to see what was achieved by this scheme because it may help similar schemes in future, though I hope that we shall not need such a scheme in any winters to come.

    Scottish Economic Council (Discussions on Employment)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next take the chair at the Scottish Economic Council.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with the Scottish Economic Planning Council the gains and losses of jobs in Scotland since June, 1970.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I regularly discuss employment and other economic issues of importance to Scotland with the Scottish Economic Council and I shall be doing so again when I preside at its next meeting on 5th February.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance on 5th February to the members of the Scottish Economic Council that by this time next year the number of Scottish unemployed will be well below 100,000?
    Mr. Campbell: When I discuss this matter with the Scottish Economic Council in two days' time I shall be listening to the views of its members and receiving their advice on what can be done. I find it impossible at this stage to predict precisely what is likely to happen next winter. However, everybody on the Council will be helping me to try to make sure that this situation does not recur.
    Mr. Douglas: While recognising the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in making predictions for next winter, may I ask him, through the Scottish Economic Council and the Regional Economic Planning Board, to make public his estimate of the gains and losses in Scottish jobs between 1970 and 1975? Is he aware that his colleagues have made great play about mistaken estimates having been made in relation to manpower planning? Is he aware that it is time that he, bearing the responsibility in this matter, came clean and gave his estimates as soon as possible?
    Mr. Campbell: What has happened is proof that making estimates of this kind is not a useful exercise. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government estimated a net increase of 60,000 jobs in Scotland between 1964 and 1970. In the

    1647
    result, between March, 1966, and March, 1970, there was a net loss of 82,000 jobs.
    Mr. Buchan: Is not the real point here the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite—
    Mr. MacArthur: My right hon. Friend has stated the real point.
    Mr. Buchan:—do not understand the term "job loss" and use it wrongly on every occasion? Would the right hon. Gentleman give a simple answer to a simple question? How many members of the Scottish Economic Council advised him to change the system of incentives from grants to allowances?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is that page 9 of the Labour Government's 1966 White Paper, from which I quoted, recorded the figures of job increases and losses. The answer to the second part, about the work of the Scottish Economic Council, is that in acocrdance with the arrangements made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), its proceedings are confidential.

    New Towns (Shortage of Teachers)
    Mr. Alex Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of current teacher shortage in new towns at both primary and post-primary level.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): I have made inquiries and I understand that there are 10 vacancies in primary schools and 40 in secondary schools.
    Mr. Eadie: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider conducting an investigation into the whole question of teacher supply in new towns in Scotland in view of the disquiet that has been expressed on this subject?
    Mr. Taylor: I should be glad to give the detailed figures to the hon. Gentleman. The latest information I have is that there are no vacancies at, for example, Livingston. There is a general teacher shortage, and I will be glad to look at the position in any particular new town if the hon. Gentleman will advise me.

    Lung Cancer (Royal College of Physicians' Report)
    8. Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take arising out of the Royal College of Physicians' Report on the incidence of lung cancer.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am increasing the scale of the anti-smoking activities of the Scottish Health Education Unit; and in conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales, I am considering what further steps should be taken.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any Government would be doing a great disservice to this and future generations if they did not give proper attention to the injurious implications arising from this Report? Will he keep the House informed of the steps he is taking to try to publicise those implications?
    Mr. Campbell: I am glad to agree with the principle behind that supplementary question. There is Private Members' legislation before the House at present on this subject. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that the past three Secretaries of State for Scotland were all quite heavy smokers, whereas the present Secretary of State is a non-smoker.
    Mr. Milan: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us believe that no Government have faced up to their responsibilities in this regard and that there is now an unanswerable case for a very severe restriction on or the banning of cigarette advertising? I include the previous Government in this stricture.
    Mr. Campbell: The recent Report has brought out more sharply than ever the dangers of smoking, and the consequences of this are being considered by the Government.
    Dr. Miller: When the Secretary of State is considering this matter, will he bear in mind that even the Swiss and the German reports about smoking and lung cancer deal specifically with other forms of cancer and that it is obvious to authorities all over the world that there is a direct relation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer? Other forms of cancer

    1649
    may or may not be affected. It is lung cancer that we are concerned about. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this point strictly into account when he is considering these matters?
    Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting a point with his professional knowledge. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already stated that inter-Departmental discussions have begun on all the implications of the Report and that these are being urgently pursued.

    Musselburgh and Tranent By-passes
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the reasons for the delay in the planning and construction of the proposed Mussel-burgh by-pass road.
    Mr. Younger: Extensive preliminary investigations were needed in connection with the Musselburgh and Tranent bypasses. My right hon. Friend has just received the final report of the consultants, about which he will shortly be consulting local authorities in the area.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Under-Secretary aware that that complacent reply just is not good enough? Has he forgotten that in September of last year he wrote to me saying that the soil reports would be available shortly and that in a few weeks he would be contacting the local authorities about the line of the road? What are the Scottish Office's intentions about the road and when is it intended to start building it?
    Mr. Younger: I well remember the correspondence I had with the hon. Gentleman. As I think the hon. Gentle. man knows, considerable difficulties were thrown up by the extensive soil investigations which were needed to survey more than one possible line for this road, and these necessitated further tests and further bores to establish the best possible line. This is why it has taken longer than it otherwise would have done. I hope to get it on as soon as possible.
    Mr. David Steel: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that as motorway developments have proceeded apace both west and north of Edinburgh it has become
    1650
    more and more apparent that we need not only the by-pass at Musselburgh but a by-pass for the whole of the City of Edinburgh as well and that without it there is no clearance for the Scottish motorway programme?
    Mr. Younger: The line for the Mussel-burgh and Tranent by-passes is affected by the possible changes there may be in the Edinburgh-link road system. This is another factor which we must take into account.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Is the Under-Secretary aware that many of the local authorities, and myself, are dubious about the figures by which there is a separation between the Musselburgh and Tranent sections of the by-pass? We believe that a single section should be built into Edinburgh from the east and we cannot see any reason for holding this up depending on the link-up. We believe that the motorway could be built without the line of the link road being fixed. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider this in the very useful consultations he has allowed between his Department and the local authorities.
    Mr. Younger: I hope that it will not be necessary to hold this up, but we must bear in mind all the effects of the various considerations. On 29th January I received one copy of the report of the consultants. As soon as the report is printed it will be circulated to the local authorities concerned and we shall seek their views.

    Agriculture (Production Grants)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of production grants to Scottish agriculture.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The production grants will be fully considered at the Annual Review.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the concern that exists in the farming industry about the firmness of the Government's commitment to production grants? Will the hon. Gentleman give an

    1651
    assurance that the Government will not reduce the level of these grants, which are essential for the continuance of hill and marginal farming?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of these grants to agriculture in Scotland and, in particular, to the hill and upland areas. The points he raised will be borne closely in mind during the annual review.
    Mr. Lawson: As the Tory Government believe that tax allowances are so much superior to grants, will the hon. Gentleman consider scrapping the grants in favour of income tax allowances for farmers?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman, even through his urban glasses, must realise that the problems in agriculture are very different from those in industry. I invite him to go round some of the hill and upland areas of Scotland and see what conditions are like.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of the vital importance particularly of the hill sheep and hill cow subsidies in Scottish hills and uplands, will the Government press the E.E.C. to consider these measures as conformable with its regional assistance under Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. This is a matter which we have very much under consideration in our negotiations with the E.E.C.

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average number of beds per 10,000 head of population for all hospitals in Scotland and in the County of Fife, respectively.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The average number of beds per 10,000 head of population for all hospitals in Scotland is 121·4 and in the County of Fife, which is not a self-contained area for hospital services, 91.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the ratio of beds to population in Scotland is lower than it is in many parts of the United Kingdom and that
    1652
    the position is much worse in the provision of geriatric beds? Will he take steps to remedy the position in the County of Fife?
    Mr. Taylor: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of geriatric schemes. He will be aware that schemes to provide geriatric and psycho-geriatric beds in Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes and West Fife are included in the hospital building programme in the period after April, 1972 which was announced in April, 1970.

    Home Helps
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many home helps were employed in Scotland and in the County of Fife, respectively, in 1963, 1967 and 1969.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: With permission, I will circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a great deal more could be done to improve this service, that an improvement in the hourly rate of pay would considerably help, and that many of the retired people who contribute to the cost of this service find it more difficult now to make a contribution because of the fall in the value of the old-age pension by 7s. 6d. per week since last June?
    Mr. Taylor: I fully accept all that the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of this service. On looking into the matter following the tabling of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I was glad to find that the number of households in the County of Fife receiving home help service increased by 66 per cent. from 1963 to 1969 whereas the comparable increase for Scotland as a whole was only 17 per cent. Therefore, Fife is doing very well in this connection.
    Sir J. Gilmour: I welcome the progress which has been made in the County of Fife. Does my hon. Friend agree that spending extra money here might relieve pressure on the hospital service and therefore save money in the long run.
    Mr. Taylor: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. This is an important

    1653
    service, one which we are constantly reviewing, and one which we hope can expand.
    Following are the figures:

    NUMBERS OF HOME HELPS EMPLOYED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

    Full-time

    Part-time

    Full-time Equivalent

    SCOTLAND

    1963

    …

    …

    836

    8,101

    4,034

    1967

    …

    …

    722

    10,911

    4,898

    1969

    …

    …

    687

    11,402

    5,095

    FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL

    1963

    …

    …

    —

    582

    121

    1967

    …

    …

    —

    999

    208

    1969

    …

    …

    —

    1,071

    178

    Housing Subsidies
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now ready to make a statement on his new housing policy.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 13th January, 1971.—[Vol. 809, c. 36.]
    Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman still has not given us a firm answer as to precisely what is the Government's policy. How can he now say that he has no firm statement to make or no White Paper to produce when the figures in the White Paper on public expenditure clearly show that there will be virtually no increase in expenditure on house building between 1969–70 and 1974–75? This must mean a decrease in housing subsidies. Will not the right hon. Gentleman now admit that this is his object?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have made clear on many occasions, it is not the object to reduce the amount of housing subsidies now being paid. The Government's policy on housing has been made very clear and the details of its application are being discussed with local authorities, whose views will be carefuly considered.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am more reasonable than my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Is the Secretary of State aware that there is much public disquiet about this matter? Unlike my hon. Friend, however, I do not want precise
    1654
    figures from him; but I think that we are entitled to know the broad figures within which he is working. For example, as to the proposal to introduce rent rebate schemes in the private sector, will the cost fall on public funds or will it be borne entirely by existing ratepayers? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can answer such broad questions as these?
    Mr. Campbell: These have already been answered in statements we have made in the House. The policy of the Government is to redirect the amount at present being paid in subsidies. One of our objectives is to lift the burden on Scottish ratepayers, who are at present paying 35 per cent. of the cost of council housing as opposed to 7 per cent. in England. Another is to introduce proper rebate schemes throughout the public sector and, for the first time, in the private sector, where on average the tenants are poorer than those in the public sector. The greater part of that will be paid by the Exchequer.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any assistance he can give to tenants in the private sector will be generally welcomed in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I am already aware of the overwhelming support there has been in Scotland for this policy.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable and genuine discontent and alarm among those in charge of the house-building programmes, and that this is borne out by the fact that the number of approvals since the Government created this state of uncertainty by not announcing their proposals in detail has fallen by over one-third over the last year? This is calamitous and is taking us back over ten years.
    Mr. Campbell: The only alarm and uncertainty I know of has been created by the kind of questions put forward by hon. Members opposite. The fall-off in approvals and starts began in 1968 and 1969.

    School Milk
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had with the Scottish medical

    1655
    authorities before he took the decision to discontinue school milk to the over-sevens at primary schools; what advice he received; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: No special discussions were necessary.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the Labour Government ceased to give milk to secondary pupils they had consultations with the British Medical Association? Can he tell us what impact the loss of school milk will have on the nutritional status of children attending primary schools, particularly children from large families? Will he not seek medical advice before introducing such niggardly action?
    Mr. Taylor: The medical advice available to me is that no untoward consequences need follow this action, any more than they followed the action of the Labour Government in deciding to end free milk to secondary schools in September, 1968. However, as a matter of prudence—and I accept what the hon. Gentleman says on this point—arrangements are being made now to keep a watch on the long-term nutritional status of the groups affected by changes in the school milk and welfare milk schemes.
    Mr. Murray: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he gave on undertaking to the Oposition on two occasions that he would have such consultations? Can he therefore explain the answer he has given? Does not he agree that young people between the ages of 7 and 18 do not have votes, and, on the basis of "no taxation without representations", does not he further agree that it is unreasonable to visit such economies—and this is the falsest of false economies—in public expenditure on these large groups? Does not he further agree that deleterious effects from the ending of free milk will not show themselves for another decade? In these circumstances, does not he accept that this is something he should consider again in the most serious light?
    Mr. Taylor: When I said that no special discussions were necessary, I was pointing out that we are constantly receiving medical advice on this and other matters. On the general information available to me about the state of health of school children, and in view of
    1656
    the widespread realisation that indiscriminate subsidies are not the best way of providing effective help for those whose need is greatest, I believe that this action was right.
    Dr. Millar: Will the hon. Gentleman please make a distinction between statistical evidence of problems and the families who are involved? It is quite simple to get a situation where statistically there is no great problem seemingly but where nevertheless a considerable number of families are affected by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) rightly called this niggardly action by the Government.
    Mr. Taylor: It is fair to point out that no medical body has made representations to me on the subject. I assure the House that arrangements are being made to watch the situation.
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    A9 (Improvement)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the development of the A9 road north of Perth.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: To promote Highland development this road must be modernised. I expect later this year to announce proposals for the route between Inverness and Evanton, and I am studying the section between Perth and Inverness to determine the extent and priority of further improvements. Meanwhile a number of urgently-needed improvements are in progress and others will start this year.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State realise that that goes no further than the previous Government's commitment in the White Paper on Scottish Roads in the 1970s? Why is it that he has not so far given support to the proposal to bridge Dornoch Firth in the light of the encouraging remarks he made about this prior to his coming to office?
    Mr. Campbell: In reply to the first point—we are taking the action. In reply to the second—it is almost exactly two

    1657
    years ago that I wrote to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), then Secretary of State, and raised the question of the short route north of Inverness and asked him to keep this open instead of going ahead with the Beauly Road. Because he agreed to do so, it enables me to take the decision shortly as a result of the studies which have been going on in recent months on bridging the Kessock Ferry and having a short route through the Black Isle.

    Agricultural Education (Highlands and Islands)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for improving the facilities for agricultural education in the Highlands and Islands.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Much has already been done to improve facilities at the North of Scotland College of Agriculture where there is a range of courses mainly at Diploma level. Aberdeenshire Education Authority are developing Clinterty Agricultural College as a regional farm centre with block-release and full-time courses above Stage I City and Guilds. Stage I courses are already offered locally, mainly on day-release, and appear to meet present demands.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the existing day-release courses which include Stage II will be continued and maintained and possibly improved after the extension of block-release courses at Thurso Technical College?
    Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Stage II course run now at the Thurso Technical College, I remind him that this course was given temporary approval by my predecessor, following the hon. Gentleman's representations, pending the full development of Clinterty Agricultural College in Aberdeenshire. It will be reviewed in due course, probably in two years' time.
    Mr. John Wells: In view of the important virus-free potentialities in this area, can my hon. Friend guarantee that adequate horticultural training will be available in agricultural education in the area? There are great national advantages to be gained in this.
    Mr. Taylor: If there is demand for this provision it will be fully considered.

    Personal Saving and Home Ownership
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions he has had with building societies to encourage personal saving and house-ownership;
    (2) what action he is taking to encourage loans for house ownership.
    Mr. Younger: I have had useful discussions with representatives of the building societies on possible ways of encouraging home ownership.
    Mr. Brewis: Did my hon. Friend get any assurance from the building societies that sufficient funds would be available to meet any expected demand?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. The societies were able to tell me that they are reasonably happy at the moment with the funds they are getting and assured me that from the Scottish point of view they were of the opinion that they would be able to meet any demands made on them.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Conservative Party's housing policy will increase or decrease the number of houses expected to be built in Scotland over the next five years?
    Mr. Younger: As I have said before, the last thing I wish to forward is a statement on targets. This has proved to be a most disastrous way of running a housing programme, as shown by the record of the last five years. What I want to do is to identify the areas of greatest need and build the maximum number of houses in those areas.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman plan to encourage financially the setting-up of housing aid and advice centres in the major populous parts of Scotland so that people can get much more ready information about the facilities for home purchase?
    Mr. Younger: I have had a number of very useful discussions on possibilities and I hope that we shall be able to make a considerable improvement in the advice available to people on housing generally.
    Mr. John Robertson: In his discussions with the building societies, was the hon.

    1659
    Member able to obtain any information about the cost of building owner-occupied houses in Scotland, the relationship of that cost to income, and the possible scope for an expansion of home ownership on that basis?
    Mr. Younger: I discussed with the building societies the conclusions which were published in the Sidwell Report, which suggested some of the reasons for the increased cost of house building in Scotland. However, the building societies informed me that although this was something about which they were disturbed, in their opinion it would not make their task of lending money to house buyers more difficult.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the average price being obtained from the sale of council houses compares with the capitalised value of the rent of these houses after the cost of repair and maintenance has been deducted.
    Mr. Younger: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Galbraith: On the information which is available to my hon. Friend, can he say whether the return from letting after deducting the cost of maintenance is more or less than the return on the capital if the house is sold? If it is more, would not such a sale release extra funds to help the needy? My hon. Friend must have some idea.
    Mr. Younger: It is difficult to make a precise calculation, because each authority—and each house—is in different circumstances, but I am certain that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that in general it is in the interests both of the local authorities and the tenants for tenants who wish to do so to be allowed to purchase their houses.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what possible justification there is for a local authority selling council houses in an area where there is already an acute shortage of houses? Does not that mean, where there is such a shortage, that the Minister is selling houses over the heads of people who need them?
    Mr. Younger: That is not necessarily the case. At present a council tenant has security of tenure for ever, and if he buys the house in which he is a tenant, there is no difference whatever in the housing stock. The only difference is that he buys the house instead of renting it.

    Glasgow Families (Rehousing)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Glasgow families were rehoused from slum dwellings in 1970; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: About 6,500 houses were closed or demolished in the first nine months of 1970: figures for the last quarter are not yet available. As regards the number of families rehoused, central records are not kept for different local authorities. My hon. Friend could no doubt obtain the figure from Glasgow Corporation.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is not this substantial progress? Does my hon. Friend think that modernisation, which I believe to be a much greater problem, is going ahead equally well? Has he any plans to help Glasgow with this great problem, which the Socialist administration in the city has neglected for so many years?
    Mr. Younger: I agree that the need to accelerate the improvement of older houses is now one of the greatest priorities in the housing programme generally and particularly in Glasgow. As my hon. Friend will know, the Glasgow joint working party of officials suggested last year that about 75,000 houses in the city were below a tolerable standard. I intend to give every possible assistance and encouragement to Glasgow Corporation to tackle this massive task.
    Mr. McElhone: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in spite of the Government's promises, the present authority in Glasgow managed to build less than 3,000 houses last year? Is he aware that we are still waiting for the special aid promised by the Government?
    Mr. Younger: The present administration in Glasgow had an extremely successful year of improvement last year. Last year, the local authority housed by all means a record number of Glasgow families. I am making good progress

    1661
    in working out with the corporation what special help is needed for Glasgow, and I hope to make an announcement before long.
    Mr. Hannan: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a declining number of new houses has been provided by the Glasgow local authority although there is a waiting list of 50,000 people? Is not this part of a shoddy campaign to try to buttress the failing political prospects of the Glasgow Conservatives?
    Mr. Younger: As the working party showed with crystal clarity, the need in Glasgow is no longer to build any houses anywhere, of any kind; the need is to provide the right houses in the right places, where people will want them and at a decent standard. This is where the priorities have to be re-assessed. It is still the case, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says, that a record number of Glasgow families were moved into houses last year.

    Pea Growing
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held regarding the future of pea growing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the concern caused to pea growers by recent announcements made by processing firms. My right hon. Friend discussed this question recently with the leaders of the Scottish National Farmers' Union and I have seen one of the firms principally concerned. We are keeping a close watch on developments in the processing field.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pressing need for more crop-processing plants in Scotland? Can he give any hope of progress?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the help which my hon. Friend has given me in this difficult matter. The fall-back in pea processing in Scotland is on account of falling demand in recent years, but we hope that this will be put right and that we shall see an increase in processing in Scotland.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are promising developments in this direction in the
    1662
    Eastern Borders and that the Government should look with favour on them and give all the assistance they can in a large area which is entirely suitable for growing vegetables to be processed?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is tremendous scope for co-operation among producers, processing firms and others. We are encouraged by what is happening on the Borders and elsewhere, and the Government will give all the help they can.

    Drainage Works
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreages of agricultural land in each count of Scotland has been improved by drainage works assisted by Government grants in each of the last five years; what sums of money have been expended; what estimate he has made of the amount of drainage needed now to be undertaken; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has been no recent survey of drainage requirements in Scotland but I am aware that there is scope for drainage improvement in various parts of the country. Substantial Government grants are available but it is for individual farmers to decide whether to undertake this work.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, due to the policy of the last Administration and the intolerable squeeze on farmers' incomes, farmers have been unable to finance the necessary part of their contribution? I know that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends will put this right at the Price Review, but will my hon. Friend extend the present favourable rate of drainage in order to tackle this urgent problem in agricultural production?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The stringent conditions under which agriculture has had to operate in recent years have made it extremely difficult for the farmers. However, I hope that in future they will be able to take advantage of the generous grants available for this important work.
    Mr. Maclennan: Was not that a misleading reply? Have not many schemes

    1663
    of land drainage put forward by farmers been vetoed or prevented by intransigent landlords who prefer to use the land for other than agricultural purposes?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is complete nonsense.
    Mr. Maclennan: No, it is not.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has specific instances, I am prepared to consider them.
    Mr. MacLennan: That answer was misleading in that the hon. Gentleman

    ESTIMATED ACREAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IMPROVED BY DRAINAGE WORKS ASSISTED BY GOVERNMENT GRANT*

    Thousand Acres

    County

    1966

    1967

    1968

    1969

    1970

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    2·1

    2·5

    2·0

    2·3

    3·7

    Angus

    …

    …

    0·8

    1·1

    2·0

    0·8

    2·5

    Argyll

    …

    …

    7·0

    5·8

    9·7

    11·9

    5·6

    Banff

    …

    …

    0·8

    0·6

    0·8

    1·1

    1·3

    Berwick

    …

    …

    0·5

    0·7

    0·4

    1·2

    1·6

    Bute

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·5

    1·5

    2·3

    0·4

    Caithness

    …

    …

    0·4

    0·5

    0·9

    2·5

    0·9

    Clackmannan

    …

    …

    †

    0·1

    1·1

    0·5

    0·1

    Dumfries

    …

    …

    3·2

    6·6

    5·8

    6·3

    4·0

    Dunbarton

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·1

    0·1

    0·8

    0·3

    East Lothian

    …

    …

    †

    0·2

    0·1

    0·6

    0·2

    Fife

    …

    …

    0·3

    0·7

    0·4

    0·9

    0·8

    Inverness

    …

    …

    0·6

    0·2

    0·6

    1·5

    0·8

    Kincardine

    …

    …

    0·4

    0·5

    0·4

    0·4

    0·4

    Kinross

    …

    …

    †

    0·4

    0·1

    0·1

    0·3

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    …

    2·0

    1·6

    4·4

    4·7

    1·9

    Lanark

    …

    …

    1·6

    2·8

    1·4

    5·8

    3·4

    Midlothian

    …

    …

    †

    0·6

    1·0

    0·9

    0·3

    Moray

    …

    …

    0·2

    0·8

    1·0

    1·9

    0·7

    Nairn

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·1

    0·7

    0·1

    0·3

    Orkney

    …

    …

    0·3

    0·4

    0·6

    0·7

    0·4

    Peebles

    …

    …

    0·6

    2·8

    0·8

    0·8

    0·1

    Perth

    …

    …

    6·7

    7·9

    12·0

    25·3

    13·8

    Renfrew

    …

    …

    0·1

    0·7

    0·6

    0·7

    1·6

    Ross and Cromarty

    …

    …

    1·5

    3·6

    1·4

    11·8

    8·7

    Roxburgh

    …

    …

    2·3

    1·9

    2·8

    4·7

    4·1

    Selkirk

    …

    …

    0·8

    1·4

    0·9

    1·8

    1·9

    Stirling

    …

    …

    0·8

    0·6

    4·0

    2·8

    1·7

    Sutherland

    …

    …

    3·6

    0·9

    2·5

    5·3

    7·0

    West Lothian

    …

    …

    †

    0·1

    †

    0·1

    0·2

    Wigtown

    …

    …

    0·5

    3·6

    0·6

    1·2

    3·3

    Zetland

    …

    …

    †

    †

    Nil

    †

    †

    Scotland

    …

    …

    41·1

    53·8

    66·7

    106·8

    76·5

    Grant paid (£'000)

    …

    …

    308

    383

    419

    601

    677

    * Grants authorised by the Agriculture Act 1937 (supplemented, for hill land, by the Hill Land Improvement (Scotland) Scheme 1967) and the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958. Works comprise arterial schemes, ditch works, field and hill drainage.

    † Less than 50 acres.

    Cupar Sugar Factory
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now
    knows that I have written to him about specific cases and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make his comment in the form of a question.
    Mr. MacLennan: Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw that misleading statement?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is no evidence that actions of the kind which the hon. Gentleman so wildly alleges are holding up drainage schemes in Scotland on any scale.
    Following is the information:
    make a statement on the estimated costs at 1971 prices of modernising and equipping the British Sugar Corporation factory at Cupar.
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the financial considerations which influenced the decision to close the British Sugar Corporation factory at Cupar.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The original decision to close the factory was taken by the last Administration. The main financial considerations were the losses incurred by the Corporation through operating at Cupar and the need to invest in re-equipment without prospect of an economic return.
    At 1971 prices the estimated cost of modernisation would be about £2 million.
    Sir J. Gilmour: As the British Sugar Corporation has continually refused to disclose on what the £2 million would be spent, and as everyone engaged in the sugar-refining trade knows the answer—for there is nothing secret about it and nothing to hide—and as the Chairman of the British Sugar Corporation is appointed by the British Government, for the information of the people who work in the factory and those whose work will suffer by the closing of the factory, will my hon. Friend insist that these figures are now published?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but as I have already explained to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, it is not customary to make available detailed commercial costings which are obtained in confidence.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the hon. Gentleman when in opposition repeatedly expressed hostility about the decision of the previous Government in this matter, will he now apologise for his misleading remarks?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Because of the very serious agricultural implications of this closure, which I do not believe hon. Gentlemen fully appreciated, we believe that it was necessary to reassess the position. That is what we undertook to do in opposition, during the election, and that is what we did.
    Mr. Buchan: Is not the hon. Gentleman thoroughly ashamed of himself and his hon. Friends for the callous way in which they raised the expectations of Scottish farmers? Is it not a fact that the farmers in his area are absolutely
    1666
    right when they accuse him of grossly misleading the farmers of Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is absolutely no question of misleading. Our position in this is absolutely straight. All I can say to Members of this House and to members of the farming community in Scotland is that we have looked at this far more thoroughly than hon. Gentlemen opposite did.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Mountain Rescue Units
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider providing financial or material support for the Glen Coe mountain rescue unit and other recognised voluntary units in similar areas.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Government support is given through the police authorities in the areas concerned. Their expenditure on financial or material assistance to maintain rescue teams ranks for 50 per cent. police grant and for rate support grant.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the devoted service given to the community and to the Scottish tourist industry by these brave men and women, at their own risk and expense? Does it not justify rather more support than that which is given indirectly? Is he aware that these mountain rescue units, in particular the one at Glen Coe, have to burden themselves with the expense of buying a great deal of equipment which cannot be obtained from the local authorities?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member on venturing into Scottish Questions. I appreciate his interest in the subject of mountaineering since it is one in which I have an interest. We believe that the police authorities are the right bodies to co-ordinate work in this area. The Glen Coe team, which he mentions, has never requested financial or material aid. Through the police authorities we do assist these bodies very much. I endorse most strongly the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid to the work of these teams, not only the voluntary effort

    1667
    but the work of the police, too. If he has any specific instance which he would like to raise, I should be pleased to discuss the matter further with him.

    House Building
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of houses built in Scotland in 1970.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: 44,537.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the fourth of four record years and the best of those years? Will he accept a challenge and for the very short time that he will be in office, will he give one year over which he will preside when he will beat our figure?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". As all of the houses completed in 1970 must have been started in the time of the Labour Government, I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member —on missing his target by only 5,463 and on failing dismally to meet the pledge of the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman fix a target for us so that in five years' time he can tell a Labour Government by how much he has missed that target? Or does he have a target in mind so low that it will be impossible not to achieve it? At all events, will he answer my hon. Friend's question and say that he will achieve in any one year a figure similar to that achieved by us?
    Mr. Campbell: No. I will make no attempt to emulate the foolishness of the Opposition. My scope is restricted by the fact that in 1969 there were only 39,000 starts and only 18,000 in the first half of 1970.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Scottish Special Housing Association
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many
    1668
    houses were built by the Scottish Special Housing Association in 1970; and how many he estimates will be built in 1971 and 1972 by the Association.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: 3,542 in 1970, exclusive of houses built by the Association as agents for local authorities and others. It is not possible to make accurate forecasts of completions in 1971 or 1972.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the Association is concerned about its rôle in the Scottish economy? Can he confirm that it is the rôle for which it was scheduled during our term of office and that the target is to reach 5,000 houses for the promotion of industrial expansion in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the starts made by the S.S.H.A. in both 1968 and 1969 were fewer than 3,000. I will have something further to say in the coming debate about additional work for the S.S.H.A.

    Salmon and Grilse Catch
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total catch of salmon and grilse recorded in Scotland each year over the last eight years.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there has been much claptrap talked in the last eight years about the imminent collapse of the salmon and grilse fishing industry owing to drift netting and drift-line methods in the oceans? Do not these figures contradict those forecasts over and over again? Will he accept that they have been misconceived and will he reconsider this question of allowing drift netting under licence as is already allowed in England?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that the answer is quite as simple as that. Salmon stocks as measured by catches are liable to be affected by a large number of factors and the effect of each cannot be isolated and measured. This difficulty was recognised by the Hunter Committee

    1669
    which recommended that the banning of drift netting should be made permanent.
    Following is the information:

    SCOTTISH CATCH OF SALMON AND GRILSE IN NUMBERS OF FISH, 1963–69

    Salmon

    Grilse

    Total

    1963

    …

    …

    267,295

    166,906

    434,201

    1964

    …

    …

    269,566

    286,462

    556,028

    1965

    …

    …

    226,708

    217,501

    444,209

    1966

    …

    …

    228,363

    221,020

    449,383

    1967

    …

    …

    261,534

    342,597

    604,131

    1968

    …

    …

    213,993

    213,879

    427,872

    1969

    …

    …

    209,965

    348,781

    558,746

    1970

    …

    …

    Not yet available

    Agriculture (Employment)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are now working in agriculture in Scotland; and what proportion of these own their farms.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In June, 1970 16,200 full-time and about 15,000 part-time farmers owned 60 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively of their holdings. The total number of farm workers was 48,200.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: What proposals does my hon. Friend have to meet the difficulty of present and future entrants into this industry in relation to moving lap the management structure of the industry and particularly owning their own farms?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The whole question of manpower in the industry to expand production is extremely important. We hope through the structure of agricultural wages, through the training given, and through the work of agricultural colleges that we shall provide a sufficient way to help people to go forward in the industry.

    Investment Incentives
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to undertake a comparative review of the advantages and disadvantages of tax allowances as opposed to direct grants for the attraction of industry.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is keeping a careful watch on progress under the new system of
    1670
    investment incentives, which his Department with its direct industrial contacts is in the best position to do.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit that the change from investment grants to free depreciation was made as the result of a decision to cut public expenditure and not as a result of a thorough study of the comparative advantages for regional development? Will he agree that the result of this change is that Scotland will get a lot less investment from the Government than it used to get?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer is "No" to both points.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the C.B.I. in Scotland also put forward the point of view that a discontinuation of investment allowances would be detrimental to Scottish industry? Is he further aware that industrialists in my constituency have put forward the same point of view in relation to grants? Will he not reconsider the position, bearing in mind the unemployment situation in the development areas?
    Mr. Campbell: Various industries will see advantages in the new system, for example, labour-intensive industries and the service industries, which previously had no help. There will be an opportunity in the debate later today for all of this to be discussed.
    Mr. Dell: How can the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry consider this matter when the figures for tax allowances cannot be divided regionally but can be given only for the country as a whole?
    Mr. Campbell: The Question was about the attraction of industry. My right hon. Friend has direct contacts with industry which makes his Department the best to carry out this review.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that the Department of Trade and Industry inquiry showed that 60 per cent. of industrialists prefer the free depreciation? Is it not possible that the customer is right on this occasion?
    Mr. Campbell: We have always accepted that there may be some capital-intensive industries which may not find

    1671
    the new system as beneficial to them as the old. But there are many other industries which will regard the new system as better for them.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very serious matter of concern to all which he should reconsider? I refer to the answers which he gave a moment ago, both in the negative. Are not the Government pledged to keep the proportion, not the total, of money for regional aid the same as it is at present for Scotland? Is not the amount of money to go down? This is a public expenditure exercise. In view of the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), if the study is going on, should not the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the results of it in a year or so to demonstrate whether what he asserts is true?
    Mr. Campbell: We have already stated several times from the Dispatch Box that, broadly, the amount of money in the differential for the development areas is to remain the same and the proportion is to increase.

LAOS
Mr. Denis Healey (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether in view of the urgent threat to the neutrality of Laos he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government as co-chairman of the 1962 Geneva Agreement on Laos.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Communist North Vietnamese forces have been making extensive and illegal use of Laotian territory for a long time in flagrant violation of the 1962 Geneva Agreement in order to further the war in South Vietnam. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary told the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 25th January, Her Majesty's Government have made abundantly clear on repeated occasions their willingness to take any action, either as Geneva co-chairman or in any other way, which might help end the war in Indo-China. Unfortunately, the Russian co-chairman has shown no
1672
willingness to agree to joint action.—[Vol. 810, c. 34.]
Mr. Healey: While accepting that the neutrality of Laos has been violated for some time by North Vietnamese forces, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he accepts that the majority of people in this country, and, I believe, throughout the world, would regard it as a tragedy if needless suffering were inflicted on the innocent people of a country so far not directly involved in the Vietnamese conflict? For this reason, will the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions?
First, have Her Majesty's Government, as co-chairman of the Geneva Agreement, been approached by the Government of Laos about their attitude to the events now in progress? Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman has just declared his desire to take action with the Soviet Union, has he on this occasion approached the Soviet Union with a view to take common action? Thirdly, can he say whether the United States Government have consulted Her Majesty's Government about the events now in progress?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Nobody wants to see the extension of this war. We have not yet been approached by the Royal Government of Laos. We are ready to take action at any time— and I made this clear to Mr. Gromyko when he was in London—to call the Geneva Conference if he would agree. But he has made no response at all to this approach.
We have no information from the American Government or any other source about the military action at present taking place, I think outside Laotian borders.
Mr. Healey: But would not the Foreign Secretary accept that it would be regarded as a great tragedy if there were to be the needless death of thousands more human beings in South-East Asia through aerial bombardment at this stage in the American withdrawal? As the Soviet Government have already expressed their concern about the events now in train, will not the right hon. Gentleman, as co-chairman, take the initiative to see whether it is possible at this late date, after so many disappointments, which I concede, to get the British

1673
and Soviet Governments to carry out their obligations under the 1962 Agreement?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have several times taken the initiative with the Soviet Foreign Minister. Each time he has said that he will not co-operate. I say publicly that I would be only too glad if he would come forward at any time and cooperate in trying to end this war. I regret that he has shown no signs of doing so.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that the slaughter in this war may be increased in a part of Laos. That may be true. The North Vietnamese Government cannot escape the responsibility for starting the war.
Mr. Mendelson: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there are definite reports from the semi-official Japanese news agency Kyodo that 4,000 to 5,000 South Vietnamese parachutists and several thousand Thailand troops, accompanied by American military planes and helicopters and with the direction of some American military officers, have invaded Laos and that there has been no request from Prince Souvanah Phouma for any military aid from outside? Will the right hon. Gentleman express the opinion of the large majority of the people of this country that this further extension of the war under American instruction is creating new dangers and imposing new punishment upon innocent people? Will he not get hold of some courage and let the Government in Washington know that the majority of the British people disapprove of this extension of the war?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman said at the start of his question that this information was semiofficial. It has not been corroborated so far. I shall not say what the situation is because I do not know. But there are operations near the frontier. The information is that they are not over the frontier into Laos. When the hon. Gentleman seeks to lay the blame on one side or the other, he must remember that in Laos and in Cambodia the Communists violated the neutrality first.
Mr. Goodhart: Can my right hon. Friend remind the House of how many protests have been made by hon. Members opposite in the last eight years at
1674
repeated incursions into Laotian territory by North Vietnamese forces?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is a fact that North Vietnamese forces have constantly violated the neutrality and broken the arrangements of 1962.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that the embargo on information which apparently affects the American Press extends to the British Government? Is he also saying that the British Government acquiesce in this embargo which is obviously designed to allay protests in the United States?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am saying that information has not arrived on which I can give an accurate opinion to the House.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The Foreign Secretary will agree that the devastation which has laid waste so much of Vietnam in the last few years should not be allowed to spread first to Cambodia and then to Laos if it is possible for our Government to do anything to prevent it. In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman take a current initiative—that is, an initiative on the basis of the current reported events—to inquire from the American Government what their current position is and then approach the Soviet Government afresh with a view to recalling the Geneva Conference?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course that can be done, but the Soviet Foreign Minister knows perfectly well that he has only to send word to me that he would like to activate—[Interruption.]—because he is co-chairman with me. I have invited him to come forward at any time he thinks fit and tell me that he is ready to reactivate the machinery of the Geneva Agreement. He has simply said to me so far that, in his opinion, the time is not appropriate. The moment the time is appropriate I shall be glad to hear from him, and no doubt our ambassador has told the Soviet Foreign Minister this since I met him in London.
Mr. Healey Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me first to call one of his hon. Friends who has risen several times? Mr. Allaun.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the 400 bomber saturation raids on Laos have caused many times the Mai Lai casualties? In view of that, will the Foreign Secretary protest—never mind the Russians—to Washington, where the main cause of this war lies?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but I happened myself to negotiate this agreement and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the ink was hardly dry on that agreement before the Communists broke it; they remained in Laos from which they were supposed to withdraw; and never from that moment have the Communists tried to keep that agreement at all.
Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for reminding the House that he has personal responsibility for maintaining the neutrality of Laos as the man who negotiated on behalf of the United Kingdom this particular agreement. While understanding, though not approving, his reluctance to take further action till the reports of the crossing of the frontier are confirmed, may I ask him, in view of the feelings expressed in this exchange of questions, whether he would assure the House that, if it proves to be the case that there has been a large scale crossing of the frontier by South Vietnamese forces, he will take the initiative in seeking to meet the Soviet Government to try to bring this tragic conflict to an end?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course, I will always consider any further action which I might reasonably take, but I do not see how I can reasonably go further than say privately and publicly to the Soviet Foreign Minister that I am willing at any time, as he approaches me, to reconvene, if that is to his satisfaction, the Geneva Conference in order to try to deal with this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walker—statement.

NEW TOWN, CENTRAL LANCASHIRE
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, I will make a statement.
1676
As the House knows, the previous Government designated the site for a new town in Central Lancashire. I have reviewed fully the case for this project and have concluded that it is right to proceed with the development of this area under the New Towns Act. There will be no question of imposing some theoretical or arbitrary pattern of development such as a long linear city. I shall be asking the development corporation in due course to see that the new development is primarily based on the existing towns in the area. I expect the private sector to play a much larger part than it has done in new towns built hitherto; and I look to this project to make an important contribution towards the improved infrastructure which the north west region needs. I shall accordingly now proceed with establishing a development corporation under the Act.
Mr. John Silkin: May I thank the Secretary of State for his commendably short statement? He will know, of course, that the Labour Government's decision was dependent on proper safeguards being given to the towns of northeast Lancashire. May I ask him whether, in continuing our decision, he will also continue our undertaking that the growth of those towns will be helped and not impeded? I am referring, of course, in particular, to the question of intermediate status, dealing with derelict land, and the commitment to press ahead urgently with the Calder Valley Road. In that connection, can he tell us when phase 2 is due to start? Secondly, he will be as aware as I am that in planning the new town it is necessary that amenities also shall be properly planned. What one wants is a proper new town and not a large housing estate. Will he give us his assurance that those amenities will be planned right from the start?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I will certainly give assurances on both the matters he raised. I will certainly see that action does not handicap other towns in north-east Lancashire. As for the Calder Valley Road scheme, I have decided to speed up phase 1 by at least 12 months—I hope more—and I am in urgent discussions with the local authorities concerned on the priorities we can give to phase 2 and phase 3. As for derelict land, I hope

1677
that expenditure generally on derelict land will in the next financial year be treble that of the financial year before last.
I hope that the north-east towns will designate far more improvement areas and take advantage of all the facilities available. On amenities, I am very anxious that the members of the board of the new town will have particular skills and talents in the provision of amenities and will work with other people with like skills.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the new town itself will have development area status or intermediate status?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right to proceed with the new town, not least because of the grievous shortage of houses to rent in Lancashire. In view of his apparent sympathy for this viewpoint now, will he say to the local authorities throughout Lancashire that they should stop disposing of their existing houses to rent by selling council houses?
Mr. Walker: No. I shall continue to encourage them to sell council houses.
Mr. Green: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that this decision is extremely welcome not only within the designated area but outside it, because a lot of uncertainty is now removed? Is he also aware that, from my point of view, the terms of what he has said are very welcome indeed?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I did, before deciding to go ahead with this, get the latest information and statistics available for the needs of the area, and I am satisfied that this new town will be a success.
Mr. Dan Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that all responsible opinion in north-east Lancashire, including that of members of his own party, will welcome this decision only if the benefits of intermediate area status are preserved and if the environmental needs of the area are added to, and if, in addition, the needs for communication are attended
1678
to, albeit belatedly, in line with the information given by him? With respect to him, I should like him to confirm this point without any ambiguity at all.
Mr. Walker: Yes. Certainly I can. Before coming to this decision I particularly studied the problem of the northeast towns. On the four points: the new town will not have intermediate development status, whereas the other towns do; communications will be speeded up; the derelict land project will be speeded up; I will do all I can to encourage the maximum use of improvement grants.
Mr. Waddington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have always said in north-east Lancashire that it was most important to improve communications between the M6 and the north-east Lancashire towns? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, recognise that we in north-east Lancashire are very pleased to hear that there is to be a speeding up of the commencement of the building of the Calder Valley highway, but will he do his best to see that the third phase, which involves the construction of a new road from Burnley to Colne, will also start as soon as possible?
Mr. Walker: All I can say on that is that I am discussing with all local authorities concerned to see that the correct phasing of the priorities is given to this particular work.
Mr. J. T. Price: Speaking as a Lancashire Member whose constituency is closely related to the site of the proposed new town, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the important statement he has just made will be received with mixed feelings in my native county, that many of the authorities neighbouring that site have already expressed grave anxieties about the industrial and cultural repercussions, and that, whatever view may be taken in the long term about this project, the merits of which I cannot discuss in a supplementary question, those of us who know Lancashire from end to end and are native-born Lancastrians look on the spectacle of Skelmersdale new town where grave errors have been made—in unsatisfactory housing, in using factory building methods to put people into great structures like Bastilles—and that we hope that this error will never be repeated by any Government of any colour?

1679
We give a warning to him and his successors never to commit this kind of error again.
Mr. Walker: I am well aware of the fears and doubts of many people in Lancashire about the nature of the project. I will do everything in my power to see that the project improves the quality of life and environment in Lancashire as a whole.
Mrs. Monks: Will my right hon. Friend see that there is the fullest cooperation between the development corporation and the eight local authorities concerned and bear in mind the recommendations of the Skeffington Committee?
Mr. Walker: Yes, certainly. I am anxious to see that there is the closest co-operation between the existing local authorities and the new town corporation. I will bear in mind the report mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister help us with two matters arising from his statement which might cause concern? The statement contained a sentence which suggests that he will be asking the development corporation to ensure that the new development is primarily based on existing new towns in the area. What exactly does that mean? What practical effect will it have, for example, on the planning of the new town as a whole? Will he assure us that it will not inhibit the master plan?
Secondly, he said that he expects the private sector to play a much larger part than hitherto. The Minister will know that the previous policy has been that there should be a 50–50 arrangement between local government housing and private housing. In view of the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), this sentence is a matter of considerable concern to us.
Mr. Walker: In reply to the first point, the situation here is that, unlike almost every other new town, there is already a population of 250,000 people within the designated area. On looking at this and the schemes which have been mentioned previously, I considered that it was in the interests of those 250,000 people that the
1680
development should take place in conjunction with what exists there already, rather than by the imposition of some architect's theory of a major linear new town across 30 miles of Lancashire. Therefore, I have expressed that view. On the second point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no new town with a 50–50 ratio. Most of the new towns were started with a 100 per cent. ratio of rented accommodation, and both sides of the House have come to the conclusion that that has disadvantages. Therefore, this new town will have a far higher proportion of private enterprise houses for owner-occupation.
Miss Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly greeted by all right thinking people in the Preston/Leyland/Chorley area, where a massive injection of capital is very much needed? May I remind my right hon. Friend not to repeat the mistake of his predecessor in trying to give an imaginary name to the new town. The name Redrose was greeted with the utmost scorn and derision in Lancashire, the inhabitants of which are quite capable of providing their own postal address.
Mr. Walker: I have no intention of providing a red rose for this area, and I do not consider that it would be a good idea to pursue that name. On the question of the project being welcomed by the people of Preston, I hope that this will be a public investment which will affect and benefit the whole of Lancashire. A total investment of £500 million, public and private, will come into the area, and this will be of benefit to the whole economy of Lancashire.
Mr. Meacher: I would like to raise the problem of south-east Lancashire. As the advantages of this proposal, such as there are, are likely to be postponed for 10 years or more whilst the impact of the disadvantages is likely to be immediate in areas like south-east Lancashire, will the Minister say what specific interim relief he intends to apply to areas like south-east Lancashire whose economies are already precarious?
Mr. Walker: In south-east Lancashire communications are going ahead and ambitious schemes for derelict land, house improvements and improvement areas will

1681
help to raise the standard of activity in those areas. There is already a great deal that can be done.
Mr. Bray: I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying the somewhat distorted picture left behind by the previous Administration. I also welcome the improvements in the infrastructure which is so vitally important to north-east Lancashire, particularly road communications, but we must not overlook the needs of the railways with regard to solid and liquid fuels. All these factors should receive urgent consideration. Will he give an assurance that our intermediate towns will have at least the same priority as that afforded to the new town project?
Mr. Walker: Intermediate towns will certainly have priority over new towns, and the new town will not get intermediate status. There will be a study of the transportation problems.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Minister aware that his statement will not be greeted with universal enthusiasm in Lancashire, particularly in north-east Lancashire? No one will envy him having to come to the decision which he has reached. Will the Minister assure the House that he has every intention of continuing intermediate area status at the very least for the industrial towns of north-east Lancashire? Is the Minister aware that, if he were to advance that status, perhaps for a limited period, to full development area status this would go a long way towards allaying the fears in north-east Lancashire that industry will be attracted to the new town instead of to the old industrial towns?
Mr. Walker: As I have said, regional policy is not a matter for me but for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It would be wrong for me to commit him for all time on exactly what the scheme will be. In conjunction with him I have made the decision that the new town should not have equivalent status to that enjoyed at present by the northeast towns for the very reason which the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Laurance Reed: What guarantee can the Minister give that a future Secretary for the Environment will not break his welcome assurance that the new town will not be given special financial incentives to attract industry?
Mr. Walker: I cannot commit all future Ministers and Secretaries of State for the Environment. I think that both sides of the House will agree that this is the sensible answer in the present situation. It would obviously be wrong to accept such a commitment.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister give an assurance that he does not intend in any way to weaken the authority of the proposed development corporation when he says that there will be a greater use of private enterprise?
Mr. Walker: No, the new town corporation will have the authority and will put up the scheme. I know the hon. Gentleman has a special interest in new towns, and I think he will agree that all opinion on new towns is that in future these should be a much bigger participation by free enterprise.
Mrs. Kellett: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the massive injection of capital referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) does not mean that Lancashire towns which do not enjoy intermediate area status will be inhibited in the growth of house building and in their urgent search for jobs?
Mr. Walker: There is no intention of putting inhibitions of that type on any towns in Lancashire.
Mr. Freeson: The Minister referred to the need to extend the improvement area policy in north-east Lancashire. Will he bear in mind that many towns and local authorities in this area are short of resources and have difficulty in establishing the right kind of organisation for this purpose? Will he, therefore, consider extending the work of the consultancy team sponsored by his predecessor for studies in the area in support of local authorities?
Mr. Walker: This is a valid point. Since taking office, I have used the National Building Agency to advise half a dozen authorities on how to go about setting up an area and administering it. From these experiments, I hope that we shall obtain expertise which we can apply to various towns. I agree that this is an important facet.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 19th FEBRUARY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Dr. John A. Cunningham.

Mr. David James.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Boyden: On a point of order. Arising out of Questions, Mr. Speaker, what is the point of having an asterisk against the name of the Minister for the Civil Service to answer Question No. 35, when the previous long-winded propaganda from Scottish Ministers effectively prevents any Answer to such a Question? Are we not put at a disadvantage in serious Questions to Civil Service Ministers in this House when this sort of thing happens and when the Prime Minister, who might be in a position to answer such questions, refuses to do so in detail?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is on a valid point. Without apportioning blame between the sides, there is no doubt that today both Answers and supplementaries were in my view too long. This is a matter on which the House must discipline itself. If we are to get on and to achieve a reasonable number of answers to Questions, supplementaries and Answers should be shorter.

SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
4.3 p.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for Small Claims Courts to try certain civil claims; and for related purposes.
The Bill is designed to set up Small Claims Courts, which will provide justice for claims up to £100, as special divisions in the county courts.
The starting point for this Bill is the patent inadequacy of the present county court arrangements for the handling of such claims. This arises for several reasons. The first and most important is that the county courts as at present constituted are scarcely used at all by individuals. A Consumer Council survey, involving a 2 per cent. random sample of all ordinary summonses and default summonses recorded during 1967 in six courts, involving a total of 1,238 entries, found that a mere 9 per cent. of cases only were initiated by individuals, whereas 89 per cent. of cases were initiated by businesses; and even some of the very small proportion initiated by individuals were probably small businesses suing in the proprietor's name.
The clear function of the county courts therefore at present is debt collection on behalf of mail-order houses, hire purchase companies and other firms who sell consumer goods or services on credit. It may be argued that the total of company initiated claims is inflated by the business need to verify bad debts in the eyes of the Inland Revenue for the purpose of reducing taxation liabilities, but this does not detract from the extreme lop-sidedness of the current function of the county court and its lack of use by individuals. Indeed, the survey did not find a single consumer case, that is a case of a person suing because goods were faulty.
Secondly, it has been found that a person who consults a solicitor about a consumer problem is likely to be told that his claim, however sound, is not worth pursuing. The costs of skilled legal assistance are so high that it is not worth risking taking action which one might lose. Other contributory reasons for the comparative lack of solicitors' support

1685
include the reluctance of many solicitors to represent the client themselves in court and their preference to brief counsel, as well as the feeling that court procedure at present is unwieldy for handling such matters.
The costs of pursuing even a relatively modest claim can be prohibitive under the existing rules. For a day's hearing counsel's fee might be as much as £35; the solicitor's bill might perhaps be £50. At £6 per hour that is only eight hours' work. This means that something like £85 has already been spent, without counting postage, court fees, witnesses' expenses and so on. If the person loses he has to pay a similar amount for the other side. In effect, an individual may be risking a total of £200 to £300 to win £100. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that most individuals, unless they are persons of some substance, do not regard such a risk as worthwhile.
It may of course be argued, though acknowledging the defects of the present system, that the proper response should be a modification of county court rules. It has been suggested that a simple form might be completed by the plaintiff beforehand setting out the nature of his grievance and he might then be advised about the way to present his case. Although this would be helpful in guiding the claimant through the initial stages of procedure, it is not likely that it would sustain him for long against an experienced solicitor peppering him with demands for discovery of documents, further and better particulars, and so on.
It is also asserted that county court registrars and judges as a matter of practice go out of their way to assist and protect individual litigants who come before them. Although this may generally be true—and indeed it is—it does not on available evidence outweigh in the minds of individual claimants the rather formal, awe-inspiring, cumbersome and expensive image of the county courts with all their complicated procedural rules, as witness the paucity of those who enter claims. Furthermore, the judge at a trial cannot, however helpful he tries to be, produce evidence which the claimant did not bring along, nor can he throw overboard the rules of evidence to allow an unskilled claimant to tell his own story in hearsay evidence because he had
1686
omitted to bring along the relevant witness.
If the revision of the procedural rules is unlikely to be more than merely palliative, how might a small claims court be expected to meet the requirement of the situation and how would it work? It is proposed that the registrar of each county court should be charged with running an informal court for small claims, as a branch of the county court, designed for individuals who have their claims adjudicated without legal representation. The court would have jurisdiction for claims up to £100 in contract and tort, the latter including, for example, personal injury, negligence and damage to property.
The aim would be that it should function as a genuine people's court. For this reason companies, partnerships, associations and assignees of debt would not be allowed to sue to prevent the court becoming appropriated by firms for the purposes of debt collection. Since the object of the court would be, in the words of the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals,
"cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition and expert knowledge of their particular subject"
scope for appeals would deliberately be limited to cases where the judge certified that an important point of law was involved.
It is also proposed that representation by practising lawyers should be excluded in the small claims court. This is not said lightly in view of the hallowed English tradition of the advocacy principle. But the point is that in practice, because of the expense, most individuals would not have lawyers even if permitted to do so. Once lawyers began to appear in the small claims court, people would feel that they could not proceed without a lawyer, as is the situation at present in the county court. Once again we should face the position that small claims would not get proper attention and would be deterred from coming before a court. The introduction of lawyers would undermine the whole aim and purpose of the small claims court.
The parties will, of course, be unequal in skill and experience, though less unequal than if one side had a lawyer and the other did not. It follows that, to compensate for this inequality, the court

1687
must have certain investigatory functions so that enough facts are known for a just decision to be made. A certain precedent is provided by the tribunal system where the chairman questions the parties to elicit their cases and action is taken to ensure that essential evidence is produced, irrespective of the capabilities of the individuals involved. So here it is intended that the criterion shall be, the way in which a reasonable man with a knowledge of the law, if asked to decide a dispute, would proceed. On this basis, the registrar would let the parties tell their stories, asking questions where he required further information and searching out other evidence, in a manner at his discretion, until he felt able to apply his judgment reliably in assessing the parties' stories.
The cost of investigation would normally be met out of public money, except where the registrar directed that one of the parties should pay. This would discourage frivolous use of the court by enabling the registrar to ensure that any party who had behaved irresponsibly should pay the cost.
Basically, this is the system the application of which has been so powerfully demonstrated recently by four consumer cases detailed in a Daily Telegraph Supplement. It is also the system which has just received the considered approval of Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, which
1688
yesterday issued a statement regretting that the proposal had not yet been allotted the Government support which it merited, and noting that its inquiry into civil procedure, chaired by Lord Devlin, had made a preliminary finding that
"… there is a substantial denial of justice to the ordinary member of the public in this field."
I hope very much that the House will recognise this proposal as a uniquely effective solution to the dual problem of the prohibitive expensiveness of pursuing many individual claims at present and the deterrent image of the county courts as at present constituted to many potential claimants, and on these grounds will permit the Bill to proceed to its next stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Meacher, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John Foster, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Ivor Richard, Mr. Robert Sheldon, and Mr. Keith Stainton.

SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
Bill to make provision for Small Claims Courts to try certain civil claims; and for related purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd April and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to move his Motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in line 2, at end add:
'but condemns Her Majesty's Government for adopting ill-considered policies which, to the detriment of the current performance and future prospects of the Scottish economy, eliminate direct investment incentives, weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report'.
4.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in Session 1969–70 on Economic Planning in Scotland (House of Commons Paper No. 267).
I welcome this opportunity to debate the Report. The subject affects several Government Departments, and the Report provides a lucid description of the rôle of the central Government in economic development in Scotland. The Report points out that, while the Secretary of State for Scotland has statutory responsibility for a wide range of subjects through his four Scottish Departments, other Ministers are also involved in economic and financial matters. But the Secretary of State has responsibility for planning decisions and, as Scotland's Minister, he is expected to be, and must be, concerned with problems and decisions affecting the Scottish economy.
The Select Committee investigated how the Government machine is geared for economic planning. It also looked at the consultative machinery. I have already made clear that I agree with its findings concerning the Scottish Economic Planning Council, as it used to be called. This body meets in private, but it has become clear that it has no executive planning powers. Nor did the Committee recommend that it should have such powers. I have decided that a council with this kind of composition has a useful rôle as an advisory body on economic matters as a whole. I have accordingly announced that it will in future be known as the Scottish Economic Council, and that its rôle will be an advisory one to the Secretary of State and the Government
1690
In this, I am following the views of the Select Committee.
The Select Committee also considered the whole question of investment incentives for regional development. While it commented on the advantages and disadvantages of various kinds of incentive, no particular one or combination was recommended. For example, the Report points out that the investment grant system encouraged capital-intensive industries, and that, though some of these are required in Scotland, they are less able to provide the numbers of jobs in a shorter term that other industries can. It was also noted that the service industries were left in the cold.
The Select Committee's Report followed a Report of the Estimates Committee of the previous year which had called for an investigation into the effectiveness of investment grants—an investigation which the last Government duly started. That investigation was still going on, and the Select Committee's Report had just been published, when the present Administration came into office at the end of June.
It was clear to us that new measures were urgently necessary and that changes in the system had to be made. We lost no time in carrying out an urgent, but full, review. On 27th October, our first decisions on new measures were announced. While the system of investment grants is being discontinued, other grants for development under the Local Employment Acts—those more directly related to new jobs—are to be used more extensively. Thus, a combination of grants and loans, and a new system of capital tax allowances, is aimed to gain the advantages of both systems described in the Select Committee's Report. A wider range of industry will benefit, including service industries. The level of regional assistance is not being reduced. Assertions to the contrary are entirely wrong, though we have become used to such mis-statements from the benches opposite.
Broadly, the total amount of the differential in favour of the development areas remains the same. But it is a more flexible combination of incentives, more closely geared to the employment that we need, and likely to be more effective. Changes were needed. Four years of the previous arrangements have brought us to a state of very high summer

1691
unemployment, stagnation and a bleak winter. How have members of the previous Government the temerity to criticise changes, when they had brought Scotland to this state? The sheer irresponsibility of their attitude is staggering.
However attractive any incentives may be, 1 must agree with the Select Committee, in paragraph 4 of its General Conclusions, that the results will depend on the industrial growth attained in the United Kingdom. If there is a limited supply of mobile industry and little scope for expansion, despite what one hopes to get from abroad, development in the regions concerned is restricted.
That is no doubt one reason why there has been such an alarming net loss of jobs in Scotland in the last 5 years. From March, 1966, to March, 1970, there was a decrease of 82,000 in the estimated number of employees in employment in Scotland. Employment expanded in Scotland in the first half of the 1960s and declined in the second half. There has been a serious falling off in the amount of new industrial development in Scotland, as recorded by i.d.c. approvals, in the last 2 years.
Since 1965, the whole economy has been subjected to increasingly severe fiscal and monetary policy. The squeeze and freeze were applied, and then there followed devaluation and the 1968 Spring Budget, with the biggest increase in taxes for many years. Further seventies ensued and the pace of inflation was allowed to increase dangerously last year so that there was no prospect of encouragement being given to expansion.
In May and June, before coming into office, I was pointing to this gloomy prospect and publicly asking the then Government what they intended to do about it. The answer was nothing. No response. I pointed out, over several months, on television and elsewhere, to the then Secretary of State that high unemployment was inevitable if things were allowed to drift. Again nothing happened.
It is perfectly clear now why there was a General Election in June. There was no need to hold it then—the Labour Government could still have been in office today and until April. But they decided not to wait even until October.
The reasons soon became clear in Scotland. A few days after the Labour
1692
Government's departure, the unemployment figures in July showed that 93,000 people were out of work in Scotland. That was the height of summer when unemployment should be low.
What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) expect the figures to be in September and December? Did he expect them to improve? Did he, for example, think that there would be only 80,000 out of work in January? No, of course not. He knows, as well as everyone else, that the figures could not fail to get worse as autumn and winter approached. Standing at 93,000 in July, they were bound to go well over the 100,000 mark during the winter. Nothing that the new Government could do would have been in time to stop that happening.
The clear evidence of the deteriorating position in Scotland before the last Government left office is shown in the following figures. The i.d.c.'s issued in Scotland in the twelve months from June, 1969 to June, 1970, the period of a year before the June Election, reflected a reduction of 34 per cent. in the number of jobs involved, compared with the previous 12 months.
I mentioned earlier the net loss of jobs since 1965. The position before then was clearly set out in the last Government's 1966 White Paper on page 9. There it is recorded that in the four years 1960–64 new jobs were being created at a rate of very nearly 40,000 a year—over 39,000. Although the run down of jobs in agriculture and the older industries was taking place during the whole of the decade, the important fact in those four years was the net gain of over 7,000 jobs a year. The new industrial development was more than compensating for the disappearance of jobs in coal mining and the other industries.
The extraordinary paradox was that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was at that time moaning and groaning in his well known way, and urging that a target of 40,000 new jobs a year should be set. The statistics in his own White Paper later showed that he had no grounds to criticise, because that figure was indeed being reached.
Unfortunately, we cannot start that scale of growth and industrial development again—and increase it—in a situation of wildly inflationary wage

1693
claims. Before the last Government abandoned office they allowed a wild game of wages leapfrog to start, following their disastrous attempt to freeze wages by stature. This is the situation which we must get under control now.
I must emphasise as strongly as I can that inflationary wage claims will simply price us out of jobs. Those who urge their fellows to press claims which are totally unrealistic may in fact be losing their jobs for them altogether. Employers will be forced to reduce their activities and labour forces rather than expand.
The Times Business News of Friday, 22nd January, clearly stated:
"… it may well have been that the very rapid rate of increase in pay in the fourth quarter has helped to push up the unemployment rate. Organised workers have been pricing themselves out of the market, or at least reducing the ability of employers to employ other people."
Mr. John Robertson (Paisley): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Campbell: All right.
Mr. Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that workers are trying to push up their wages to meet demands in prices which his right hon. Friend promised would be brought down "at a stroke"?
Mr. Campbell: If that is so, it is the result of the disastrous freeze imposed by the last Government and their total failure to control the subsequent inflationary wage pressure.
When I and my colleagues took over this gloomy situation in June, we set ourselves two immediate tasks. The first was to make the changes in regional development measures which were announced in October. These will in time help to improve the situation.
Secondly, we brought in—
Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I should like to continue. I have given way once to a Scottish Member.
1694
Secondly, we brought in urgently a special works programme, for Scotland only, for this winter.
An Hon. Member: Chicken feed.
Mr. Campbell: Wait for what is to come. This is helping to relieve unemployment now.
When a deputation of Labour Members of Parliament came to see me during the recess in September, they agreed that a winter scheme of this kind would help, though they recognised the limitations of any such scheme, and urged me to arrange and announce it as soon as possible This I did.
I now have an important announcement to make which should be very welcome to the House. The Government have decided that the problems of industrial West Central Scotland require a new approach—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This will be no surprise, because I have just been describing the situation which we found on taking office. The Government have decided, in principle, that a substantial part of the area of West Central Scotland should be designated as a special development area in which additional financial inducements to new industrial growth will apply.
Briefly, these inducements include a higher rate of building grant of 45 per cent. for all new developments; operational grants based on labour costs; and a five-year rent-free period for new rented factories. The exact boundaries of the area and other relevant details will be announced in due course, but I can say now that the special development area will, of course, include Glasgow and the Clydeside conurbation.
Mr. David Lambie: Will it include Hunterston?
Mr. Campbell: Against the background which I have described—
Mr. William Ross: Will this require legislation or will it start right away? Will it be available as from tomorrow?
Mr. Campbell: I cannot give precise details at this stage. The Government have decided to designate a large part of this important area as a special development area. I cannot at this moment go into all the details. The answer is that it will begin as soon as

1695
possible. If it can be done without legislation, it will be done without legislation.
Mr. Ross: It cannot be done without legislation; neither can some of the proposals announced in October. We want to know when we shall get this legislation. If it is as urgent as the right hon. Gentleman says, the legislation should have been ready today.
Mr. Campbell: Despite the non-cooperation of the Opposition on practically all parliamentary business at the moment arising from their attitude to the Industrial Relations Bill, I sincerely hope that there will be no opposition to this legislation when it is put forward.
Hon. Members: When?
Mr. Campbell: I am making the announcement now, but I cannot give the details. If legislation is necessary we shall bring it in as soon as possible.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No. I must proceed. I have another interesting announcement to make.
Mr. Maclennan Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman had better wait.
Mr. Campbell: I am amazed that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should not welcome the announcement, and should appear to be picking nits at present. If legislation is required, it will be brought forward, but my advice is that it will not be necessary.
Against the background which I have described, we have also been considering what assistance we can give to Glasgow. Good housing is vital for the city's economic future as well as for social reasons, and since we took office we have been investigating how we can best provide the special housing assistance that we consider necessary. It is now clear that this can best be devoted to mounting an additional house-building programme outside the present city boundaries, an assential need for the next decade.
1696
We are prepared to make increased use of the Scottish Special Housing Association for this purpose, with an addition to the programme already announced for Erskine and also in other areas near Glasgow. We are also considering arrangements for further use of the new towns machinery at a fresh location outside Glasgow—one possibility would be to use the existing East Kilbride Development Corporation as the agency for carrying out a large development in the Stone-house area of North Lanarkshire. I cannot give more details now, but I shall of course be making a further statement when I am in a position to do so.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Does not the Secretary of State realise that on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) I announced precisely the same thing 12 months ago, and that he is under an obligation, because of what has been said by his leader, his junior Minister and himself, to provide special aid which we did not designate when we were in office. What is that special extra aid?
Mr. Campbell: What the hon. Gentleman announced was a mouse compared with what I am now announcing.
Inside the city there is a great and urgent need not only for the modernisation of older houses—and we are supporting the corporation's drive for this—but also for an intensive compaign to improve the general environment. The need for this is both economic and social. I hope soon to discuss with the corporation how this problem can most usefully be tackled.
Mr. Tom McMillan: Is the Secretary of State taking into account the fact that inside Glasgow at this moment children are dying in the festering slums, and that a public inquiry has said that bad housing contributes to deaths? What immediate proposals has the right hon. Gentleman for the alleviation of the problem?
Mr. Campbell: I am happy to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the programme I am announcing, and also his satisfaction that last year, I understand, was a record for the rehousing of families in Glasgow.
May I now remind the House of the methods of attracting and encouraging

1697
industrial developments. There are now three forms of assisted area. The most assisted tier is the special development area; the second is the development area and the third is the intermediate area. While there are special arrangements for the S.D.A.s, the main new measures for development areas are the advantage of free depreciation, which can be carried forward to later years for companies not making profits to start with, and the more extensive use of grants and loans under the Local Employment Acts which are directly related to new jobs. Amongst other things this will encourage improvement of infrastructure, especially clearance of derelict land.
In October it was announced that regional employment premium would continue for four years until the end of its guaranteed time. Service industries will now benefit from a 60 per cent. capital allowance and training and retraining arrangements will be increased.
For the development areas only, a new scheme will be coming in to help the tourist industry when the hotel incentive scheme comes to an end in April.
Evidence available so far indicates that the announcement of these new measures, far from holding up development, has increased it. In the last quarter of 1970, industrial development certificate approvals were issued in respect of 59 projects in Scotland, estimated to provide additional jobs for 3,300 people. In terms of new jobs this was considerably higher than the average figure for the first two quarters of the year. This means that in the last quarter of 1970 there was a higher rate of new jobs in projects than in the first half of that year.
On the I.D.C. system generally, we agree with the view of the Select Committee that it is an essential part of an effective regional policy. We have not accepted the majority proposal of the Hunt Committee, set up by the last Government, to the effect that I.D.C. limits should be raised outside the development areas to 10,000 square feet. On the contrary, we have adjusted the system to recognise what has been done in practice. In the South East and Midlands, the I.D.C. limit is restricted to 5,000 square feet, and it is only outside these two areas that the limit has been raised to 10,000 square feet.
Mr. George Lawson: The limit of 5,000—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lawson: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was giving way.
Mr. Campbell: No, I was not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All hon. Members know that they cannot get up and speak without the hon. Member who has the Floor giving way. I am quite sure that in due course the right hon. Gentleman will give way to all Members that he thinks reasonable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) wishes to observe the rules.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. When we listen to what I take to be a deliberate piece of misrepresentation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we can be goaded into interventions like that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman thinks that, the rules of the House must be scrupulously observed.
Mr. Campbell: The word "reasonable" was the appropriate one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the remarks the hon. Gentleman has just made confirm that his question was likely to be unreasonable.
I was pointing out that outside the Midlands and South East the limit has been raised to 10,000 square feet. The effects of these small changes will be negligible. For example, in the whole of the year 1969, when the last Government were in office, not a single application under 10,000 square feet was refused outside the Midlands and the South East. That is the overwhelming evidence that the adjustment we have made will make no difference, but will reduce unnecessary paper work.
Let us not overlook the prospects and promise that lie someway ahead—the finds of North Sea oil off the Scottish coast and, for example, the massive tankers serving the petrochemical complex at Grangemouth, through Loch Long.
The Firth of Clyde has immense potential for the future. We chose a Supply Day and I opened a debate on this subject in 1969, to draw attention to this. I have followed this up by my planning decisions at Hunterston, and

1699
the way is open for worthwhile development which can bring prosperity and jobs while causing the minimum of damage to amenity. I must make it clear, however, that these are prospects for the future. There is nothing that can be done to exploit the deep water and other facilities in the Hunterston area which could materially affect employment in the near future. Besides attracting industry from elsewhere in Britain and encouraging industry in Scotland to expand, Scotland is mounting and co-ordinating promotional campaigns abroad. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has been closely concerned with this, and he will say more about it when he winds up the debate.
Mr. Maclennan: As the Highlands and Islands Development Board felt it appropriate to spend £100,000 on industrial promotion, why does the hon. Gentleman think it is appropriate to spend £20,000 on the whole of Scotland, and to prevent the Board from carrying out its promotional schemes in the United States and Germany?
Mr. Campbell: I do not accept the last part of that remark. We have made arrangements, as we have announced, with the Scottish Council for the provision of some money, and they are raising the rest themselves—£20,000 has been mentioned. That is twice as much as the previous Government were supplying in the previous three years. We are naturally concentrating on a country like Germany, whose Governement has asked firms to expand abroad.
We are determined to ensure that the excellent sites and conditions which Scotland can offer are made known, and that our publicity efforts are used to full effect without danger of unnecessary duplication or apparent conflict. That is perhaps one of the important points which the hon. Member will himself appreciate.
Mr. Dick Douglas: If I interpret the Secretary of State correctly, he means that he wants to try to iron out the possible sub-regional competitiveness in industry and "sell" Scotland as a whole. That job should not be given to the Scottish Council; it is a job for him.
Mr. Campbell: I accept that, and I and my right hon. and hon. Friends—I
1700
would mention in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Development—have already shown, in the last six or seven months, that a lead can be given. But we need the support of industry itself, of course, organised in the appropriate bodies, and we need to co-ordinate the efforts being made by local authority associations and by bodies like the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Otherwise, the effect abroad can be of uncoordinated visits which appear to be cancelling each other out. This is what we regard as our job as a Government to try to help to resolve.
Mr. John Brewis: Would my right hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) the denigrating remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when his predecessor went to America?
Mr. Ross: That was because he came back.
Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. I have not yet started on peripatetic tours myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "More's the pity."]—but my hon. Friend has been doing this on my behalf most successfully.
Any action to prevent the situation which we now face this winter in Scotland would have had to be taken well over a year ago, but the Labour Government were oblivious to the warning signs and the deteriorating situation. Nothing was done and nothing said.
There was a debate in the House on the Scottish economy in May 1969. That was just about the time when new measures could have been discussed which would have improved the state of the Scottish economy by now. What part did the then Secretary of State play? He did not even speak in the debate. Of course, that was during the reign of William the Silent. It must be remembered that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) had decided that his best contribution to the future of Scotland's economy was to filibuster that debate. As it was precious private Members' time that he was eating into, I described him then as a parliamentary cannibal. But even he left time for a wind-up speech from his own Front Bench, but the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock disdained the opportunity.

1701
Later in 1969, we had the debate on future development in the Firth of Clyde with its valuable assets of very deep water and suitable adjoining land for a super-port and industrial development. Matters of great concern to hon. Members on both sides were discussed. What part did the then Secretay of State play? Again, he did not deign to speak at all.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who spent a long time on this Select Committee putting in a great deal of work studying regional planning hoped that his speech would take note of the detailed points and discuss the intricate problems of regional planning and not go in for this third-rate, trivial, partisan knockabout which we hoped would abandoned? This is a debate to take note of the Report of the Select Committee.
Mr. Campbell: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should have advised his right hon. and hon. Friends not to put down the Amendment which is on the Paper. It was clear from the moment that it appeared what was going to happen in this debate.
I and my colleagues arrived in office to find our worst fears confirmed. There was no movement in the economy other than successive depressing reports of closures and redundancies, with little countervailing development to replace them. Inflation was rife, giving no hope of early renewal of industrial expansion. Unemployment was at an astronomical figure for mid-summer and was bound to become very bad during the winter.
During the rest of this debate, it is clear that we shall hear accusations and charges from the other side attempting to attack us about this. All such criticism can only rebound on the previous Government. Brickbats from the other side will be found to be boomerangs.
Mrs. Judith Hart: While the right hon. Gentleman is embarking on this knockabout, as my hon. Friend described it, may I point out to him that on one matter at least—a matter on which he has made an important announcement this afternoon—the housing development at Stonehouse, we know that this has been on his desk since he entered office nearly eight months ago,
1702
yet all we get this afternoon is the vaguest of announcements. Before he sits down, I hope that he will tell us precisely how the proposals which he has announced are qualitatively different from those which the previous Government had already announced, and whether he will, in view of the considerable uncertainty which he has imposed upon many groups of people, tell us which agency will be responsible for the building.
Mr. Campbell: I can answer that one briefly by saying that the scheme which I have announced is a great deal larger than what I found when I came in—
Mr. Douglas: How much?
Mr. Campbell: I have already occupied a good deal of time in this debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply to the debate in due course——
Dr. Dickson Mabon Dr. Dickson Mabon rose——
Mr. Campbell: No, I have given way enough——
Dr. Mabon: Could the right hon. Gentleman say——
Mr. Campbell: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times.
Dr. Mabon: On a point of order——
Mr. Campbell: Oh, no.
Dr. Mabon: On a point of order. Would you take note, Sir Robert, that relevant information which we are seeking for this debate is to be announced at the end of the debate? Surely, as a matter of good debating and the practice of the House, we should know, out of courtesy at least, if not out of intelligence, what figures we are talking about.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The right hon. Gentleman must make his speech as he thinks best.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has already complained that, although I have covered a great deal of the ground which the Select Committee covered, I have been concentrating on certain particular matters. Clearly, in opening a debate like this, it would be wrong for me to go into the details of

1703
this single announcement which we will be discussing and which the House will be able to consider later.
While no Government, taking over last June an inflationary and stagnant economy, could have taken measures in time to change dramatically the depressing winter scene in Scotland, we can take action for the future and we are doing so. I have outlined some of the new measures and the promotion effort which we are helping to mount. We are determined to get out of this rut and all who live and work in Scotland can help to do it.
Responsible and co-ordinated efforts are required if we are not to price ourselves not only out of jobs but out of export markets. As I said in a recent newspaper article, the world does not owe us a living. By our own efforts, and with the help of the resources of the United Kingdom through regional development policy, we must excel.
The Scots have set the pace and led the world in many fields, often in the face of initial difficulties. We need those characteristics and resources—[Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not echoing the feelings which I am expressing at this point—more than ever before and I am confident that, given a lead and the stimulus to inspire effort and working together, we can build new industrial success on firm, modern foundations.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add,
'but condemn Her Majesty's Government for adopting ill-considered policies which, to the detriment of the current performance and future prospects of the Scottish economy, eliminate direct investment incentives, weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report'.
I have been called many things in this House, but "William the Silent" is a new one. I am far from silent.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I wish the right hon. Gentleman was.
Mr. William Hamilton: I thought the hon. Gentleman was asleep.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) is interrupting not so much from a sedentary as from a recumbent position. I cannot understand why earlier he urged hon. Members to exercise self discipline. I have hardly begun to speak than he is at me. He is getting more like his father every day.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State took me to task for not intervening in a debate on Hunterston. He should have stopped to think at least twice before accepting that piece of research from whoever conducted it. He should have known that the one person who could not express an opinion about Hunterston and about the deep water port and so on was the then Secretary of State, who had to sit in a semi-judicial capacity and eventually receive the findings of the inquiry.
I recall the right hon. Gentleman being discreetly silent on the subject, and I never pressed him on it because I recognised his position. This is the kind of level of criticism in which hon. Gentlemen opposite indulge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark——
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I say straight away that if, in July 1969, the inquiry had already started, I immediately acquit the right hon. Gentleman of not taking part in the debate.
Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman must have known that by that time. Notice of objection and so on had been given. The controversy had started. That was why the debate was mooted. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head will remember the many Questions that were put to me and how I had to answer to that effect. He accepted that, recognising the responsibility of the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] As I say, I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw. His speech was obviously written and made by him against his better judgment. Suffice to say that some of my hon. Friends have suggested that it was like a fairy tale. "Grim Gordon's Fairy Tale", they are calling it.
We are invited to take
"note of the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs"

1705
and it is worth recalling that that Committee spent the better of two years making what was probably the lengthiest and deepest probe into Scottish affairs covering not only the Secretary of State's Department but also the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology; indeed, covering anybody who had anything to do, directly or indirectly, with the promotion of regional development.
The Report was published on 13th May of last year and my hon. Friends asked for a debate on the subject. We are eventually asked to take note of it in February, 1971, when the Government have made announcements in respect of the core and centre of regional development and have obviously brushed aside, probably never even having read, the Report. I cannot think of anything more insulting to the work of a Select Committee.
It is customary, when a Select Committee reports, for the various Departments concerned to write their replies and for them to be given in a paper to the House, and then the whole matter is debated. That applies to the Estimates Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and all others, including the one covering the nationalised industries. But what happened in this case? The Government ignored the Report and, before we were even asked to take note of it, they had made their decisions. This demonstrates that they paid no attention to what the Report said.
I pay tribute to the Committee's Chairman, Mr. Tom Steele, and the 16 hon. Members who served on it, four of whom are no longer with us, for various reasons. I gave evidence before the Committee and I was satisfied, as a result of what I was told by my officials, with everything that had gone on and that the Committee was doing a thorough and first-class job. I was also satisfied that any Government would ignore to their peril what came out in the evidence and findings of the Committee.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, who will reply to the debate, was a signatory to this Report. I remind him that it was presented not a century before the General Election but on 13th May, 1970, one month before the election, and that the Report said:
1706
"we think that economic planning in Scotland can be said to be organised on sound lines".
This was scarcely mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, though the Report said:
"We can attempt to assess this only in general terms … But it is certain that the structure and balance of industry in Scotland has greatly changed in the last few years. Many of the older industries which once flourished in Scotland have greatly declined."
This is about the question of the loss of jobs, which the Minister did not even try to analyse and certainly does not understand. The Report went on:
"while new and more competitive industries … have established themselves; there is no doubt that this represents a strengthening of Scotland's industrial structure".
The Minister agreed to that on 13th May, 1970, but something changed his mind a month later. This is the trouble with the Government. They make changes and then find out what the country feels about them.
We have taken this exceptional step of taking note of the Report but asking the House to condemn the Government simply because the work of the most important Select Committee ever to be set up for Scotland was insulted by being ignored. What has happened to this Select Committee? It has not been reestablished, though we were given a pledge that it would be. Why the delay? We are only able to guess. Is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot, or are unwilling to, man their side of this Committee. I have even heard it suggested that we should have Members of the House of Lords put on the Committee.
This is because the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite in Scotland in the past have been such that they have been decimated in the last three General Elections in Scotland; and, meanwhile, Mr. Europe spends his time in the Committee Corridor waiting to vote on an Education Bill that should never have been introduced.
When will this Select Committee be re-established? Is this inability to man it the reason for the Government's weakness in this matter? Or is it that they do not want such a Committee to go into what the present Government are doing and have been doing?
The Secretary of State made two announcements today. We welcome one of them. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman could not tell us whether

1707
his announcement would mean legislation. At present the special development areas are limited to coalmining areas. A change is to be made, and legislation will be required. We have not been told what the global figures of expenditure will be. The Government have been less than fair with us. However, we welcome the proposal as far as it goes.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: At last.
Mr. Ross: That was the second time. Next, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for helping Glasgow will sorely disappoint the Tory-controlled council in Glasgow. The Tory-controlled council was expecting to get additional money to help it with its housing programme. It was expecting to get as much help as we gave it when we changed the formula in respect of rate support grant, which gave the council an additional £½ million per year as a starting figure. All that the right hon. Gentleman has done is to repeat what we said we would do and in respect of which we were in active consultation with Glasgow about Erskine.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he has not even started discussions with Glasgow yet. I hope that his experience is a little better than our experience in respect of the hopes for Erskine.
The right hon. Gentleman told us, as a great tribute to Glasgow, that it had a record number of re-lettings. What the people of Glasgow are interested in is new housing in Glasgow. The number of approvals of new houses and the number of completions last year was lamentable; Glasgow let Scotland down.
The Report stresses the importance of infrastructure—the need for housing, jobs, and so on. Last year in Scotland we had another record of house building. The Tories might have given credit to the Labour Government for that. We saw plenty in the national newspapers about the parlous state of house building in England and Wales. We saw little in the Scottish Press about the fact that we had achieved yet another record in Scotland with nearly 45,000 houses.
The right hon. Gentleman might have explained why the number of approvals in 1970 dipped by more than 13,000. The Under-Secretary has been in charge for
1708
six months. If he was not satisfied with the rate of approvals for the first six months, the Secretary of State should have done what I did with my hon. Friend and my noble Friend Lord Hughes: he should have sent the Under-Secretary round Scottish local authorities to ensure that approvals in the second six months met Scotland's needs. That is why in 1970 there was that number of approvals. The record number was in 1966.
In the matter of infrastructure and housing we are going back to the calamitous state to which the Tories drove us in the early 1960s when the house building total in Scotland dropped to as low as 26,000. For the past four years, in each succeeding year it has been a record and we reached nearly 45,000 in 1970.
We should concentrate our attention on the terms of the Amendment:
'but condemns Her Majesty's Government for adopting ill-considered policies which, to the detriment of the current performance and future prospects of the Scottish economy, eliminate direct investment incentives, weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report'.
As to "ill-considered policies", does the Secretary of State suggest that the housing policy is well-advised in relation to the present needs and the present performance? At Question Time the right hon. Gentleman refused to put a figure on the number of houses he hopes to build. In 1964 the Tories did not leave us a great inheritance of houses under construction and those awaiting start. In 1970 we left them at least 8,000 more than they left us in 1964.
Other announcements as to policies were in relation to the I.R.C. and the Industrial Expansion Act. It was under the Industrial Expansion Act that we built the smelters. The Tories congratulated us on having done so, but there were some Tories on the Front and back benches who thought that we should not have done so. They did not take that view in the Highlands. I do not know how the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) can justify his colleagues' attitude on this. Let him tell the people in his area that the Act under which this could be done is being repealed.
The Industrial Expansion Act was helpful to us in respect of the motor car

1709
industry. I give credit to the Tories for bringing the motor car industry to Scotland, but the industry had troubles. At one time Rootes looked like going out. Leyland-B.M.C. had its troubles. Not only was the I.R.C. brought into play, but by following through the regional policies, which we insisted were not purely for the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade but were for every Government Department, we were able to ensure that the Linwood development would be protected and that the expansion, if it took place, would take place there. The same was true in relation to Bathgate. Now these things are to go. The Government's action is ill-advised.
As to what we say in the Amendment about the removal of direct investment incentives, are hon. Members satisfied that, with the removal of the direct incentive of the investment grant, which gave a 20 per cent. lead to Scotland, Scotland will be better served or investment will be better served by the change to tax allowances?
There was much discussion on this point at the time. The right hon. Gentleman will find no condemnation of the investment grant system in the Report. The S.T.U.C. was for investment grants. So was the Scottish Council. The C.B.I. in. Scotland was for them.
The only body which was against investment grants was the C.B.I. in London; and that body thought only that they should be removed in the future. The C.B.I. was speaking to a Scottish Committee. It might have expressed a different view if speaking to a Tory Secretary of State.
We have had plenty of information about what has happened. There is a down-turn in investment in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has been in his post for the better part of seven months. The Tories have declared their policies. The fact that the day after their mini-budget and their give away of £350 million they tightened the squeeze meant that people just did not know where they were under this Government.
The Financial Times for Monday, 1st February states:
"The evidence of a downturn in manufacturing industry's spending on new plant and equipment is now virtually conclusive.…
1710
A downturn has been predicted for some months, by the Confederation of British Industry among others, and now all the indicators are pointing in that direction.….
Orders for new machine tools, which can be regarded as an even clearer sign of what is happening, began to fall away last summer and, according to the latest reports from the industry, the decline has accelerated in the last few months.
Many factors are being blamed"—
and it lists the factors, including—
"the Government's decision to switch from investment grants to capital allowances."
The Times reported, in a leader on 28th January,
"… serious doubts about the real net outlay —future investment will involve … much uncertainty about the real cost of investment…"
It said that the Government should clarify the switch from investment grants to allowances. Very few people are clear about this. Those who are are satisfied that the switch is to the disadvantage of the development area. The Scotland magazine, which examines in depth each month the topics which concern business and industry in Scotland, also condemns the switch from investment grants to allowances.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The right hon. Gentleman said that the decline in investment started in the summer, but his scheme was going flat out until 27th October. How does he explain the decline?
Mr. Ross: On 27th October, the Government announced a new policy. This is relevant to some of the figures the Government have produced about industrial development certificates in Scotland. It would be interesting to know what the position was in the last three months under our policy compared with the first three months under the Government's new policy. There has been the acceleration of decline since the Government announcement was made. Has the hon. Gentleman read these articles? The Times on 28th January reported:
"Withdrawal of investment grants leads 30 companies to delay investment plans."
It clarified its headline as follows
"At least 30 major companies have told the Department of Trade and Industry that they must postpone, or even abandon, important development schemes following the withdrawal of investment grants in favour of a new system of capital allowances."

1711
The Government should face the facts as quickly as possible. I doubt whether the damage which will be done by their policy will be entirely discounted by the change they are making in special area development status for part of Scotland.
Mr. Alex Eadie: What my right hon. Friend is saying can be confirmed by reference to the experience of Midlothian County Council. It can substantiate his case by the fact that firms which previously had an interest in going to Midlothian are either no longer interested or are reluctant to go or are in a state of indecision about going.
Mr. Ross: That experience is certainly relevant to my case. The statements I have quoted relate to major companies. Of course, many of the smaller companies will not proceed and will not tell the authorities. The latest figures we had received before leaving office were that jobs resulting from industrial development certificates would total over 55,000. Last week, we were given the figure of 40,000. The attrition has started. The right hon. Gentleman cannot create alibis now. The Government have been in office since 18th June. They must accept responsibility for the climate of opinion and the lack of confidence in the economy —a lack of confidence they themselves created.
Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the point I put. Can he explain why the downturn in investment started, as he says, in the early summer, when his investment grants scheme was still running until 27th October?
Mr. Ross: The Government proclaimed their intention. Perhaps that is one of their troubles. They think that no one is listening to them. Indeed, few people listened to the Conservative Party in Scotland and few took them seriously. It was on 28th September, 1969, that the present Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, in a discussion with James Gordon on Scottish television, said that there would be a large cut in the money that was being spent in developing industry in Scotland. The Secretary of State still has to square his statements about the differential being the same and the amount of money being the same. Someone is kidding him, because I would
1712
not accuse him of trying to kid us. He has amply demonstrated his ignorance. Someone has taken advantage of his kindness of heart.
We were also told at the time that the regional employment premium, another direct incentive, was also to be cut. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Select Committee's Report about the R.E.P.? It contains no indication of condemnation of R.E.P. Nor is there any indication of condemnation in the evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman studies Question No. A141 and the answer given by Sir Robert Maclean, he will see exactly what that very distinguished public servant had to say.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is arguing about on this. As I said, the decision was that the regional employment premium should continue from last October for the four years remaining to the end of the seven years for which it was introduced.
Mr. Ross: We have been told that it is to be ended. We have not been told that it is going to be replaced by something else. We are told that the same amount of money is going to be spent on regional incentive in Scotland, but it just does not add up. Sir Robert Maclean was asked about all the incentives. He replied
"They are very significant. The investment grant is very important indeed. There is no doubt that the regional employment premium is very important. The availability of factories is very important. They are all of a piece. If any one of these three were taken away I am not sure the stool would not collapse."
The Government have now cut off two of the three legs. They have announced the ending of the regional employment premium and have already withdrawn investment grants. Yet, as Sir Robert pointed out, they all hang together—and that is certainly what the Government should be doing. He went on:
"I would hesitate to say which was the most important to an individual industrialist. You may get a firm which says it lays more emphasis on getting a factory quickly; they may say 'Give us an advance factory, we have enormous orders;'"—
I think we might have got an announcement about an advance factory today. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get the Elgin factory out of his system. Sir Robert continued:
—"'let us get going; this is what matters.' Another firm would say, 'This is carefully,

1713
calculated, deliberate policy and R.E.P. means a lot to us.' So that I would not care to distinguish between the force of these three incentives, the three incentives being R.E.P., the availability of a factory, and different rate of grants. They are like the three legs of a stool. If you knock any one away, the whole may collapse. I lay almost equal importance on each one of these three."
So, the Government have ignored the advice of those who know Scottish industry best. That is why we condemn the Government. There is plenty of evidence in the Report of the Select Committee besides that of Sir Robert Maclean's. For example, evidence was also given by the Chairman of Swan Hunter about the regional employment premium and other forms of aid given by the Labour Government. This is important when one remembers the whole climate of the new philosophy, although it is not a new philosophy, because in 1970 the Tories have caught up with the philosophy which Wolverhampton, South-West had in 1967. It is the philosophy of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, the philosophy that if lame ducks cannot stand on their own feet, they should be allowed to go.
What effect did that philosophy have on the prospects of industries which are important to Scotland, the motor car industry and the shipbuilding industry, for example, which have been in receipt of considerable help through the Shipbuilding Industry Board or the Industrial Expansion Act, or in other ways? They were rescued by the Labour Government which made the money available to them. That speech guaranteed not to help them in their fight for strength and viability. I hope that the Secretary of State will assure us that he and the Government will fight to ensure the viability and continued existence of industries which are important to Scotland, and to do that he will need to do more than merely tinker with special development area status.
I come next to I.D.C.s. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is still a member of the Government. He is becoming nearly as bad as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) at swallowing his speeches. It must be difficult for some of these hon. Members to live with their past. He is a signatory of the
1714
Report. The whole subject of I.D.C.s is discussed on page 61 and the conclusion is that which was reached by people who studied the position a long time ago—that one of the factors of a successful regional policy is the maintenance of tight I.D.C. control.
The hon. Member for Ayr said that Scotland should not be worried because in the South-East and the London area and the West Midlands the I.D.C. limits had been raised from 3,000 to 5,000 sq. ft., and outside those areas from 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft., because no application within those brackets had been turned down. He did not say how many applications had not been made because of the existence of the limits. He must know that if he raises the limits, there will be pressure to go even further. Before long, the C.B.I. policy, which is to get rid of the I.D.C.s altogether and to allow industry to make its own choice, will be found acceptable for the whole of trade and industry. I cannot believe that any Secretary of State for Scotland would agree to that. I hope that I may give the right hon. Gentleman credit for fighting.
However, the credibility of the hon. Member for Ayr comes into this matter, for he signed the Report on 13th May and it says:
"We would be strongly opposed to a relaxation of the I.D.C. scheme."
There are no doubts about that.
"The fact that the statistics do not give incontrovertible grounds for regarding I.D.C.s as an effective incentive to move to a Development Area could indeed mean that the scheme needs to be strengthened or more rigorously applied."
That was the advice of the Scottish Select Committee. But the Secretary of State paid no attention to that advice. He brushed it aside and now he wonders why we condemn him.
We believe that the new policy will significantly affect the movement of industry to the intermediate or development areas. The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a policy which must make areas dependent on maximising the amount of industry which may be steered there. It does not add up or make sense. He has not been fair with the House about the amount of work which has been done by the Select Committee, and he has not been fair about what has been achieved.

1715
The right hon. Gentleman made much play with the unemployment figures. The Committee considered the subject of the loss of jobs. This, too, was signed by the hon. Member for Ayr. I imagine that he believed what he was signing. On pages 88 and 89, he will find what the Committee had to say about the loss of jobs. The Committee pointed out that the kind of jobs lost could be the kind that Scotland would need to lose. That was implicit in some of the policies announced in the Beeching Plan, and one of the last statements which John Maclay made in the House was about closures to come in the mining industry. From 1964 to 1969, agriculture lost about 20,000 jobs. Do we want those jobs back, or was the decline an improvement in the efficiency of agriculture? About 20,000 were lost in mining and about 20,000 on the railways-I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman racing to end the closure proposal in his own area in the north of Scotland.
This kind of process accompanies rationalisation. Our forecast of the number of new jobs was well up to the mark and we achieved what we expected to get in the number of new jobs and we were able to insulate the Scottish economy from the worst effects of the measures which had to be taken to deal with the Tory legacy of a balance of payments deficit of £800 million.
Mr. Brewis Mr. Brewis rose——
Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the argument; it is a rather contorted argument, but it is not assisted by intervention.
The Report shows that, but for the measures we took, the fall in the number of jobs in Scotland would have been even greater. The Report says that but for the measures to insulate Scotland and other development areas from the effects of the policy of economic restraint, the figures for unemployment in Scotland would have been much greater. The hon. Member for Ayr and his colleagues signed a Report which was the result of two years' work and then he comes to the House and denies everything he signed in this calculated, considered Report.
Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ross: I have taken a long time. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will tell him what he wants to say. He is mesmerised by the figure of 82,000. He is a drug addict. He has a capacity for looking facts and figures straight in the face and then looking beyond them and through them. I call it Perthshire blindness.
Mr. MacArthur Mr. MacArthur rose——
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance to speak; we have heard it all.
Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman has heard nothing yet.
Mr. Ross: About 10,000 jobs were lost in domestic service. These were the wonderful jobs in Scotland which the Tories would have preserved. They say that we should not have gone in for light industry and computers and so on, but should have concentrated on domestic servants for the lairds.
Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. We are now in looking-glass-land. If the right hon. Gentleman is courteous enough to answer suspected questions now, will he not allow me first to put the questions so that the answers may have greater relevance to what I propose to put to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Speaker: I do not recognise any matter of order in that.
Mr. Ross: Nice to have you on my side, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I must bring the right hon. Gentleman away from that view. I am strictly impartial.
Mr. Ross: The position is that once again we saw a run-down of the heavy industries in Scotland——
Mr. MacArthur: Why?
Hon. Members: Grow up.
Mr. Ross: There was a run-down of the old industries, which were replaced by lighter industries.
Mr. MacArthur: Read the Report.
Mr. Ross: I am reading it. The hon. Gentleman should read it and he would appreciate the position. We have

1717
youngsters staying on at school over the age of 15. I suppose that they should have left school and done milk and paper rounds. These jobs have gone, thank goodness. Youngsters are staying on at school, getting better qualifications for better jobs. We have more students; we have 2,000 more students in our technical colleges. If we take our colleges of education and universities, we can add another 12,000. Add to that the number of people over 65 and altogether there is a figure of 41,000. What the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate is that the older industries had begun to decline——
Mr. Younger: Can I help the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Ross: If I ever wanted the help of the hon. Gentleman it would be the last thing that I would take.
Mr. Younger Mr. Younger rose——
Mr. Ross: No, I am sorry I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman accused me of being something the other night which is contrary to the order of the House of Commons. He did not withdraw it, and I have no intention of giving way.
We come to the point when we have to ask whether I have justified the last part of the Amendment:
"— weaken industrial development certificate control and reduce the level of regional assistance given general acceptance in the Report."
I do not think there is any doubt, when we take R.E.P., investment grants and the rest of it, that the difference will be made up by the Local Employment Act. We have experienced the Local Employment Act. The last time it was changed was 1960. Scottish unemployment was 4·4 per cent., and three years later after these great improvement, it was 7·7 per cent. The position in the Scottish development area was worse than when they started.
The hon. Gentleman forgets this but he had better learn by heart that for 18 months, from the winter of 1962 right through the whole of 1963 and the spring of 1964 the average unemployment rate in Scotland was over 100,000 per month. That was the achievement of hon. Gentlemen. The result was that the other thing that we inherited was a net emigration rate running at 45,000 a year.
1718
When we left office we had halved that, bringing it down to 21,000. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot run away from their past. Their past has been a history of saving money on regional development and allowing big business to make its own decisions unhampered by intervention from the centre.
This has been bolstered up by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It was on 30th September when he announced his new measures, and said he would not ram down the throat of industry things it did not want. He said he would consult industry and do what it wanted. Industry wants to stay where it is. Industry is concerned only with itself and it has no responsibility for the welfare for the people of Scotland.
What we require is a ruthless treatment of I.D.C.s. We require an incentive scheme which will stand up to the demands of the area, not one meant to suit the taxation needs of industry, and we require a level of assistance which was envisaged by this Report as being presently just about right in the circumstances. Hon. Gentlemen have a lot to answer for. The right hon. Gentleman cannot write off the fact that employment was rising when we left office. He has been there for over seven months now. As a member of the Cabinet he has a partial responsibility for an economic policy which is leading to economic muddle. The Government have not solved the problem of inflation and are not likely to. They have scrapped anything they had which could help them control prices and they must accept responsibility for this.
I will end with a comment from Monday's Financial Times, which said:
"…industry will have to be given greater grounds for confidence if investment is to revive."
There is no confidence in the future of the economy and of this country under this Government. That is why we have taken the exceptional step of taking note of the work of our colleagues, not merely regretting that the Government have paid no attention to it but condemning them for what they have done.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member I would ask hon. Members to be as short as possible. I have a long list of speakers.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. The point that I wish to raise, which has been raised by other of my hon. Friends, has to do with the practice of arranging a list of speakers before a debate continues, encouraging Members to send in their names and on this basis having a debate that is already cut and dried before it begins. Hon. Members on both sides who do not like this practice feel that there is no sense in their being here at all. If their names are not down, if they have not sent in their names, there is no chance of their being called. May I say that for my part, and I am sure that many hon. Members feel the same way, I deprecate this practice and should like to go back to the situation whereby we took our chance without this list of names?
Mr. Speaker: I agree very much with what the hon. Member has said. It is true that some hon. Members send in their names but I certainly do not make up my mind until I have seen what is happening in the Chamber and have seen who is getting up to catch my eye.
Mr. John Rankin: Further to that point of order. On various occasions we have heard Speakers urge those who hope to be called to speak as briefly as possible. We have already listened to two speeches which I am certain were as short as possible. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on what you mean by "as short as possible"? Is it 10 minutes, 15 minutes, before a Member should pack up?
Mr. Speaker: There was a report from the Select Committee on Procedure which suggested that any member on the back benches should be able to compress his thoughts and ideas into 15 minutes, to the advantage of the House. That was a guide given by the Select Committee which was not, however, accepted by the House.
Mr. James Dempsey: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that many Members who send in their names feel that they have a much better prospect of being called to speak than those who have not gone to the trouble of doing so? As one who never goes
1720
to the trouble of doing so, may I point out that it is not because of disinterest. I am very interested in these matters. Would it not be worth while considering dispensing with the practice of Members sending in their names and letting us take our chance?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot prevent Members from writing to me asking to be called or writing to me complaining that they have not been called. The only advantage of a list is that it enables the Chair to ascertain how frequently Members have intervened in debates before and to try to call Members who have not done so.
5.40 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: I shall be very brief. I sent in my name in the hope of intervening at the end of the debate when we had discussed the problems of Central Scotland and I should be able to say that the North-East had been neglected once again. I am sure that what I say will apply equally at twenty to ten tonight.
The problems of North-East Scotland tend to be overshadowed by the noiser debate on and noiser debaters from Central Scotland. I was slightly disappointed to learn that we have a new special development area there because even more time of Scottish Committees and meetings will be taken up discussing the Central Lowlands.
In those parts of the country from which a few of us come there is a feeling that industrial expansion, although it is paramount, has possibly got in front of a Government attitude which applies equally to this Government as to the last Government, that regional development has lost its social objective, and paradoxically, in the north-east of Scotland, agriculture and the preservation of the rural economy might well prove by the 21st century to have been a better long-term bet than some of the indiscriminate industrial expansion which is taking place today. When we hear the use on political platforms of phrases like "the quality of life", "leisure", "the requirements of tourism", and "the coming century of better communications", I like to think that the urban jungles which many of my hon. Friends represent are on the decline.
In the North-East industrial expansion simply means the word "jobs", and the

1721
rate of unemployment, the low activity rate, especially among women, and the widespread use of labour at low levels of productivity are extremely relevant to plans for attracting and expanding industries in the North-East.
I have already appealed to my right hon. Friend about the location of central Government offices in the North-East, and, as an ex-military man starting at the bottom of politics instead of in the conventional military way at the top, I should like to put in a plea to bring more commercial life to North-East Scotland by stationing and training Army units recruited in Scotland in our part of the country. Why should Salisbury Plain get all the money which could well be going into Aberdeen and other places in the North, like Inverness?
May I say as a newcomer to local politics that housing renewal and urban redevelopment must be placed squarely in the context of regional development. It is tragic that the extreme policies being followed in the North-East are deliberately running down our rural areas on the false assumption that the population will in this way be redistributed towards the major growth centres.
Those of us who have read and studied the Gaskin Report know that the North-East has been told that it can support only two main zones of concentration—from the outskirts of suburban Aberdeen running along the Lower Don Valley to Inverurie, and, secondly, the area around Elgin, Forres, Buckie and Keith. But this is at the expense of our other smaller, but viable centres of population. I believe, however, that the overall economy of our area is unlikely to be stabilised by this over-selective policy, and the conclusion of the Gaskin Report was that it is such stability towards which we should be working.
It is wrong deliberately to run down the villages and smaller towns. It is wrong to hasten the decline of any village or town in the North-East which has the ability to remain reasonably viable in its own right, or which could even serve as an attractive satellite or dormitory settlement for some of the larger centres.
A policy of concentrating population in fewer larger villages, if carried to the extreme, will do more harm than good.
1722
In my village, apart from the rise in the school population when I moved in with my family, it is the presence of a distillery which provides exactly 60 per cent. of the children in the school. But for this distillery the school would be closed. We have heard a plea for the children living in the terrible conditions in Glasgow which I well know and which I agree are disgraceful. These are the children who will be the work force of Scotland later in this century. If they are well-distributed, as they are now, in the North-East, this is an aid to both economic expansion and a better way of life.
The contraction of employment in agriculture in the North-East has gone far enough. Expansion in the agricultural industry should be sought just as much as it is in the heavy industries which have been discussed today. Perhaps the new policy on the rating of intensive livestock units will help. Retaining good agricultural land at the expense of attracting suitable sites for building and factory expansion is important in this context.
I believe—and I am glad to have been able to say this at an early stage because I shall be having my supper when other hon. Members are waiting to speak—that the North-East must be preserved in its unique entirety as far as possible and that social engineering—the dreaded phrase used in the books—which tends to ignore the importance of rural communities is short-sighted.
In Aberdeenshire we do not cry for the moon. But it is a terrible reflection on man's folly to be thinking in terms of settlement on the moon in the 21st century when the land mass at our very doorstep is being neglected.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. John Robertson: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Col. Mitchell). I am sure that we are happy to leave the North-East to him—at least as much of it as my party is prepared to leave to him. I found his speech very refreshing, but I wonder what the occupants of the Government Front Bench thought about it.
If the Secretary of State had dared to speak to the Report we might have had a much more interesting debate. Instead of that we have had a knockabout. I

1723
have been waiting seven months to hear what the right hon. Gentleman will do. We went in a delegation to see him and to ask him what he proposed to do. We said, "There is a problem. What will you do about it?". He said, "It is not my fault. The problem was there when I took office". We have not yet heard what he proposes to do about it.
Today we heard about special aid to Glasgow, but how many more jobs will that create? I have just heard, and I am very thankful to hear it, although I do not know the truth of it, that U.C.S. are not going into liquidation. What relief that will create. That is the message that has just been delivered to me. It may be true or it may not, but it is at least some relief till we get some official news.
Good gracious, imagine what happened today. We wait anxiously for the Scottish Office to tell us something of what is happening, but no news do we get. The Government do not know. There are those 80,000 jobs they talk about. They do not know where they have gone. They spend a lot of time chasing them but they do not know where they have gone. Meantime we are not just losing jobs in pits, in agriculture, in shipbuilding, on the railways, but we are losing jobs in the new electronic industries, in the new science-based industries which we have brought at so much expense up to Scotland. That is where we are suffering injury now, not in the old industries which were dying anyway, but in the new industries which were being brought to Scotland. Not a word did we hear about them today.
The Government seem quite happy to say that all these difficulties and problems were somebody else's fault. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken the trouble to read the Report we produced at a good deal of trouble and some considerable expense to somebody or another, because we journeyed to all kinds of places, for instance, to Inverness where we did very well, and I shall be happy to go there again, that speech which we heard from the right hon. Gentleman today could never have been made. Hon. Members opposite have not read the Report and have not read the evidence in it.
One or two hon. Gentlemen opposite endorse the Report, and, indeed, so much
1724
of it is theirs, and recommendations of theirs are contained in the Report, but what do the Government say about it? All they significantly say about it is that they have not read it. That is what they have actually said. That is the significant point. That is the point made in the speech we heard from that Front Bench today: "We did not bother to read it".
Nor is there any use in their saying that the reasons for the closures and for the redundancies all arose from what happened before last June. It is probably true that these difficulties are due to things which happened before last June, because, for one thing, the right hon. Gentleman was stumping the country telling us what was going to happen if the Tory Party were not elected in June, and that was enough to frighten anybody away. There was that famous speech in Perth. Possibly hon. Members opposite do not remember it. If they do not remember it the industrialists in Scotland remembered it, and they acted accordingly. They started then to make decisions not to invest in Scotland, and that has been going on ever since. We went into the evidence and questioned a great many people about it, industrialists in Scotland, people with expert knowledge.
Although it is probably true that there were errors of policy which could be legitimately criticised, as I have myself criticised them, the last Administration at least attempted to find a whole solution of the problem. One could disagree with parts of it. Indeed, it can be seen from the evidence that there were some disagreements with this or that or another part, but everyone agreed that there was at least an attempt to grapple with the problem—not a problem which has arisen since 1964, but a problem which has been with us for hundreds of years, and with which the people of the Tory Party and in Tory Governments had failed to grapple through all that time, not only in the 13 terrible years, the 13 wasted years, but for years and years before that, during which we had this dreadful problem in Scotland. I know something about it, because I had to spend many years of unemployment in Scotland. At least there was by the last Administration an attempt to find a regional policy, even thought it did not do all the things it was supposed to do.

1725
What have we got now? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen oposite have come along and said, "The policies of the last Administration have not been successful. They failed, and consequently here we are with a new kind of policy which will succeed", I would have been happier than I feel now, because all that the right hon. Gentleman did was to make a knockabout speech telling us nothing at all, except that he mentioned three schemes. Of the scale and detail of them we know nothing so that we cannot apply them to the problem, we cannot assess them. No one who heard that speech today can see very much future for Scotland or the Scottish people. It frightens me. It is far too serious a matter for just a party knockabout speech.
I had a special interest in the Committee's work, particularly about training of young people, although, of course, with adult retraining, too. Although there were weaknesses there, too, the picture was pleasing. For instance, the number of children leaving school with certificates was increasing and increasing significantly; and the number of young people taking training was also rising. Industry itself did not want too much specialised education and would rather recruit people with a broadly based education, and it would seem that they were the kind of people we were sending out.
The problem is that if we train a youngster, in the North-East or in a Border rural area, where there is no industry or factory in his immediate neighbourhood, it is very difficult to find him other than a dead-end job. He has to take whatever job is available even though his ability and aptitudes fit him for something much better. Even so, there were signs that the training boards recognised this problem, and they tried to set up schemes for training way up in the north of Scotland for boys and girls even though, at that point in time, they could not be employed in industry there. Industries recruited in the north and made arrangements to bring boys and girls down south or into the midlands of Scotland and give them the necessary training. We were making progress.
Two things bother me a bit now. The run-down of industry means that there will be fewer places for the trainees. It
1726
means that the needs of industry for the trainees are a great deal less than they were two years ago. Secondly, there is a fall off in adult training.
Moreover, with the cuts or probable cuts in the educational programme, training centres will not be expanded to meet the needs there are. The suggestion is being made that, when the school leaving age is raised to 16, pupils should be attending further education classes at least one day, or perhaps two days, a week, and that means that valuable places will be taken up which could be occupied by people from industry. So we can expect to find some problem over day release classes, though I hope it will not happen.
The great weakness of all the planning and thinking about regional policy is the complete lack of manpower forecasting, without which the right decisions on training, education and many other matters cannot be made. Unless the Government get down to this aspect we shall never give the right training to the right people in the right quantity at the right time.
Our investigation was a preliminary run to discover the scope of the question before us, and the breadth of our inquiry was narrow. What we need now, on the basis of this first Report, is for the Committee to be reconstituted to go in greater depth into some aspects of the matters raised in the Report, and to come to conclusions. I enjoyed my time on the Committee and I hope that it will be reconstituted so that we can continue with this job.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. John Brewis: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), who did such a valuable job as chairman of the sub-committee which looked into industrial training, but I am sorry that the debate on the Select Committee's Report should have had a Motion of censure put down upon it, because a Motion of censure brings out the worst in all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, and we shall not be able fully to discuss the Report. It would have been much better if the Opposition had used a Supply Day if they thought that this was a subject on which a debate was worth while.

1727
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) juggled with figures to try to hide the actual facts, and told us that the redundancies which would occur were already known. His approach seems incredible when one looks at the figures given in his White Paper on the Scottish Economy, 1965–70 (Cmnd. 2864), when he estimated a yearly increase of 10,000 jobs. I find it extraordinary that anyone should say that the previous Government's measures for encouraging industry were comprehensive when they brought in selective employment tax, put up transport costs, which are so immensely important in Scotland, and discriminated against the service industries. Experience shows that regional policy and jobs depend on a satisfactory growth rate in the economy, which the last Government singularly failed to achieve during most of their term of office. When the economy is buoyant and industry sees good investment opportunities, the development areas benefit.
All parties are convinced of the importance of regional development, but we must see that the package of inducements is right to take advantage of the upturn of the economy. The Labour Party's failure was not that it did not give sufficient attention to regional development but that it failed gruesomely in the way in which it ran the national economy.
I do not want to spend much time on the change which has been made from investment grants to free depreciation. The reasons for the change are given in paragraph 2 of the White Paper "Investment Incentives", which was published in October, and they seem good reasons to me. The previous scheme favoured capital intensive industries. It was not tied to employment. Taking the projection up to 1974 and 1975 which is in the appendix, it is calculated that the cost would have been the huge sum of £725 million. The Conservative Government think that free depreciation will be cheaper and equally effective. When it was originally introduced in 1963 its reception was encouraging. Speaking from memory, in the first half year of 1964 there were four times as many applications for I.D.C.s in development districts as there were before.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is talking about free depreciation in the context of letting the national economy grow to achieve a growth rate at that period of 6 per cent. Is he saying that he will let the United Kingdom economy grow to get a 6 per cent. growth rate, because that is the only way under free depreciation to get growth of industry in Scotland?
Mr. Brewis: I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may be able to elaborate it.
The Select Committee heard a certain amount of evidence from industrialists that they preferred free depreciation, and this has been reinforced by the inquiry of the Department of Trade and Industry which was announced in a Written Answer on 14th December. This showed that 60 per cent. of the industrialists questioned, representing 60 per cent. of the amount invested, preferred free depreciation, while 20 per cent., representing 35 per cent. of investment, preferred industrial development grants. We must take into account the views not so much of academics and theoreticians but of the people who will establish industries in the regions.
Mr. Dempsey: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many industrialists were circularised and what percentage that was of all the industrialists in Scotland?
Mr. Brewis: I cannot say offhand, but I think from memory about 300 firms were circularised of which about 45 per cent. responded. The rest were followed up and interviewed. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer he will get the figures.
I should like to raise one question. What is to happen to firms starting up for the first time in Scotland and foreign firms coming to Scotland who have no British record of profits? Even if they get assistance under the Local Employment Acts, will that be equal to 100 per cent. free depreciation? Assistance under the Local Employment Acts is tied to the provision of so much employment for so much grant. With a capital intensive industry, might not a British firm like I.C.I., which has a profit record against which it can set free depreciation, be in a much better position than, say, a competing American or Common Market firm

1729
which would not have a profit record and might not get the grant in a capital intensive industry because the amount required was more than the limit of so much per job?
I turn to the other inducements, negative and positive, which we considered in the Select Committee. The evidence we had from the Scottish Office was that the I.D.C. system was a vital system of control. I do not question this, but I wonder how effective it is. Obviously, the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry have to exercise their discretion, bearing in mind the overriding importance of the national economy. The number of I.D.Cs refused in non-development areas seems disappointingly small. Between 1965 and 1968 during the term of the previous Government, 90 per cent. by number and 85 per cent. by floor area in the South-East and Midlands of England were granted. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that it was necessary to have ruthless treatment of I.D.Cs, but by 1969 the figures were worse—92 per cent. by number and 88 per cent. by floor area were granted.
I admit that these figures may be misleading, but we must bear in mind that a company could find vacant premises even in the centre of London and at the moment move into those premises without an industrial development certificate. Certainly the advertisements in the Financial Times or the Economist for new premises in industrial estates in the Midlands show that I.D.C.s are not so hard to get as they ought to be.
Mr. John Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that we could scrap I.D.Cs altogether, or that we should put forward a tougher I.D.C. policy? The Committee recommended a tougher policy in this respect.
Mr. Brewis: I think we are in agreement on this. I am not recommending the scrapping of I.D.Cs. It is relevant in showing the comparative ineffectiveness of I.D.Cs that no other developed Western European country, with perhaps one exception, has adopted this system. Clearly the I.D.C. system needs reinforcement.
I wish to draw the Government's attention to the cost of congestion. We discovered
1730
in the Committee that no study had been carried out on this matter either by the Labour Government or by any other Government, except possibly by the Ministry of Transport in connection with motor cars. If people migrate from Scotland or Wales to seek work in the English Midlands, the cost of building new houses and of providing the social infrastructure will be great indeed. I personally recommend that thought should be given to the dissenting note in the Hunt Report by Professor Brown, in which he recommends a congestion tax. I cannot obviously enter into the arguments he deploys in that Report, but they are also to be found in the Report of the Select Committee. Such a tax might take the form of a graduated payroll tax and be phased to replace S.E.T. and probably regional employment premium as well. But such a tax would not discriminate against the service industries which can make a contribution to providing employment in Scotland.
We know the stock answer: "Why give inducements for a new shop to open up in the High Street which will take away custom from an existing shop?" But the service industries mean much more than just the retail trade. Merchant banks and insurance companies, for example, are heavily concentrated in London, which is the main financial centre of our country, but some 15 per cent. of financial business in the United Kingdom is transacted in Edinburgh. The logic of the suggestion I am putting forward is that Edinburgh should no longer be excluded from development area status. Much more study needs to be done of the service industries. We heard evidence from Professor Wilson of Glasgow University. It is interesting to see that the Highland Development Board has the power to encourage service industries in its area. I believe I am right in saying 60 per cent. of the new jobs in the Highlands are not in manufacturing.
I welcome the extension of the new tax allowances announced by the Government to the service industries. Scottish Members of Parliament who represent development areas have not perhaps realised that their constituencies are not now so near the top of the queue in the hierarchy for assistance. The first and the highest rank is the extra inducement given to industry in Northern Ireland; then there is the Highland Development

1731
Board, which has its edge; then there are special development districts, about which we have had a further announcement today, and which in general I very much welcome. Only fourthly do we come to the ordinary development areas, and competing to a certain extent with them are the intermediate areas. In fact, there are areas that are development areas with problems equal to or worse than the situation in the Highlands.
I turn to the Report, "A Strategy for South West Scotland" which covers the area I represent. Paragraph 4 says
"Since 1965, however, the rate of decline in population has worsened because of higher migration and lower natural increase. At the same time unemployment has risen in absolute numbers and in relation to the Scottish average."
It then mentions the male unemployment level as
"now one and a half times the Scottish average and two and a half times the United Kingdom rate."
On page 10, dealing with the Machars of Wigtownshire, it says
"it is clear that unless special measures are taken a continuing serious decline must be expected."
Certainly the unemployment figures are alarming. Male unemployment between 1966 and 1969 in Newton Stewart has gone up from 6·6 per cent. to 7·9 per cent. but that covers over 15 per cent. unemployment in the Whithorn area; in Stranraer the figure has gone up from 7·3 per cent, to 9·9 per cent.; in Sanquhar from 6·7 per cent. to 25·6 per cent.; and in Girvan from 5·9 per cent. to 10·6 per cent. The last two localities are special development areas, but it is surely intolerable that there should be 9·9 per cent. and probably higher unemployment in the Stranraer area now and that it should not be given special development area status.
I argued for this status for a long time when the Labour Government were in power, but was always told that such status could only be given to colliery areas. I therefore welcome the extension of the principle announced by my right hon. Friend today. But there is an alternative. Let us make more use of the Development Commission and give that Commission the same sorts of powers and edge in rural areas as has been given to the Highland Development Board. At
1732
present the Development Commission works mostly in Mid-Wales. Why should it not come to some of the rural areas in Scotland?
We had some exchanges in the Select Committee about small industries being allowed to go to Glasgow and other big towns. Such factories employing a dozen or two dozen workers can make negligible contributions to a big town, but they could transform the position in a rural area. Let us have a conscious policy of keeping such factories away from cities and give an edge to the Development Commission so that it can get on with the job.
I hope that the Government will take up some of these points, all of which were discussed in the Select Committee. They do not add up to a greatly increased expenditure. Indeed, if a congestion tax were adopted, it might reduce Government expenditure. I am convinced that we must have the right packet of inducements available to offer when the economy swings up again so that we can obtain the maximum advantage.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) always speaks with a good deal of reason, and we would not disagree with much of what he says. The difference between his speech and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland is that at least the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the Report which we are supposed to be debating. Our objection was to the fact that the Secretary of State dealt a calculated insult to the Committee.
The point was well made by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in a devastating exposé of the case, not only of what the Labour Government did, but of what the present Government are not doing. After hearing the Secretary of State, we begin to understand why he is coy and shy about making speeches in the House. If he is going to make that kind of speech, I hope he will stay away more often. It was no contribution to solving the problems that we are discussing. We can bandy figures around to prove that one Government was worse or better than another. The Secretary of State quoted the July, 1970, figure of 93,000 unemployed. I quickly looked up

1733
the figure for July, 1963; it was over 94,000. Where does one go from there? What is the object of making that kind of point?
I was interested in what the Secretary of State said about the need to improve infrastructure. The Conservative Party made this point at the General Election. The figures of public expenditure in the White Paper show how promises are matched by performance. Taking the housing figure, which I endeavoured to quote at Question Time today, one finds that projected public expenditure on housing is virtually the same for 1969–70 and 1974–75. This can only impose a cut in the total number of houses or a massive cut in the subsidies, or both. The Secretary of State steadily refutes these charges. He refused to answer my hon. Friend's question today. My hon. Friend did not ask for a target for housing, but whether the present Government would exceed in any one year during which they are in power the figure of 44,000 which we achieved last year.
The same applies to other infrastructure matters. For example, the figure in the White Paper for expenditure on education is, in round figures, £240 million in 1969–70 and £271 million in 1974–75. Presumably all of that is devoted to the additional expenses due to the raising of the school leaving age. What real improvement will there be in education in Scotland, which plays a very large part in its future economic well being?
What will be the future of the Select Committee? Anyone in Scotland who reads the Report will admit that nowhere at any time has such an investigation in depth of the Scottish economy taken place. It is almost incredible that we should have a virtually unanimous report from that Committee with one exception—and we all know what happened to her. We can commend ourselves that the Committee took such an objective view of the Scottish economy. Why then is the Government so chary about setting up the Committee this Session. We appreciate their difficulties as to both numbers and ability on their side to man the Committee. But they can rest assured that we shall object strongly if there are members from the other place on the Committee, for they have nothing whatever to do with us. Anyone who reads the debate on the Scottish Highlands which took place last
1734
week in the other place must realise the depths which the Conservative Party would plumb if it appointed gentlemen from that place to a Committee examining the Scottish economy.
I want to refer briefly to the appointment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to the office that he now occupies. He made reference the other night to the part which I played in a debate some two years ago. That was entirely a matter of private enterprise. which I believe in—in this place anyhow. I was under no pressure from anybody. I did that entirely off my own bat and I take full responsibility for it. What I was endeavouring to do then—I hope with success, and the Scottish people evidently believed it—was to defend the record of the Labour Government over the years. The hon. Member for Ayr has had as bad a Press in Scotland about the alibis which he has produced for his lack of activity over the last six months as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who is a Common Marketeer and has done an about-turn on just about everything.
On regional policies in general, I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway that a buoyant economy overall is of far more significance than any incentives which any Government use to achieve regional differentiation. But there is much evidence that the Government's plans for regional development will have to be completely overhauled, even before they get off the ground.
In an article in the Sunday Times of 24th January Malcolm Crawford, the Economics Editor, wrote:
"Whitehall slates Tory regional plan. Conservative plans for regional policy are having to be completely re-thought as a result of criticisms contained in a confidential Whitehall study, which the new Government ordered when it took office. In view of the Government's commitment to abolish the £100 million a year regional employment premium in 1974 and its scaling down of capital plant incentives for development areas (by abolishing investment grants) the report concludes that additional support for depressed areas, in some form or other, will be needed if these regions are not to go rapidly downhill."
This is a report which has been presented to the Government by experts in Whitehall. The article continues:
"Tory policy is, in theory, to give whatever stimuli depressed regions need in the form of 'infrastructure' spending (public construction

1735
projects). But the departmental study is sceptical about the usefulness of this as a substitute for grants to industry. Infrastructure spending takes much longer to attract industry to a depressed area, officials hold, and the amount of money required to attract industry is much greater in terms of real resource costs."
There is no evidence in the White Paper on public expenditure that the Government accept that proposition. I want to know whether we shall see that report from officials in Whitehall which has been presented to Ministers and which directly challenges the efficacy of the Government's regional policy. The House has a right to see this assessment by Whitehall officials.
Scotland is in for some extremely rough weather in the next two or three years if the Government persist pig-headedly in their new pursuit. We can see it in Glenrothes. We have lost many jobs there in the last six months. There is a fear that American dumping of electronic components is losing us a lot of new jobs in Glenrothes and other towns. There is growing concern at the lack of clear Government policy. We understand that we shall be having a White Paper on regional policy. I do not know when that will come, but meanwhile the uncertainty is growing. Investment is virtually standing still. Unemployment has reached 100,000 men. That is significant. Never in any month in the six years of Labour Government did the figure reach 100,000. It is significant that in 1963 the average was 105,000, summer, winter, spring and autumn, and that after 12 years of the kinds of policy that the Government are now proposing.
The Secretary of State says that he intends to rely on the Local Employment Acts. I ask him to read the Report of the Estimates Committee which looked into the working of those Acts. That all-party Committee's Report made it very clear that investment was at its lowest when the need was greatest. These are the Acts on which the Government pin their faith. They have learned nothing since that Report was produced. Everyone knows it. Industrial experts, the C.B.I., the T.U.C.—every objective observer of the scene knows it
I come then to the article in the magazine Scotland, from which my right hon.
1736
Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) quoted. The Under-Secretary of State for Development goes piddling off to Germany and says that German industries will be coming to Scotland. I wager that he will not get one. Perhaps I might make one brief quotation from that article by Mr. Scott Nelson. He says:
"Cash assistance is the greatest attraction in terms of investment incentive. This is even more true of the foreign investor where the movement of funds and exchange complications make any local contribution to investment costs very acceptable. Of the O.E.C.D. countries Holland, Sweden, Germany, France and Italy give grants to attract private industry to the underdeveloped regions. Denmark and Norway give loan guarantees and Belgium offers cheap finance. All countries except Britain give favourable tax treatment for development area investment. … The overall picture however suggests that the United Kingdom as a whole must lose some ground to the other nations still offering cash grants. And on top of that if the foreign investment is attracted to the United Kingdom the incentives to select a development area rather than elsewhere are not now so strong."
Even assuming that the Government attract German industry, which I doubt, the incentives to go to development areas will be less strong than they were under the previous Government. However, because other countries in the O.E.C.D. give grants rather than the kinds of allowance that the Government have in mind, they are not likely to come to this country in any event.
The Government should be taking account of this kind of objective statement of the facts rather than heeding the skinheads in the Department of Trade and Industry. Skinheads there and skinheads from Wolverhampton will make no contribution to the economy of Scotland. We shall never get the kind of growth in Scotland that we want to see unless we pursue policies based on the acceptance of the fact that the economy can be planned. We cannot accept that the free play of market forces can provide the answer. But that is the essence of the policies of this Government.
If the Government allow that alone to influence them in their regional policies, we are in for the roughest time that we have had this century.
6.34 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: I was encouraged to hear the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who represents a constituency which has a

1737
fairly strong Left-wing bias, talking so much in favour of private enterprise. That is one of the troubles with the hon. Gentleman: he wants to hedge his bets.
One feature of debates on the Scottish economy which I find extraordinary is how definite people tend to be that they all know the answers. If we knew all the answers, there would be no problems in the Scottish economy. It is the fact that we have to change our policies and learn from experience all the time which makes it even more necessary to conduct a debate of this kind on a constructive level. It is no good hon. Members quoting figures for one year and comparing them with those for another year.
Mr. William Hamilton: The Secretary of State did.
Sir J. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend's reason for doing so was to protect himself against the totally unjustified Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). That preempts the argument by not wanting to begin the debate on a constructive basis. In this instance, the blame is on both sides. However, if it is done by one side, it must be taken up by the other. The time has come to knock a few heads together and get down to talking sense.
The former Secretary of State seemed certain that all the action taken under his leadership was right. The hon. Member for Fife, West quoted the unemployment figures in Scotland for 1963. However, I am certain that whatever happened to the unemployment figures after 1963 was probably the result of decisions taken back in 1962. That is the sort of time lag that we are dealing with when we discuss whether the number of available jobs is increasing or decreasing.
I do not believe that there is any relevance in the argument that because there happened to be a General Election in June there was a sudden difference to the economy. That is a matter which is tied up with the tenor of trade throughout the world and the number of orders which were on order books six or even nine months ago. It has nothing to do with the change in Government.
The Committee found that it was extremely difficult to pinpoint what it was that helped people. In my view, at the end of the day we shall finish up with a compromise between the two possibilities.
1738
When we get down to a consideration of investment grants and tax concessions, it is not easy to decide which is the better. Certain industries will do better with one sort of help. If we go on giving grants to others, we shall merely waste public money. In their case, it would be better to discontinue them.
Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of competition between the different types of incentive offered? Is he pressing his own Front Bench to offer a package of investment grants and tax-based incentives and allow firms to choose between the two?
Sir J. Gilmour: I do not think so, and I will give my reasons later. I will refer to one or two items in the Report and relate them to this point.
There are certain industries which have different problems and, therefore, need to be dealt with in a different way. That does not mean, however, that we should give an industry the opportunity to make its own choice. That would not be in the interests of the taxpayer. When we consider these matters, we must keep in mind all the time that we do not have unlimited money. We want to use the money at our disposal in the most efficient way to produce the desired results.
Turning to the Committee's Report, I want first to refer to paragraph III.4. It says that out of £308·7 million spent in the United Kingdom on support for industry and research and development in 1967–68, the Scottish share was £18·4 million, or only about 6 per cent. It became clear to the Select Committee that money spent on research and development generates jobs and that Scotland is not getting its fair share of research and development. That is one valuable contribution made by the Report, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friend will pay due attention to it.
Mr. Richard Buchanan: Is not the hon. Gentleman misreading the Report? Surely the amount spent on research and development in Scotland was about 11 per lent. of the corresponding United Kingdom total, not 6 per cent.
Sir J. Gilmour: The Scottish share was 6 per cent. Scotland has had a

1739
great turn-round from industries which were declining. This was another point which came out of the Report. The Scottish Office said that it was able to predict fairly accurately the number of jobs which would be won in new industries, but it failed to predict accurately the run-down in the older industries. This seems to suggest that we need to spend a greater proportion on research and development in areas like Scotland—not only in Scotland—than in other parts of the country. This was one valuable point which came from the Report.
Mr. Lawson: I think that, in fairness, the hon. Gentleman will agree that what emerged was that the industries predicted but failed to predict accurately.
Sir J. Gilmour: That is not entirely true. I should have to look up that point. I shall be glad to admit if I am wrong.
The Scottish Office witnesses said that they had found it easier to assess from what was being processed through the various Ministries about the growth of newer industries, but that they had not been able to make as good a judgment as they would like on the run-down of the older industries. It may be that they were misled by the estimates which were given. Indeed, many of the older industries were losing employment because of definite judgments which were being taken by the Government. In other words, if a squeeze is put on agricultural profits, the result is that fewer people are employed on the land. Therefore, the judgment which the Scottish Office and other people make at the time of a Price Review either accelerates or slows down what happens in this sphere. So it goes on in other industries.
On page 52 of the Report we come back to the point:
"The C.B.I. (London) considered that the grant exercised a marked influence only where the other benefits of location inside or outside the Development Areas were fairly evenly balanced".
What does not come out well enough in the Report is that the grant is very much influenced by the climate of the economy and the rate of interest at which people can borrow money. This has a great effect. This came out later in some
1740
of the evidence given to the Committee. A continuing hight rate of interest to be paid on borrowed money probably has a greater effect on slowing down the development of industry than anything else.
Mr. Ross: Surely, when considering the value of grants as against tax allowances, the fact of a 40 per cent. cash grant immediately reduces the amount which has to be borrowed and is prefer. able to an indefinite tax allowance?
Sir J. Gilmour: I agree. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that with a high interest borrowing rate for money the idea of getting a grant becomes increasingly attractive. This seems a matter of straight common sense. It is not easy to look at the matter in isolation and say that grants or other incentives are always better. There are times when the general economic climate of the country would force someone to change. We have to consider not only the industrialist's point of view but what, in the interests of the taxpayer, will get him the best value for money.
There are certain industries where consideration ought to be given to grants. One is the tourist industry. For instance, hotels in the Highlands area in out-of-the-way places with short seasons have to earn a return on their money in four or five months of the year. This type of industry needs its financial requirements to be judged in a different way from a factory which can operate on full capacity for 12 months of the year. That is why there is much to be said for not always saying that this is the only way that it can be done, and for having the possibility of choice so that certain means can be used for supporting certain industries and other means can be used for assisting other industries.
Mr. Brewis: Concerning the hotel which may be empty for seven months of the year, does my hon. Friend agree that some rebate on rates might be the better answer?
Sir J. Gilmour: I very much doubt it. It might be a more effective way of assisting, but I do not think so. The real trouble in the tourist industry, particularly in the remoter areas, is earning enough on the invested capital within a short season. If the investment is cut

1741
down by a grant, there is more hope that this can be achieved. I think that is worth considering.
Hon Gentlemen opposite have asked whether the Select Committee should be reappointed. The inquiry was very useful to those who sat on the Committee. It certainly taught us a good deal about how economic planning decisions are made. But, because the inquiry was so broad, it was difficult to pinpoint any way which would enable us to come back to the Government of the day, irrespective of which party was in power, and say "As a result of our deliberations, we believe that this is what should be done." If the Committee is reappointed, it would be more helpful if it could inquire into rather narrower areas which have been neglected in the past and look at certain items. I think that this would enable the Committee, if reconstituted, to carry out its work to the best effect.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. David Lambie: I should like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about the industrial future of Scotland depending on growth in the United Kingdom economy.
That point is brought out in the Report at page 92, paragraph VII.4, where it states:
"new industry which comes to Development Areas is certain to be a limited one at any period during which industrial growth in the United Kingdom as a whole is limited."
I am depressed that we should have a United Kingdom economy which is not buoyant. The Government's policy will not in the near future make the United Kingdom economy more buoyant. Therefore, as conditions get worse in Britain, the position in Scotland must get much worse.
It is true that a prosperous Scotland is dependent on a prosperous Britain. But it does not automatically follow that a prosperous United Kingdom means a prosperous Scotland. We had fairly substantial growth in the 1950s under a Conservative Government, but that growth did not follow through to Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gave figures covering
1742
that period. At one stage Scotland reached a figure of over 130,000 unemployed. It also had a net emigration rate of about 50,000 leaving Scotland for the more prosperous areas of the Midlands and south of England and countries like Canada and the United States. Therefore, it does not automatically follow that a prosperous United Kingdom means a prosperous Scotland.
Despite the new developments which took place under the last Labour Government and, to give them some credit, developments which took place during the previous Conservative Government's period of office, the economy of Scotland has been running down. That is not because the new developments have not been coming in. They were coming in in ever-increasing numbers under the Labour Government. We were reaching our targets, but what we did not see was that the old, basic industries of Scotland were declining faster and faster. We were not bringing in new jobs quickly enough to overtake the rundown in the traditional industries.
Moreover, with the modernisation of existing plants and the introduction of automation there has been an automatic decline in the demand for labour. I have heard statements that the electrification of the Carlisle-Glasgow line will mean a loss of 400 jobs; the modernisation of British Rail means an automatic loss of 400 jobs in areas in the South of Scotland that are among the hardest hit by unemployment.
Therefore, we must look for a new base, for new policies to put Scotland on an equal footing with the other areas of the United Kingdom, so that when the next Labour Government gets the British economy going again Scotland will be in the forefront of further development.
The prosperity of Scotland was based on cheap raw materials, on our native products—iron ore, coal, limestone and water. Those were the basic raw materials on which Scotland's heavy industries and her prosperity were built. Unfortunately, the new light engineering and science-based industries, instead of going to the traditional heavy industrial areas, went down to the market areas in the Midlands and Southern England. During the 1950s a triangle was built up of the prosperous

1743
Midlands and London area and the depressed heavy industrial areas of North-West England, North-East England, and the industrial areas of Scotland.
Scotland needs a new base to compare with the tremendous attraction of the large market in the Midlands and the south of England. That is why it was very disappointing to hear the Secretary of State's statement today, and to hear him make only a passing reference to the tremendous industrial development that could come from using the deep water facilities on the Clyde. I was very disappointed that he said that even development at Hunterston would give very little immediate aid to the unemployed in Scotland.
The Government have been floating a great winter relief scheme, and the Secretary of State took great credit for it today. The sum of £1¾ million is to be spent on Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman does not know how many jobs that will give us and how he will spend it, but it is to meet all the needs of the unemployed in Scotland—115,000 people.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I made it clear that it was an emergency scheme to provide help. That is what the deputation of Labour Members who came to see me in September recommended. They agreed that it was limited in what it could do. In answer to Questions and in letters I have indicated the allocation of money to different areas.
Mr. Lambie: The right hon. Gentleman made a great claim in his speech that the £1¾ million would solve the problem, that it would help to provide jobs for the 115,000 unemployed. Yet he is stopping a £40 million development by not giving a decision on the Hunterston inquiry. An American oil company wishes to spend £40 million to build an oil refinery in one of the areas of highest unemployment in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman is dithering, not giving any reply. The only information we have is leaked through the national Press. Therefore, I deny the right hon. Gentleman's statement that developments at Hunterston will not give any immediate benefit to the unemployed in Scotland. If he had taken his decision six months ago, as he should have done as the representative of the Scottish people, the refinery
1744
would have been under construction now, and 2,000 people would be preparing the land and putting in the services on that site. The total of 2,000 people who would be working but for the Secretary of State's lack of action is greater than the total who will obtain jobs as a result of the £1¾ million relief aid that he has given to the whole of Scotland.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I could not possibly have taken the decision then, because that was the moment, just under six months ago, when the Report of the inquiry came to me.
Mr. Lambie: It is the right hon. Gentleman's job to make a decision immediately he receives a report that is vital to Scotland. He knows that every individual who took part in the inquiry was given the evidence to consider two or three months before the publication of the Report. The only thing the right hon. Gentleman received about six months ago was the findings of the inquiry. It was his job to make as quick a decision as possible.
Scotland needs a new base. We must have an attraction that no other area in Britain has, and we have it in the deep water facilities in the estuary of the Clyde. It is the only estuary in Britain, and is one of the few estuaries in Western Europe, where the large new super bulk carriers can enter without any dredging and without any danger. During the past two or three months ship after ship has been involved in a collision or near-collision in the Channel. In the Clyde we see the best entry into the United Kingdom not being used because the Secretary of State is not prepared to give a decision that will alienate some of his Tory friends who live in the Hunterston and North Ayrshire area.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply to this matter truthfully at the end of the debate. It is all right sending men to Germany to obtain work. The Secretary of State should send his hon. Friend to Ayr County Council, who are prepared to go ahead with a project involving £600 million. It is ready for the go-ahead, but the Secretary of State is not prepared to give it.
The need for a decision by the right hon. Gentleman is even more urgent because, according to newspaper reports, the British Steel Corporation, in making

1745
its plans for steel development into the 1970s and 1980s, has decided that its first major project will be at Scunthorpe and its second at Redcar. Scotland is not mentioned. Yet at Hunterston we have an area already designated for a new integrated green field site. But unless the right hon. Gentleman speaks up for Scotland we shall not be in the list of priorities now being drawn up by the Corporation.
Mr. James Hamilton: My hon. Friend is on a very important point for Scotland, the question of steel production. I learnt from a very reliable trade union official last Friday that within the next five years the British Steel Corporation will close five steel plants in Scotland, and that no provision has been made yet to deal with this problem. I have a Question on the Order Paper about this, and I hope that the Government's reply will be that they are fighting to ensure that some of the steel industry is captured for Scotland.
Mr. Lambie: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I will go even further: by 1980 the Scottish steel industry will be liquidated, with only one ancient plant at Ravenscraig remaining.
Here we have a Secretary of State who never makes a statement in Parliament. All the information in Scotland comes through leaks in the Press. We are being governed now by reporters leaking information to the public. Unless the Secretary of State gets off his hind legs, brings back his man from Germany and sends him down to London, where the decisions affecting the future of Scottish steel will be made, Scotland will be bypassed again——
Mr. Paul Hawkins: Not so.
Mr. Lambie: It is all right for the hon. Gentleman, from his seat at the end of the Front Bench, to say that it is not true. He represents an English constituency. The Secretary of State and I represent Scottish constituencies, and want a voice in the future of Scottish steel.
I read in The Scotsman last week that the Secretary of State had received a memorandum prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry on the developments at Hunterston. He knows that during the Adjournment debate which I
1746
had on this I challenged the Under-Secretary to deny that an English Minister was interfering in a Scottish decision. That night he said that what I was saying was not true, and that the Secretary of State would take the decision himself.
Yet within a fortnight we had the Secretary of State's decision, stating that he was delaying making any decision on the Chevron Oil proposal at Huntersdon until he had considered a memorandum from the Department of Trade and Industry. Indeed, we know—not by a statement in the House but again through a leak in the Press—that the Secretary of State has that memorandum and he has said, according to the reporters, that he is not giving out information about the memorandum until he can give information to the objectors.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Member is misleading, and I must therefore intervene. Hon. Members can look up what he said in his Adjournment debate. When I took my decisions later, almost everything that he said was proved to be wrong. I decided to postpone the decision on the refinery—it was my decision—because I found that the information on which the reporter's report and recommendations had been based was by then out of date and the best way in which I would get the latest information was from the Department of Trade and Industry. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he reads too much in the newspapers and thinks that it is all correct, he himself will be greatly misled.
Mr. Lambie: If I do not read the newspapers I do not know what is going on, because the Secretary of State never speaks. He never makes a statement in the House. I agree with the Secretary of State that what I said was wrong, but, as a good Scotsman, when I heard that an English Minister was interfering in a Scottish political decision I assumed that he was doing that to harm Scotland.
Unfortunately, we have now to look to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for help—the biggest Tory of them all. We have to depend on him to tell the Secretary of State not to come down on this development, that the United Kingdom economy needs it. So that Secretary of State should be here to hear the pleas of the Scottish people. We have some faith in him, because he

1747
interfered with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Our only hope is that he acts on his memorandum and overcomes the indecision of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. James Hamilton Mr. James Hamilton rose—
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Sir Robert——
Mr. Lambie: On a point of order. I had given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The lion. Member did not indicate what he was doing and his last words sounded like a very good end to a peroration, so I assumed that he had finished. However, if he had not, but was only giving way to his hon. Friend, I would ask the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) to wait a moment.
Mr. Lambie: On that point, Sir Robert. I have been fair with my time allocation but I think that I am overstepping it now. If you think that that was a good ending to my speech, then I will stop there.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Whatever the merits or demerits of the hon. Gentleman's peroration, and whether it was his peroration or not—if it was not, what would his peroration have been?—I should like to get back to the matter which we are supposed to be discussing, the Report of the Select Committee. I greatly value the hard work which many hon. and distinguished colleagues have obviously put into it. I do not know whether it is commendation or not, but I shall certainly keep this Report as extremely useful reference material for much of what is going on in Scotland.
However, I must admit that my general reaction was that a good deal of time, effort and probably money had been spent on confirming the general sense of much that is going on at present, and also recognising the general sense of what may be likely in future. I am not surprised at that. Not having been a member of the Committee, I have been struck today by the general desire to get a concensus on the points discussed. I am not surprised
1748
at that either, because the average norm of our administration is good common sense, whatever the politicians may get up to. It is only in particular instances that one meets examples of the excessive stupidity or the great brilliance which can be the bane or inspiration of us all. To deal with particular instances like that is hardly the function, and could not be the function, of a Select Committee like this.
That conclusion is, I think, borne out by what the Report says about, for example, the machinery for co-operation between the Scottish Office and those Departments responsible for the whole of Great Britain. It says that that machinery is fully available but not necessarily always used. It is part of our function to see that it is always fully used.
I was glad to have the confirmation of the Committee, in its first paragraph, that economic planning has been the function, whatever it has been called, of Government to a greater or less degree since the 1930s. One might have thought in the early days of the last Labour Government that economic planning was a totally new idea and that all that was needed for the development and success of the Scottish economy was to plan it economically. The truth, of course, is that economic activity has required, and always will require, planning, but it is important to see that the planning does not get totally out of perspective.
I wish to deal with some of the more angled, so to speak, comments in the Report, many of which are particularly interesting. For example, we read in paragraph VII.8 that the then Secretary of State told the Committee
"that he thought that assistance through regional policy measures had not yet reached the peak that will be necessary; after the peak has been reached, he thought that a high level of assistance would be needed for a considerable number of years before assistance starts to taper off."
I am surprised that the Committee did not press the right hon. Gentleman further to find out precisely the sort of figures he would put to that statement and the number of years he would regard as reasonable. I hope that some flesh and blood will be added to the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
We in the North-East feel this question of regional development personally, It

1749
is a matter of great moment to us. We tend to look at the central belt of Scotland as a highly developed area of Scotland, though today we hear that a section of it must be made into a special development area. What guarantee do we have —even if the aid going to development areas is extended more than it is at present—that this aid can ever be withdrawn, particularly in view of today's statement?
We read in paragraph III.27 that the Committee
"were surprised to find that the Board of Trade neither appears to play an important part in decision as to what kind of air services Scotland should have, nor regards itself as closely responsible for identifying the needs of the community or for encouraging the airlines to meet them"
beyond its function of running some Scottish airports.
I recall that in 1969 I went into great detail about the administration of Scottish airports, and, in particular, into the situation at Aberdeen Airport. At that time considerable dissatisfaction had been expressed and there had been a discussion to see whether a better method could be adopted to overcome the difficulties. The impression I got—and this Report confirms it—was that the Board of Trade had more or less given up all idea of the future development of these airports. Yet Aberdeen and the North-East in an air-conscious part of the world. Whenever I make the journey I find many people travelling by air, even though the service is linked more to the 'fifties in terms of speed and comfort than to the 'seventies.
It appeared then that the Board of Trade was completely uninterested in this subject and unprepared to develop its assets, these airports, and the services that were being provided. While the saga of operational and navigational losses continued, nobody wanted to have a go with this form of communication in Scotland. I hope that one effect of the impact of the present purposive Government, on wherever the Board of Trade has disappeared to in the Ministry of Technology is that the air communication services in Scotland in general and in the North-East in particular will be greatly developed.
Mr. Rankin: Is Aberdeen a municipal airport? If so, what part is the local authority playing, in liaison with the
1750
Board of Trade, to maintain and improve the airport?
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Aberdeen is not a municipal airport. It is owned, administered and run by the Board of Trade.
I hope that the Board of Trade will be encouraged to develop the opportunities that it has at this and other airports, that B.U.A.-Caledonian will have a chance to come to Aberdeen and that B.E.A. will not turn aside from this captive marked which has indulged it so long but will proceed to put jets on the route and open up the opportunities that undoubtedly exist.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say what happened to Channel Airways, which tried to compete with B.E.A. from Dyce? When I last went to Dyce I did not see the firm operating there.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am afraid that Channel Airways started rather too soon from the point of view of anybody wanting to take part in private enterprise. I hope that that firm will reconsider the opportunities for private individuals to play a part in developing, expanding and improving air services throughout Scotland and that private firms will have a chance to come back. I hope that Channel Airways did not lose too much money during the repressive era of Socialism.
I have no doubt that communications, and particularly air communications, have an important part to play in Scotland, just as we must pay attention to road communications and haulage generally in our regional development policies. In this connection, we read in the Report that one character from the Scottish C.B.I. estimated that the extra cost of remoteness for Peterhead, which is in my constituency, was such that wages needed to be between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. lower than in the central belt to make up for the difference. I am sure that the House recognises that to have been an exaggeratedly provincial view, which I am afraid sometimes comes from those in the central belt.
Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is most unfair to call a man of the standing of Mr. Perry, who took considerable trouble to establish a factory in that area, a character? I

1751
advise the hon. Gentleman to be rather more careful in choosing his words.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised the point because the gentleman's name is not given in the Report.
Mr. Ross: But it is given in the evidence.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Quite so.
Nevertheless, one tends to accept too easily this question of a wages differential, with the result that people say of it, "It is just too bad". I submit that if one is prepared to accept wages differentials one should be prepared to accept differentials in transport costs because in the development areas distance means money. This is, therefore, an extremely important factor for our development. Our development is not helped by the men and women of that area having to accept that they should receive much less money for work of the same type and requiring the same skills as that performed by people in the central belt. We must try to redress this imbalance if social justice is to be achieved throughout the whole of Scotland and not just in one part of it.
In the Common Market agriculture is having its prices fixed in relation to a place called Duisburg. Cannot we have something like the same formula in relation to our transport charges? If anyone believes, as I do, that our country gains —Professor Wilson takes this view in IV 57 —from a spread of industry and opportunity, then a transport subvention is our best bet; because what is needed in an area like mine is not so much a subsidy or a loan as a chance to compete on equal terms in the mass markets. This will be true even more for us if we do not enter the Common Market.
Mr. George Watson, the Aberdeen sub-area chairman of the Road Haulage Association, is reported as having said that over the past year the Association had to request two rates increases, and a third came into effect at the beginning of this January. One Inverness haulier pointed out that during 1970 fuel costs rose by 2d. per gallon, the cost of new vehicles rose by up to £500, the price of each new tyre rose by up to £5, and drivers' wages have risen by as much as 27 per cent. since October, 1969.
1752
Even though I believe that the hauliers in Scotland do a good job and offer per haps better ton-mileage rates than those in other parts of the country, the fact remains that the distant areas are the ones most affected by haulage, and it is there that the most attention should be given to allowing us the same opportunities to compete as everybody else.
I want to comment on Chapter V of the Report—Industrial Training and Retraining. I am surprised by the complacency of the Report as to the training boards. It does not reflect the feelings of my constituents. In Peterhead, thanks to the devoted work of some splendid people and the assistance of the Engineering Training Board, a satisfactory training centre has been established; and we are grateful for that.
Otherwise, from the Agricultural to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board, to the Construction Industry Training Board, to the Road Transport Industry Training Board, and the Wool Industry Training Board the moans have been heartfelt and serious. One has to pay for what one does not get and the boards are presented as a tax on production, providing—this is the feeling in the area—employment for non-productive young men in shining motor cars who come in and out.
The theoretical arguments about the value of training in industry, the need to avoid poaching, and so on, simply do not apply in my part of the country, because in many cases these firms cannot get the training and they pay their contributions for nothing. It is simply an extra tax for another bureaucracy. For instance, since the Construction Industry Training Board was established employers still have to pay for training of staff but they also have to pay a levy to the C.I.T.B. from which some of the training costs are provided. Without the C.I.T.B., the costs to the industry would be much lower without any lessening, in the view of my constituents, in either the quality or the quantity of the training provided.
One trouble may be that no percentage limit was originally placed on the administration of the boards, with the result that small empire builders have popped up all over the place to swell their domains and ask their captive industries

1753
to pay for them. We saw it in agriculture. It can be seen in the C.I.T.B. I have a letter here from a constituent saying exactly the same thing about the Road Transport Industry Training Board. The Government are expected to do something about it, and I hope that they will.
Industrial training seems to have been tackled the wrong way round, rather as the Report in this chapter looks at the problem from an overall standpoint—from on top of the whole thing—and accepts an expensive administrative remedy. I would much prefer it to have been tackled from the grass roots first, for a proper assessment of training needs and deficiencies to have been made by a few people industry by industry and place by place, and then for the chance to have been given for local firms, industries and businesses to make their own recommendations and proposals as to how to meet the problems of the industry as a whole and to contribute the finances needed. If it had been done that way, they would have regarded these boards as their own.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is denigrating a marvellous advance in industrial training, something which the Report substantiates. Individual firms cannot be left to do this job, but within the purview of the training boards individual firms have flexibility and can contribute.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am genuinely glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes a contrary view, based on his experience in his part of the country. Probably the same can be said for the central belt as a whole, I hope that it can be said. In my part of the country the feeling is very much in a contrary direction—that the advantages are not substantial in any way and that the costs are outrageously high.
If that approach had been taken and the training boards had started slowly rather than with an enormous bang, smaller firms in particular and industries and businesses as a whole could have come to regard the boards as their own, the training as their own, and the services that the boards provide as their own, whereas at present they do not, and the antipathy to the boards and the gap between the boards and the firms are
1754
great and disadvantageous to what we want to achieve.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) has said much about the shortcomings of the Labour Government. I take it that he is aware that the Act which set up industrial training boards was a product of the former Tory Government: it was one of the good things done by that Government. For generations the training of youngsters had been left to work itself out as best it could, with no one having any general supervision over it. There was constant complaint about firms that did no training and that had no apprentices but which poached the trained staff of other firms.
Each industry pays for the skill it needs. This is a sound principle. It may be true that improvements need to be made in the present system of training boards and that waste is occurring.
It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should complain about lack of facilities in his area. He complains that there are differentials in earnings in his part of the country and he insists that a man there should get as much as a man in London or one in the central belt. He is a member of the Tory Party, whose great flag-waving effort is on the virtues of free enterprise, which produces this kind of thing. If he wants this equality in different parts of the country, it can be done only through more and continuous intervention in some form or other by some kind of public authority —by the State, in fact. He should get out of the habit of picking out those things which suit his argument and ignoring the other factors which do not.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) seems to be supporting the other point of view.
Mr. Ross: I was not. I was castigating the ignorance of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) who really was slurring an eminent individual in Scottish industry—an American, incidentally—who is doing a lot of work in his area. The hon. Gentleman does not even know the man he was talking about.
Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has answered the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East sufficiently.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is not here—I appreciate that he was here for a long time—because I was interested in the points which he made. He was a member of the Select Committee. I was interested in his statement that the Committee had difficulty, and it is on this aspect that I want to dwell. Sub-Committee A was given the job of looking into financial incentives. We probed the matter as far as we could with the limited time and powers we had. We tried to come up with answers that were agreed. The Under-Secretary of State for Development was a member of the Sub-Committee. He will recall that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) was the convener. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that, had we on this side of the House—and I include the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) in this—been drafting the Report, it would have been much more forthright than it was on certain of the recommendations which we came up with. But we tried to reach a consensus, an agreed view.
The difficulty was that the experts we called in could not be precise. The witnesses included two university professors and top businessmen. Indeed, we had really top businessmen like Sir John Toothill and Sir Robert Maclean. We had experts from the then Ministry of Technology and the advice of the Treasury. We could not get from them precise answers to our questions. They could not tell us how effective the different forms of incentives were. They had ideas about them but they could not be precise, and I do not blame them for that.
My own approach—and I do not think the Under-Secretary of State will challenge me on this—was that our practice in this country was much ahead of our theory. The theory had not been worked out. It so happens that men do things and afterwards attempt to explain or justify what they have been doing. I thought that our British practice in terms of incentives for regional development was substantially ahead of
1756
our theory. We could find no theoretician who could tell us precisely what the facts were. The answer we got repeatedly from those answering on behalf of the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Technology was, "These are questions which are now being studied in depth." It seemed strange to us that so much money had been and was being spent without adequate study of the effects, but we all agreed that the general set-up seemed to be desirable and to be achieving results.
We did not say that these measures were transforming the whole set-up of our country overnight, but none of us, including the Under-Secretary of State, challenged the efficacy of these measures up to the point which was clear to us. At the end, having said that, we looked forward to or hoped to see the Ministry of Technology getting down to the business of studying these things in depth and telling us what their real value was. That was our overall conclusion. We welcomed the information that the matter was being studied much more thoroughly than ever before.
Without being derogatory to anyone else, I regard Sir Robert Maclean as perhaps the most important witness to give evidence to us. No one will challenge me when I say that surely he should know what he is talking about. No one else has had such extensive experience as he has had over such a long period. He used the illustration of the stool with three legs. It was not done in any offhand fashion. He thought that the mix of incentives—a term used frequently—was about right. He thought that we had to have a mix of incentives simple to explain and simple to understand by the people we were trying to attract into an area. He pointed out that we also had to have something to offer them that they would have confidence in and which would not be changed next month or next year.
The importance of simplicity was emphasised over and over again, together with the need for confidence that the system would not be changed in a short time. Sir Robert explained what the three legs of the stool were—the investment grant, the regional employment premium and the industrial development certificate policy. He told us,
"If you knock any one away, the whole may collapse."

1757
As my right hon. Friend said, the Government have knocked away all three. They have scrapped the investment grant. My particular complaint is that they have done it without knowledge of the facts.
I have asked before what happened to the prolonged and deep study that was being made. Were we to have access to it? Where was the information? Had the Government, in deciding to scrap the investment grant in favour of the income tax allowance, taken the Select Committee's Report into account? I defy the Under-Secretary of State to tell me honestly that the Government, when they took the decision to scrap the investment grant and replace it with the allowance, did so as a result of a systematic study of the efficacy of the one as compared with the other. He knows that, during our discussions on this question of investment grants and allowances, he repeatedly sought—I do not blame him —to question the witnesses in order to get from them some expression of preference for the tax allowance. The hon. Gentleman knows that he constantly tried to do that, but he never succeeded. He was very skilled and I compliment him on his ability to cross-examine, but from those whom we questioned he never got the answer he wanted.
Even before they became the Government, right hon. Gentlemen opposite were clearly saying that they would scrap the investment grant. That is a matter of political doctrine. It is fair enough for them to say that they will base themselves on political doctrine and that they are entitled to do so, but they should not tell us that they made this decision after prolonged and careful study. They made it as a matter of political doctrine and without any knowledge of its implications.
The hon. Member for Inverness might give some other reasons, for he constantly harped on the point that one great advantage of an income tax allowance over an investment grant was that by the former one could hide the amount of money being paid. The Government also told us that they were to be more discriminating and to ensure that we got better value for money. I defy the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to tell me how one could discriminate by the use of an income tax allowance. It is not a discriminating instrument. The firm
1758
which gets the income tax allowance is the firm making sufficient profit. That may be good or bad, but an excellent new firm might not make a profit and in such circumstances it would not get an allowance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) might have made the point when he talked about Hunterston. I am more concerned about Hunterston than he is, for I represent the greatest steel-producing area in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) comes second to me in that concern and my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) follows. I was interested in the ore terminal even before it was mentioned in the Press. If we fail to get the ore terminal, we may fail to keep the existing steel industry going.
Forgetting the steel complex which might some day come there, and there has not yet been a plan for the building of a steel complex on the site, although it has been discussed, how would the ore terminal be financed? Are doubts about how it is to be financed holding up the decision? The investment grant has been scrapped. Is the Clyde local authority to have to pay £15 million out of its resources, and that was only the first figure and the amount is now probably very much larger? Will there be any grants? Will there be assistance in the form of income tax allowances? What sort of income tax allowance could be expected? How long would the project take? What kind of inducement would be offered to the British Steel Corporation to take part in the scheme? I should like some information on these important matters.
I have talked for as long as, and perhaps longer than, some of my hon. Friends and Members opposite want to hear me, but I should like to mention the two other legs of the stool. The Government have scrapped the regional employment premium. I know that they will say that they have not scrapped it and have said only that it is to be terminated on a given date, that being the date which we fixed. But we did not say that it was to end on that date: we guaranteed it until the date, and that is very different.
The result is that each firm knows that the premium will finish on that date, and it will shape its policy accordingly.

1759
Those thinking of coming into the area will put that fact into the scales against coming in, and companies thinking of pulling out will put it into the scales in favour of pulling out. There is an important distinction between saying that the premium will finish on a given date and guaranteeing it until that date when there is a great chance of its going on beyond that.
Mr. Younger Mr. Younger indicated dissent.
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am sure that all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Inverness would have been with me in voting for its continuation, because we have had plenty of evidence of the value of this leg of the stool.
The third leg was the I.D.C. policy. Not a voice has been heard against the policy of controlling industrial development in the crowded areas of the Midlands, the South and South-East. One of the most powerful voices in Scotland, that of Sir John Toothill, said that for him this was the most important of all the elements of a regional employment policy. It was his view that the existing policy should be tightened up. It has not been working well enough, and we have had evidence of that, because it has not been applied as we should like.
The hon. Gentleman may say that the Government have not adopted the recommendations of the Hunt Committee, but they have taken a long step towards doing so. The limit in the crowded South has been raised to 5,000 sq. ft. When we were last in Opposition and the present Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade, we frequently discussed the industrial development going on in areas other than Scotland. The answers which we then received I have subsequently found to be misleading, although I do not have time to discuss that tonight. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr knows something about this, because the Report mentions how misleading were the answers which we were then given.
At a time when the limit was 5,000 sq. ft., there were advertisements on the Underground and elsewhere about new factories in places like Slough. The reason that such advertisements could appear was that nests of factories, each just under 5,000 sq. ft., say, 4,999.9 sq. ft.,
1760
were being built and then linked into industrial estates. That was what was happening under the right hon. Gentleman when this policy-was supposed to apply.
The hon. Gentleman is committed, as I am committed, to what is in the Report. It has been watered down specifically to meet his point of view, and I would have gone much further than he. But he is a member of the Government who have scrapped these Measures after having said that they had studied what they were doing. "Lie" is not a parliamentary word and nor is "falsehood", but this is deliberate deception of the House and of the country, and my hon. Friends and I will not tolerate it for a moment longer than necessary.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Hamish Gray: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has made an interesting speech to which we have all listened with pleasure although we do not agree with all of it.
The purpose of the debate must be to focus attention on the economic needs of Scotland. I acknowledge that the Select Committee which undertook the investigations into this vast subject is to be congratulated on the comprehensive nature of the work. It must have spent many hours in reaching its conclusions, and we owe it a debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, it is reasonably clear that the detailed statistical information which might have been of use to it, on a United Kingdom basis, was not available in an identifiable form for Scottish purposes. While this is regrettable, I do not think that there is any doubt that in 542 pages of evidence and a further 115 pages of report there is sufficient material to arouse the enthusiasm of any Scot.
While the Report does not necessarily provide all the answers, we must accept that it pinpoints the strength and weaknesses of the present structure and provides useful guide lines for future legislation. The announcement about the future of local government which we believe will be forthcoming soon will probably highlight some of the findings of this Committee, particularly in respect of regional planning and development and economic planning. In this respect, I agree entirely with the Committee when it said in Chapter 1, paragraph 130:
"It is clear to us that the machinery for economic planning in Scotland outside the

1761
Government service is purely consultative, apart from the limited rôle of the Highlands and Islands Development Board."
The consultative machinery in Scotland functions reasonably well but there are few things quite so frustrating for any policy-making advisory group than to frequently recommend and advise without ever having the executive power to see those recommendatons or that advice being implemented. These decisions are still made to a large degree by the Government Department concerned. It seems to many of us at times that the consultative machinery is either forgotten or ignored despite the fact that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the former Secretary of State, stated in his evidence to the Committee that he considered that the advice provided by these bodies was of inestimable value. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was being extremely loyal to his civil servants and to the people who provided the advice. I do not think that the advice is very often taken as seriously in the Department as it could be.
When it comes to local planning it is regrettable that the local planning authorities are not kept fully informed about the overall planning policy for Scotland and, indeed, for the United Kingdom. The Scottish Economic Planning Council, of which the Secretary of State is Chairman I believe, could keep the local authorities more informed than it does. It would be an aid to the Council if in addition to the local authority representatives who sit as individuals there were officials from local authorities. I would like to suggest that the Highlands and Islands Development Board comes nearest to being able to see the results of its deliberations but even it can sometimes be thwarted despite the fact that it has executive and financial powers.
It is interesting to note that the Committee felt it was easier for the Scottish Office, for example, to transfer expenditure from one programme or one project to another than it may be in certain other Government Departments. At times it would appear that there are considerable sums involved. This speaks well of the flexibility within the Scottish Office, and I have no doubt that this is something that is envied by other Departments.
The Report deals at length with the question of infrastructure, particularly
1762
within development areas, and no one would deny that it is well-nigh impossible to entice industry to areas which do not offer adequate facilities for housing, schools and other basic services but perhaps most important, adequate transport systems for all modes of traffic at all times of the year. I feel particularly strongly about the transport question because in my constituency we are faced with the possibility, and I sincerely hope that it is no more than that, of a rail closure. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider very carefully the serious implications of a closure in this area at this time.
Present Government thinking must be welcomed. In the eyes of Scotland, the promised new fast road from Inverness to the North is a basic essential and should have been initiated many years ago. The objective must be a continuation of the present dual carriageway north of Edinburgh, not only to Perth, not only to Blair Atholl but right over the Grampians to Inverness, where one would hope it would link with the proposed fast road, which must not stop at Evanton but must proceed right to the North and continue to Wick and Thurso. This kind of infrastructure-thinking is what must be encouraged. Provide these essential communications in the Highlands and further incentives to attract industry will be unnecessary.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Secretary of State speaking about the very road he is describing, and he will have noted with disappointment that the Secretary of State is still talking in terms of plans but not in terms of roadbuilding.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Member knows that it is necessary to plan before one can build. When plans are laid for a road it is a number of years before the road ever appears. These things do not happen overnight. Meantime it is imperative that encouragement is given in the short term to potential industrial developers in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands.
English Members may often wonder—when they come in and listen to our debates—why it is that every Scottish Member who gets up seems to be plugging his own part of the country. The reason is obvious. We have to do it because

1763
the tendency is for expansion to take place in the southern central belt of England and we have to use every means we can to attract industry to Scotland. Tax allowances are certainly an attraction for the established concern but they offer little to the new company just starting up. The Local Employment Acts can help where the provision of jobs is important but in the Highlands some additional inducement, not readily available elsewhere in Scotland, is absolutely essential.
This has been a problem in the remote areas for a long time, and, while I warmly welcome the infrastructure proposals, I consider that the greatest help which the Government could offer now would be the creation of a Highlands of Scotland special development area similar to that which has been described. It was not sufficient to say that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has special powers. The Board would need a very much greater amount of money available to it before the special powers incorporated in its charter could really be effective.
There are plenty of hon. Members prepared to speak for the west central belt of Scotland, so I do not propose to spend time on the problems there, but if we are not careful we shall create a situation in west central Scotland similar to that which exists in the South of England. Every possible method must be used to try to influence people to move from that area to the widest area of land available in Scotland, which we hope will soon have the necessary communications.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board has weathered the ailments of infancy and it must now be encouraged to develop into manhood as the driving force of Highlands opportunity. The Board must pay no attention to the Jonahs and those who for reasons known only to themselves persist in their strange beliefs about the area and its needs. Of course, industrial development in the Highlands is not only necessary but desirable. There is no reason why it cannot be integrated without affecting the tourist industry and without interfering with the natural beauty of the area. Space is not one of our problems in the Highlands.
We in Scotland are faced with a critical unemployment problem which is not of
1764
our making but the result of a complete failure by the last Government to come to grips with the problem. It is the result of years of ostrich-like tactics over the problem of unemployment. The Labour Government's forecasts, like their performances, left much to be desired. They estimated in "The Scottish Economy, 1965–70" that there would be a net increase of 10,000 jobs per year in all industries and services between 1965 and 1970—that is, 50,000 jobs in the period. That is confirmed in the Select Committee's Report's reference to the White Paper Cmnd. 2864 which forecast a net increase in jobs available over the period of between 50,000 and 60,000. Yet in March, 1970, when the then Secretary of State made the statement which I have quoted, there were 11,000 fewer jobs in Scotland than in March, 1969, and no less than 33,000 fewer jobs than three years earlier.
Hon. Members opposite may shake their heads, but they are too late. They should have been thinking about the problem six years ago. The frequent warnings of my right hon. and hon. Friends were completely ignored.
Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the advice of his hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State had been followed the developments at Invergordon would never have come about?
Mr. Gray: I am not dealing with that point. I would not accept what the hon. Gentleman said for one moment. But it is interesting to note——
Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: No. I have just given way.
It is interesting to note that, despite investment grants, there was nothing of any magnitude in the pipeline for my area at the time of the change in Government.
Mr. Ross: What about Grampian Chemicals?
Mr. Gray: I do not want to mention any company by name, but were the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his party interested in providing grants for that concern at that time? I doubt it.

1765
The monetary incentives through the Local Employment Acts for the creation of new jobs must be made attractive and many more concessions should be offered to companies prepared to move to development areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) mentioned the case for a congestion tax in already overpopulated areas. That is sound thinking, and I hope that the Government will consider it.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will remember that until we had the Highlands and Islands Development Act the Highlands were controlled by the congested areas Act.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I shall be glad to hear it explained in detail by him at some future time. I am not dealing with that point.
The whole concept of growth areas was outlined in the Toothill Report in 1961. The recomendations of that Report were accepted by the Government at that time who in 1963 produced a White Paper on Central Scotland and followed it with special financial provisions in the Budget of that year. This in turn led to industrial expansion which took place not only in Scotland but in the North of England.
The Report, in referring to the Scottish Office, rightly states in paragraph 73, Chapter 4—and this point is vitally important—
"No other Department can have the same intimate knowledge of Scotland's circumstances and needs. The success of the Government's policy for encouraging industry in Scotland must depend very largely on co-ordination and collaboration between the Ministry of Technology and the Scottish Office."
That reference should now read "the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office". It is an omission that there does not appear to be a senior official of the Department of Trade and Industry located at St. Andrew's House. I may be wrong and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will correct me if I am. What is needed is an official with sufficient authority to take major decisions quickly so that matters can be co-ordinated. The two Departments must work in unison to
1766
provide immediate help to the Scottish economy.
The Government are tackling the legacy of a Socialistic shambles in a business-like and purposeful way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is always amusing with his interjections, but he is often amusing when he does not mean to be, so that balances matters out.
Desperate measures must be taken, and I am sure that the Government will take them quickly.
I have tried to be constructive, despite the abuse of hon. Members opposite which one gets used to. I should like to make one or two more suggestions. I invite the Government to give the most serious consideration possible to transferring the headquarters of the Forestry Commission to the Highlands. There is a much stronger case for locating the headquarters in the Highlands than in the South of England. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, speaking recently in another place and referring to the electronics industry, suggested that this type of development was highly suitable to the area of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. He said:
"So the Board are well advised to consider the importance of such an industry which does not necessarily have to start in a large way. One of the largest American concerns in this field, now employing more than 30,000 people, started less than a quarter of a century ago in the garage of its founder …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 27th January, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 962.]
I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Only last year the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board had a wonderful opportunity to locate in my constituency a computer which would have been extremely valuable from the point of view of the jobs which it would have provided. It saw fit to go to Aberdeen, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) is, no doubt, pleased about that. But this was the type of work which was very suitable indeed, because the only essential service required for it would have been the postal service, which exists in our area—or will soon again exist, one hopes. The Board decided against this, and I consider that this was a most regrettable decision.

1767
The Report and deliberations of the Select Committee are helpful and constructive, but they must now be translated into action. In the meantime we will note the contents.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: It is inevitable, the unemployment position being as it is in Scotland, that many Members have turned their attention to this very pressing and real problem and have, therefore, turned from the details of the Report which we are seeking to discuss.
Before turning to those wider questions I should like, very briefly, to look at the Select Committee itself and ask how effective it has been as an instrument in examining Scottish government and, in particular in this case, examining the state of the Scottish economy and what ought to be done about it.
The House will know that the Liberals favour an elected Parliament in Scotland within a United Kingdom federal system, and hold strongly to the view that a genuine and significant improvement in Scotland's situation is unlikely unless there is created in Scotland a responsible decision-making body which can determine its own priorities. Nevertheless, I think there are improvements which can be made within the existing framework.
I think that probably the Select Committee had reasonable success in achieving what it set out to do, and in this it was greatly assisted by the character and personality of Mr. Tom Steele, the tribute to whom by the right hon. Gentleman I am very happy to go along with. Indeed, one also pays tribute to two hon. Members present here, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), for the very considerable amount of work which they did. The question arises, however, to me at least, having my first experience of a Select Committee, whether the objectives of an all-party Committee such as this were not rather too wide and whether an all-party Committee of this kind, meeting over a short space of a year, can operate adequately over a wide area, and perhaps ought not better to concentrate its attention on certain specific things. The problem of an all-party Committee is a very real one,
1768
which has been touched on already by many hon. Members, the difficulty of producing some consensus which is yet of significance and importance. That difficulty is a real one. The object of the Committee ought not to be to produce any learned political economic treatise but to isolate and point out important political questions which on certain specific issues ought to be answered. I am thinking, for example, of things like the delay on Turnhouse Airport and the future of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, or what we think about Oceanspan. There are many individual things which the Select Committee might very usefully have examined more closely.
The fact is that the actual impact which our Committee made on Scotland was pretty negligible. The Scottish Press was certainly not hanging avidly upon our words. This is true.[Interruption.] I think that matters a good deal, because the communications media is the only way we have as politicians to get over our ideas to the public. I think it was a mistake, for example, that the proceedings, the public hearings, were not televised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) suggested. If we could televise the Royal Commission on the Constitution why not the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Then there is also the real problem of hon. Members' time. I must confess I found myself missing some meetings of the Select Committee. Again, attendance at Committee meetings is not necessarily even accurately reflected by the sederunt. It does not say how long one is there! One of the reasons for this is that one makes a decision of priorities in the allocation of one's time, and moreover, much of the time the discussions were of a very general nature and consequently the urgency aspect, if I may call it that, which is so essential in politics, was, to some extent, absent. If the Committee had been dealing with specific matters—matters on which one wanted an explanation, for instance—there would have been more zip, as it were, in the Committee.
In the end, there is no doubt, we produced a useful instruction manual on government machinery in Scotland—a lucid description, as the Secretary of

1769
State put it—and he should know; reference material, as it was called by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon).
Perhaps the most useful thing in it was our implicit recognition—I think it must be admitted by the Secretary of State that there is an implicit recognition —of the value of investment grants, and, indeed, further recognition that these grants were not yet at a high enough level. If one looks at the Report, on page 92, paragraph VII.4. We see it is clearly spelt out:
"Obviously the incentives would have to be pitched very high indeed if they are to have any chance of inducing the movement of any industry which is established elsewhere but not expanding significantly. We have no reason to think that the present level of incentives is high enough to have any such effect, and therefore the amount of new industry which comes to Development Areas is certain to be a limited one at any period during which indusrial growth in the United Kingdom as a whole is limited."
We stress the importance of the costs of congestion. I shall not go again over the ground which has already been covered very well by the hon. Member for Galloway, but the fact that there is no real study of congestion is a very valid point which we made and which ought to be stressed very strongly, and the value of I.D.C.s. Our Report and the major witnesses we heard stress the value of I.D.C.s, and that makes all the more extraordinary the Government's decision to relax their provision. Indeed, it is the Government's intended change of policy in this regard which has called forth the Opposition's Amendment today, and for our part we on the Liberal bench, if that Amendment leads to a vote, will support the Opposition.
I do not intend to labour the whole question of investment grants versus investment allowances because it has already been thoroughly aired, notably by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), with a lot of whose remarks I agree, but it seems to me that there is in industry widespread agreement that the last thing the Scottish economy wants at the present moment is a reduction in the availability of liquid capital. I think the Government's intention is certainly having an adverse effect on industry.
I want now to touch on four specific things—briefly, because I know a number
1770
of hon. Members still wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I consider them all to be of basic importance to the Scottish economy. Firstly there is the future of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I know that the Government have emphasised, and, indeed, re-emphasised, that they intend the Board to be the major vehicle for development in the Highlands. I know also that they have denied that there is any question of diminution of the Board's rôle. Nevertheless, I remain worried. It is, of course, true that the Board has done good work, but there is a very important question of scale involved. I have been looking at Sir Robert Grieve's foreword to the Board's first Report, and I want to quote a little from it. We must all pay tribute to the tremendous work he did when he was chairman. He said:
"It is therefore easy to flatter ourselves that an experiment in regional development such as the Board is carrying out is of world interest. However, such a statement is absolutely and strictly true. It is essential that we should realise this, all of us in Britain, and recognise that the Board is setting out to do a job now recognised as one of the important preoccupations of government in western civilisation."
Later he says:
"It is therefore, as I say, no exaggeration to claim that the efforts of this Board will have world significance."
He finishes by saying:
"That is the measure of our activity; that is the challenge which the Board has knowingly accepted."
If indeed this is the challenge, if it is of this scope and scale and importance, then I have grave misgivings about the capacity of the Board in terms of its expertise to meet the challenge. The Board was set up because it was agreed that the Highlands required distinctive and differential treatment, but the differential now is much more imaginary than real.
When the Select Committee was interviewing Professors Wilson and Brown, I asked Professor Brown, at page 293:
"In answering the Chairman, Professor Brown, you said that there were large areas of Scotland in which the incentives would have to be considerably higher than the present incentives if they were to have a chance of getting much new industry. That is roughly what you said. Does that mean in effect that, for example, the Highlands and Islands Development Board does not have a chance of getting much new industry under the present regime?"

1771
Professor Brown replied:
"As a snap judgment with strong reservations in view of my ignorance, I should say that that seems a reasonable proposition, likely on the whole to be true …"
On page 322, I asked Mr. Whitehouse, the head of the Distribution of Industry Division of the Ministry of Technology:
"When we saw Professor Brown, as I recollect, he said that the difference which the Chairman has referred to was not really sufficient to make any significant difference to the decision of an industrialist as to whether he was going to come or not; that in fact much of its success might well be related to its promotional activity."
I am referring to the Board:
"Does the fact that we have not really allowed any significant distinction of this sort mean that … the economic factor is much more the decisive one rather than any social factor? … It is seen as being a very expensive economic exercise and, although the Government goes through the motions of setting up a Board and making, if you like, noises, when you examine the actual argument the actual distinction is very little and the actual incentive is not very much greater than available elsewhere. Would you say that is fair or not?"
His answer was:
"Yes, I think it probably is."
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, in pressing the point, said to him:
"Professor Grieve did specifically state to us in his evidence that he certainly felt the need for an extra incentive to persuade people not merely to come to Scotland but to come to his part of the Highlands. Do you not think that that is quite a natural request?"
Mr. Whitehouse said:
"I agree it is a perfectly natural request. It is a fully understandable request."
It seems to me that the edge that the Board had is insufficient, as we recommend in the Report. The net result has been that the Board has had to concentrate on promotional activity. This it has done rather well, but it is indubitably a limiting factor. We can no longer ignore the fact that people are beginning to ask the question: would the unemployment and depopulation position be markedly different if there had been no board at all? This concerns me. This is not criticising the concept of the Board but criticising the way it has been applied and the freedom which has been given to it by the Government to vary national policy according to the area's need.
I want to turn to an area off Aberdeen. Like many other hon. Members,
1772
I am concerned that in a situation where our natural physical assets like coal are declining we should take full advantage of any new assets that may appear. There is the question of North Sea oil or gas. How is Scotland to benefit from this, because she could benefit enormously? On the other hand, she could get little out of it. If B.P. decided that the sensible and profitable thing to do was to ship the oil to Rotterdam, what is to prevent this?
Mr. Eadie: Or America.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Or America, although that is rather distant. Are B.P. and the Scottish Office in consultation about this? It is ironical, when one sees the oil-producing companies of the Middle East and South America getting together to try to obtain a larger share of the profits of their own assets that it could well be, despite Grangemouth and the talked of petro-chemical complex at Invergordon, that Scotland's contribution from this exciting asset would be employment from a few oil rigs.
Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman laughed when I said "America", but he is aware of the reports we have had that this oil is of the non-polluting type. Since in America there are strict laws about pollution, it may be that, because the oil has this special quality, it might be shipped to America with a consequent loss of Scotland.
Mr. Russell Johnston: This may well be. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has already touched on the development of the Clyde. The Clyde Port Authority has taken a wholly admirable lead in this matter, but its reserves are limited and it cannot mount the major investment which the ideas in Oceanspan demand.
The present Government seem to be pledged to follow a philosophy of minimal involvement in economic matters. If the Clyde is to be developed and Hunterston is to be a major entry point, many questions must be answered and much expenditure undertaken. In the end the only body capable of facing these matters are the Government. It is only the Government who can decide whether a land bridge is on or is not. Only the Government can examine markets and the kinds of products to go for. With the spectre of

1773
the Mersey in the background the Government must surely take proper account of information at its disposal, as was shown by the Touche Ross Report. That report, commissioned by the National Ports Council, established clearly that no major port in Western Europe functions without substantial Government involvement, and involvement on a scale well above what we have been used to.
Fourthly and lastly, I want to make three short points. The first is that there is not enough consideration in terms of people. Our graduates are a great asset, an asset which we have failed to utilise properly, as is shown by the heavy wastage. In the Select Committee we gained a clear realisation of the difficulty of selective encouragement in terms of particular kinds of industry, and the situation in relation to some skills is virtually impossible. But surely some kind of differential treatment might be devised for companies with research and development facilities in Scotland. This could well have the double merit of retaining and encouraging more graduates and in getting under way more primary industry rather than secondary industry.
Related to this matter is the question of housing, and the report draws attention to the adverse effect on industrial development. This is especially true in terms of the provision of private housing, and in this respect the construction industry in Scotland is open to criticism as was shown by the recent Report of the Scottish Council. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that lack of provision for private housing has been an important factor in frightening away some incoming industry. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to, for example, the idea of giving cash grants to people who wish to buy houses, to help them to obtain mortgages. This is a practical way of providing help to people and this is something which has been advocated by the Liberal Party and for which the Scottish Council is pressing.
I will not dwell too long on the problems of transport in Scotland since time is getting a little short and many hon. Members still wish to speak. The fact remains that freight charges are a major distincentive to development, and we have still to devise some way in which to solve the problem in this respect on the peripheries of Scotland. We already face
1774
the closing down of rural services in, for example, Galloway and elsewhere. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) drew attention to the situation in the Kyle of Lochalsh in regard to rail closures. Expenditure is often effective in bringing development into places where the infrastructure has withered.
Looking at the matter against the background of Britain's negotiations with Europe, the position in Scotland at present seems to be critical. If our problems are to be solved, more urgent and radical measures will be necessary than have so far been taken.
8.32 p.m.
Earl of Dalkeith: I promise the House that tonight I shall not weary hon. Members with the subject of sheep breeding. That would appear to be the only matter that is not covered by this excellent and wide-ranging Report.
I must beg to differ from those who have suggested that it is an insult that this Report has not been debated earlier. In my view, it is a Report which will have enduring qualities. It is a report to be read, studied and to be acted upon rather than a report simply to be debated. I am sure that Scotland owes a great debt of gratitude to hon. Members who took part in the proceedings of the Committee at a considerable sacrifice to their own time.
I welcome the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) was completely free of abuse, slanting and damnation which we so frequently hear on occasions when the Scottish economy is mentioned. He made a constructive speech. I was particularly interested in his points about North Sea gas and oil.
We all want to see industrial expansion, but I am sure that we all want industries with a real prospect of being successful. We want to avoid the tragedies of those industries which start off with a flourish and then later flop. In this context it is possible to put forward the argument that allowances are a better means of helping industry than are investment grants. This ties in with the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) about cost-effectiveness. We must become more cost-effectiveness conscious than we have been in the past. At

1775
the same time, a good case can be advanced for saying that capital investment grants could be justified in very special circumstances. A project such as the Rootes plant at Linwood, involving such a scale of operations, might justify the use of the investment grant, as a special and exceptional circumstance.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in a brief flash of somewhat uncharacteristic generosity, made favourable comments about Rootes coming to Linwood. But this ties up with what I have said about the danger of having industries which flop later. As we all know, Rootes has been going through a fairly perplexing time. The comment column of the Daily Mail summed it up well a few days ago when it said:
"Chrysler workers in Scotland must be delighted with the £5 rise they have won. Will they be so happy if Chrysler continue to lose money and have to shut down?"
All of us in Scotland must realise—the sooner the better—that our future prosperity is very much in our own hands and not wholly in those of some fairy godmother. The performance of the previous Secretary of State went a long way to convincing the population that he made very little pretence to be a fairy godmother.
Edinburgh's exclusion from development area status is a subject close to my heart and my constituency. The Report referred to Leith's promotion to intermediate development area status. I have always been convinced that the best way to achieve a booming economy is to build success on to success; in other words, to have a series of growth points which radiate success outwards from the centre. Edinburgh used to be a really prosperous growth point. What is more, it was not an artificially created growth point but a natural and naturally successful one, which is very much healthier. Yet, alas and alack, the previous Government, for reasons which they have never divulged, went out of their way to clobber Edinburgh in a way which did very little good to the surrounding area and caused immense damage to Scotland's capital.
I emphasise the damage which has been done by drawing attention to the unemployment figures for Edinburgh. In January, 1965, unemployment was 1·8 per cent.
1776
That was below the national average. In January, 1971, it has risen to 4·3 per cent. For many years Edinburgh had the proud record of having about the lowest unemployment percentage of any place in Scotland. But today Aberdeen is beating Edinburgh with a rate of 3·6 per cent.
I should like to translate these rather cold percentages into figures which are more revealing in terms of human disappointment. In December, 1964, there were 3,564 people unemployed in Edinburgh. In December, 1970, the figure had risen to 7,190, which is more than double. This is a tragic situation.
Let us examine the so-called promotion of Leith to the status of an intermediate area to see what good that has done Leith. When comparing the figures for unemployment in Leith over the last year with those for Edinburgh, one finds that unemployment has risen by 40 per cent. in Leith and by only 33 per cent. in Edinburgh. This shows that Leith, in spite of the more advantageous situation in which it finds itself, has done less well than Edinburgh. It appears, therefore, that this was not a genuine remedy.
Leith ought to be a very high priority growth point. It is only logical to follow up the massive expenditure of taxpayers' money that was sanctioned by the previous Conservative Government to improve the docks by attracting and encouraging ancillary industries to settle round those docks. To have missed the opportunity that we have had in the last three or four years is most unfortunate not only for the people of Leith but for the economy of our country.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend agree that since Edinburgh was excluded from development area status and persecuted by the previous Government, no fewer than 42 companies have closed down and left the city?
Earl of Dalkeith: I am all too conscious of that horrifying fact, and it should be made widely known that this is so.
What I would dearly love to know is why Edinburgh was singled out for discriminatory treatment. We have never been told the answer. One has heard rumours that it was a sop to Wales,

1777
that certain parts of Wales were prospering and could not be included in development area status and that the Welsh would be very disappointed if some part of Scotland was not excluded; so, looking round, the Government of the day decided that Edinburgh was the most prosperous place in Scotland and would have to be excluded. If that was the reason, it was a very bad one.
Another possibility is that it was argued that Edinburgh did not need it because its unemployment percentage was too low to justify it. If Edinburgh did not need to be included in development area status because its unemployment percentage was low before, certainly it does today. It is now 4·3 compared with Aberdeen's 3·6, and, after all, Aberdeen is in a development area. In Edinburgh, unemployment is some 20 per cent. higher than it is in Aberdeen.
I come now to the subject of infrastructure. Housing was dealt with at some length in the Report, and, as hon. Members know, this has always been one of my deepest and most passionately felt interests. Looking at the picture today, there is a mixture of happy and unhappy news. The details that we heard earlier at Question Time about the improvement of Scotland's older housing is very good news. I hope that more advantage still will be taken of the grants which are available.
I would never dream of being so churlish as not to give credit where it is due, and perhaps I might give the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), a small pat on the back. I warmly congratulate him on what he did to increase improvement grants. What is more, I would not be so churlish as to deny him a word of congratulation on having produced a record number of houses in Scotland. One should recognise a record when it is a record. I am only sad that the figure did not reach the 50,000 that he hoped to achieve and that we would have hoped to achieve had we been in government then.
I am more than a little unhappy about the number of houses which have been approved and are receiving approval. I urge my right hon. Friend to concentrate the resources of his office on boosting the building of houses. This is vitally
1778
important if we are to get the infrastructure of our country right. It has a most important effect upon how people think and act.
I end with what I hope is a constructive suggestion which will percolate into the ears of the Treasury.
I believe that there is a strong case for somehow devising at Treasury level some means whereby we can encourage Scotland's expansion at a time when it is necessary for the United Kingdom to suffer from a credit squeeze. We have had a credit squeeze for many years. Yet nobody has devised a way whereby Scotland can be exempted from the effects of such a squeeze.
At different times I have suggested that there should be a difference in the rate of income and corporation tax for Scotland. At one point I received some interesting figures. On income tax alone, in an answer from the previous Government to a Parliamentary Question, I discovered, that if the rate of income tax was reduced in Scotland by 2s. in the pound, was kept at its present level in Wales, and was increased in England by 3d. in the pound, the Treasury would be £33 million better off. Obviously one cannot go round suggesting that income tax should be increased by 3d. in the pound in England.
Hon. Members: Why not?
Earl of Dalkeith: For the simple reason that we would soon see an enormous campaign mounted demanding Home Rule for England. I am not sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would welcome that any more than I should. However, I suggest that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer next has an opportunity of reducing income tax throughout the United Kingdom, he might say to himself, "If I keep it as it is in England for the time being, I can knock a great chunk off in Scotland." As I have pointed out, it would not be so expensive to the Treasury.
Such a proposal would be important because it would be backing people. It would encourage people to stay in Scotland, the people we need to make Scotland a dynamic place again. Far too many of our good people have drifted away, and we must win them back. Backing people in this way can do more good

1779
in restoring the health of the Scottish economy than backing possible dubious industries.
Therefore, although I welcome the Report—it will pay us to study it for many years—I think that points like those which I have put forward deserve consideration as well.
8.48 p.m.
Mr. Donald Stewart: The economic situation in Scotland has changed considerably since publication of the Report of the Select Committee—it has changed drastically for the worse. For that reason a number of hon. Members have concentrated, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) suggested, on the unemployment situation and the state of the Scottish economy generally.
The Opposition blame the situation on what the Government are or are not doing for the Scottish economy, and the Government blame the previous Government for what they did or did not do. I have not the time to put both these charges to the test. I will save the time of the House by pronouncing a verdict of guilty in both cases.
Unfortunately, although the Western Isles and the Highlands are often in advance of the rest of the country, there are times when we regret this, particularly when we are in advance on the unemployment figures. Last month, in the Western Isles, 26 per cent. of the insured population was out of work. In the Highlands generally the figure is 10 per cent. This is a portent of what might be coming to the rest of Scotland.
The situation is approaching a catastrophic level with unemployment up to 115,000. The complacency of the Government and the Scottish Office in this situation is beginning to make fiddling while Rome burned look like a rational way of passing the time. The Secretary of State must get down to urgent action, because it is needed in the present situation.
I hope that I am not distorting the words of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), but I believe that he said that, while an affluent Britain does not necessarily mean an affluent
1780
Scotland, a depressed Britain means a depressed Scotland, sometimes in much greater degree. That is the situation. We are relatively worse off, because there are 20 people chasing every vacancy for males in Scotland while in England the figure is six. Therefore, we are four times worse off for employment.
The work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been hamstrung to a great extent by the selective employment tax. The Secretary of State was very vociferous before the General Election in demanding the abolition of S.E.T. and promising that it would go with the return of a Conservative Government. We are still waiting. The abolition of the tax would be of tremendous assistance to the Board.
I have some proposals to make about a Treasury for Scotland, even with the present set-up, which would allow the planning of fiscal and budgetary policies applicable to Scotland. At present, policies that might be quite rational for the rest of the United Kingdom are extremely damaging to the Scottish economy. I note with some gratification that the Conservative Party's Constitutional Committee admits the principle of applying different fiscal policies in Scotland.
I urge the Government to work towards the establishment of the Scottish Assembly. No one is more aware than I am of the inadequacy of such an Assembly for Scottish government, but it is a step in the right direction and should be implemented as quickly as possible so that the members of all parties in Scotland can get down to the urgent task of rebuilding the Scottish economy.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the short time left to me I am glad to follow the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart). No part of Scotland suffers more acutely from unemployment and failures of economic planning than the constituency which he represents.
It is noteworthy that in his introductory speech the Secretary of State breathed not a word of the Government's policy towards the Highlands, although there has been no statement by him in the House of Government policy towards the Highlands since he was elected to office

1781
over seven months ago. The Select Committee's Report pays a great deal of attention to the unique problems of the Highlands area and makes some recommendations. It was characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman to pay no attention to those recommendations today but rather to indulge in fighting yet again a General Election campaign which in Scotland he lost last June.
The misfortune of the matter is that the Committee sat for two years, studied the problems very carefully and made extremely careful judgments, and this afternoon we had no verdicts from the Government on those judgments and no expectations that they will consider the recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman made some remarkable announcements this afternoon which demonstrated the absolute poverty of the Government's thinking about regional policy. If he is so convinced that the switch from development grants to tax allowances is the cure-all for Scotland, why has he found it necessary to declare the West of Scotland a special development area? Is this not proof positive of the bankruptcy of his approach?
What is even more remarkable is that the right hon. Gentleman should be unable to inform the House when these measures will be effective. This is a positive disincentive to investment in Scotland. While he and his colleagues dither around trying to decide whether or not they need legislation before they can offer industry extra help——
Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell rose——
Mr. Maclennan: No; I have only five minutes. The Under-Secretary can deal with the point in due time.
While the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues dither around trying to make up their minds whether legislation is necessary to enable this extra help to be offered what industry will invest in the west of Scotland when the prospect of greater Government help to the area is at some unspecified time ahead?
When we have record unemployment, when firm after firm is in difficulties and what is needed is capital investment, the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and creates further uncertainty. This is utterly deplorable and in character with the fact that on 27th October——
Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell rose——
Mr. Maclennan: No, I will not give way. I have only five minutes——
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman did not hear: he must have been away.
Mr. Maclennan: Likewise, on 27th October the right hon. Gentleman produced his White Paper on the Local Employment Act provisions. He could not even tell us then, having had months of the summer, whether or not we were to have special legislation to implement his proposals on that score. What does he do in these long silences?
The Under-Secretary of State for Development has a peculiar responsibility for the Highlands. A signatory of the Select Committee Report, he appears, from the moment he gained office, to have ignored its every recommendation. The key rôle of industrial development certificates in the development of Scottish industry he now carefully ignores. I do not know how he has the effrontery to speak on this subject, in the light of what he has done.
We had the recommendation of the Committee that we should increase the flexibility of the Highland and Islands Development Board. The Under-Secretary knows that the former chairman gave in evidence the view that the limit of spending power of the board should be raised from £50,000 to £100,000 per annum. The hon. Gentleman went to the Highlands, to Inverness, in July, and after this meeting with the board it was announced that in the meantime the board would not press this on the Government. Clearly exercising his pressure, the hon. Gentleman made it embarrassing for the board to get what it had asked for and what he himself had recognised, in signing the Report was necessary.
I should have liked to ask the hon. Gentleman, had there been time, what action he and his Ministry of so-called Development are doing on the conditions attached to the grant-in-aid to the board, which, it was stated by the then chairman, should be modified to allow the board greater flexibility and freedom.
Although we have not had any statement on the Government's policy towards the Highlands since the Adjournment debate which I managed to get in the

1783
summer, we have had a speech, an extraordinary speech, demonstrating a total ignorance of Highland problems, in another place by the Minister of State. She demonstrated that she, too, is exercising pressure on the Highlands and Islands Development Board to limit its rôle and curtail its freedom.
I intervened earlier to point out what the Minister of State had admitted. It is reported in c. 970 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place for 27th January. She admitted what the Government had done for the promotional efforts of the Board. Because of the pettifogging £20,000 which was given to the Scottish Council for the promotion of the whole of Scottish industry, the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been prevailed upon—the word used is "persuaded"—to abstain from its promotional exercise in Germany and the United States. This exercise was following up its successful endeavours of last Autumn, in which it was estimated that almost £100,000 had been spent to promote industry, from which 839 positive inquiries had been received.
This retrograde action on the part of the Government has been contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee, which specifically said that the promotional work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board had been invaluable and should be encouraged. But the Government, as in all other matters, have overlooked the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Most profoundly ignorant of all were the remarks of the Minister of State in another place about the kind of industry the Highlands need. It was this Government which, when in Opposition, upbraided us for coming down on the service industries. I accuse them of coming down on capital intensive industries, and nothing is more dangerous to the future of the Highlands, as for the whole of Scotland, than that.
This shows that the Government are completely lacking in awareness of the needs of Scotland. We cannot rely on dying industries. Old indigenous industries must, of course, be supported where they exist, but we cannot live on them alone. Had we not seized the nettle and backed the Invergordon scheme, as well
1784
as the Dounreay fast reactor, the position would indeed be sad today.
The Minister of State said:
"But as the House knows, such large-scale enterprises are capital intensive and do not in themselves bring much further employment to the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th January, 1971; Vol. 314, c. 968.]
The Invergordon scheme has brought 600 jobs to the area, and few places in the Highlands would not welcome 600 new jobs.
But that is not all. The Select Committee specifically pointed out that, in its view, capital intensive industries brought other industries in their path. Naturally, the service industries in the area have benefitted from this, including the shops, hotels, laundries and garages. But these industries will suffer if the Government do not help the capital intensive industries; and, unfortunately, these industries are being harmed by the switch away from investment grants.
Time does not allow me to catalogue the incompetence and muddled thinking in the Government's regional policy. They have adopted a piecemeal approach, introducing one measure and not being able to fit it into a rational plan for Scotland. We have had an announcement off the cuff, as it were, about proposed special measures for the West of Scotland, but not a word about what the effects of that will be on the rest of Scotland. I welcome what has been announced—one is thankful for small mercies—but the Government should be looking at the planned development of Scotland as a whole.
Last Tuesday the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Government's review of regional policy was not yet complete. After seven months in office, it is not yet complete. Despite that, the Government bring forward this petty little measure today and they cannot even tell us whether they need legislation to bring it into effect. Scotland needs leadership, not this.
9.5 p.m.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I have managed to hear, if not all of every speech, at least part of every speech. Therefore, to some extent I have a slight advantage over the Under-Secretary, who must rely on the notes of his right hon.

1785
and hon. Friends for at least two or three hours of the debate when he was absent, if he is to refer to all those who took part in the debate.
Every speaker has made a valuable contribution. Those hon. Members who thanked the Select Committee—I join them—were perfectly right to do so and, in particular to single out our old colleague Tom Steele for his excellent chairmanship of the Committee.
I echo the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) about the need for the Committee to be reconstituted. I greatly hope that the Under-Secretary, apart from the political points that he will doubtless want to make, will try to answer this point as a Member of the House. We are anxious that the Committee should be reconstituted so that more of these matters can be examined in depth.
It was inevitable that the Committee chose such a wide remit which enabled it to identify possible points of future inquiry. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who served the Committee so well along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, made a good point when he talked about the good work of the Development Commission. Perhaps we in Scotland do not use the Development Commission as we should. In my time at the Scottish Office we helped to expand its activities, and many a row I had about taking the interests of the Commission from Wales occasionally up to Scotland.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), in his plea that the Committee should be reconstituted and given some more tasks, underlined the belief of many people that the Committee still has a great job to do.
There have been two very interesting developments in the debate. One was certainly predictable. I was a little surprised about the other.
The predictable development was that something had to be done by the Government about the crisis in West Central Scotland. There is no doubt that the collapse of industries there in such swift succession and the closures present a very serious challenge to the Government. The Labour Government recognised that with the rapid decline of jobs in the older industries
1786
something had to be done to bring cohesion to West Central Scotland.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) inherited the plans we had for reconstituting the Clyde Valley Advisory Committee. That was a very long and difficult battle. We wanted the Committee in its enlarged form to be an economic consultative group to promote the interests of the area. To some extent that plan has been abandoned or adulterated—I am not sure which is the more appropriate word. Certainly there is no money available for promoting the interests of West Central Scotland.
Perhaps there is a case for saying that the constitution of West Central Scotland as a special development area as announced today is a better solution or part of a solution. As we had no knowledge that the Secretary of State intended to make such an announcement, naturally we shall want to study the announcement; but prima facie it looks as if it is a good step forward.
I counsel the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) and the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) not to be too distressed about the possible counter-productive effect in the Highlands or in Aberdeenshire as a consequence of West Central Scotland being declared to be a special development area. The North-East of Scotland always had a very bad rate of emigration. Indeed, at one time it had the highest rate of all the Scottish regions. However, times have changed and the figures have changed also, the highest rate being now in West Central Scotland and it is there that half of Scotland lies bleeding to death. This is why the strategy to some extent must be altered.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) very sensibly argued that regional policy is, after all, a continuing process; there is a legitimate time for changing policies. This is why we in our time were willing to examine our own policies. Even though the industrial incentives and other apparatus that we set up were established only in 1966 and began to take effect only in 1967 and 1968, we were willing, as all intelligent people should be, to examine our policy and see if it was being as

1787
effective as it should be. I shall touch on this point again later. We will facilitate the passage of any legislation involved in the establishment of the S.D.A. If none is required, we are glad.
Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell rose——
Dr. Mabon: We shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can clear up the position when he is able to see his way through his muddle. I want to give the Under-Secretary of State time to reply to the debate and it would be wrong if he did not make a constructive reply. As I have said, I have great regard for the right hon. Gentleman and would willingly sit down if I thought that he was going to make a useful point.
But the S.D.A., no matter how much we assist it, will in no way make up for the loss of investment grants and for the failure to announce new incentives to follow the regional employment premium which is to be abolished in 1974. In no way does this announcement of the S.D.A. compensate for what we are complaining about—the smashing of two if not three of the legs of this stool.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hunterston—I am sorry, for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—that was a truly Freudian slip—talked about Hunterston and was supported in his remarks on the consequences to the steel industry by my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). I wonder whether one of the firms at Hunterston is one of the 30 mentioned in The Times report which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) quoted. Thirty major firms have been chased away from Great Britain or have become unwilling to invest in Great Britain because of the Government's sudden switch in policy. Perhaps the Secretary of State, if he cannot refer to all the firms involved will refer to some of them at some stage, or perhaps the Under-Secretary of State in reply tonight will tell us which of these major firms he knows about have refused to come because of the switch in policy.
I suggest that the total is more than 30. One by one we will winkle out the names. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to tell the Under-Secretary of State what comments he should make, it will no
1788
doubt improve the hon. Gentleman's speech no end. We will then be able to measure whether or not they are the kind of firms resented by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who, as the one time financial correspondent of The Spectator, told us how wicked we were to give money to various aluminium smelter firms which established themselves in Wales, Blyth and Invergordon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He has gone to find out whether the Government need legislation or not.
The speech by the Secretary of State was remarkable. He said that when the Government got into office they had to have an urgent and full review and announce the results on 27th October. The results swept away the work of the Select Committee. [Interruption.] I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), but I will try. Having told us how important it was to do this, the right hon. Gentleman then said that it was not possible for him to deal with present unemployment quite so quickly. That was a curious contrast. I suspect that his speech was not written in the Scottish Office but in Tory Central Office. There was an interesting contradiction in the speech between the urgency of the future period which is not to end until 1974 and the non-urgency, apparently, of the present, which is this winter. It was a curious contrast in priorities.
The hon. Member for Inverness, when touching on the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire about Hunterston, spoke of the activities of the Minister for Transport Industries, the man who made a mess in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board controversy, the man who has undermined confidence in private investment in the docks and who no doubt has made a contribution, an adverse contribution, to the help necessary for the Clyde port to provide the facilities which the Secretary of State for Scotland has sanctioned in a unique and equivocal decision letter which has still to be resolved. We do want to know what the British Steel Corporation is thinking of doing at Hunterston.
The Under-Secretary would be well advised to comment on this and, if we may know, what Chevron Oil is thinking of doing, whether it has been given the

1789
promised statement which was mentioned in the decision letter. I do not know whether Hunterston is to be in the S.D.A. area. I could not divine that from the Secretary of State's vague announcement. No doubt we shall find out tomorrow or later this week.
The Prime Minister is a prisoner of his own words about special aid to Glasgow, for on 11th June he said:
"I will give special aid to the city".
He meant special financial aid, or so he was interpreted by the Tory treasurer of the city. The friends of hon. Members opposite in the corporation believe that it is financial aid to the city. But the hon. Gentleman saved up his announcement for the debate. This is unfair debating, but this is the way in which he unfairly treats the House of Commons, and no doubt he will explain it all in his speech. He has made no mention of financial aid to the city, and we should like to know what financial aid, if any, it is to be.
If it is to be financial aid to the city may we know whether, in conformity with the Tory manifesto, "intolerable burdens" are to be placed on those areas outside Glasgow in which housing is built for Glasgow's needs? That means Stirlingshire, possibly Dunbartonshire, certainly Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire.
I agree that Dunbartonshire has made no compact and we cannot make any claims there. No doubt it is a mouse of a scheme.
In Erskine, after a bitter fight with the Tories in Glasgow holding us up for 18 months, we launched a scheme for 30,000 houses of which 20,000 were to be in the public sector. The Conservative convener of my own county, Renfrew, is asking for that ratio to be one to one instead of two to three, but I hope that the Government will resist that proposal and stick to 20,000 houses for the public sector and 10,000 for the private, for that seems a fair balance. The 20,000 houses were approved as an amendment by my right hon. Friend to the Renfrewshire development plan several years ago.
We authorised the East Kilbride Development Corporation to build 3,000 houses extra in East Kilbride to be set aside for Glasgow citizens, for the town council generously said that it would waive its rights to them because of the
1790
importance of Glasgow's problem. We also commissioned the East Kilbride Development Corporation to build a new town of 65,000 people at Larkhall/Stonehouse and we committed ourselves to 2,000 houses for the S.S.H.A. in that new town. Admittedly, we were not going to designate new town status at once, but we were doing all the planning work, The Tories skated out of office in 1964 having promised in the August of that year to build Irvine. We had to do all the legislative, statutory and promotional work to create Irvine and it took four years to start it properly. I can therefore hardly claim that we established a new town, but we began the work at Larkhall/Stonehouse.
Those are all the things we have done. At Cumbernauld New Town there were to be some 2,000 houses and in Stirlingshire 5,000 at Lennoxtown and Milton of Campsie. These were all to be provided for Glasgow, or at least 3,500. That is a formidable total of houses. The Secretary of State's announcement today, if it means anything, means more than that, but I cannot understand what he is doing more than that formidable total. Perhaps it was a non-announcement; we shall wait and see.
We have debated housing before and the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have skated away from targets and commitments as fast as they see them coming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) clearly demonstrated, the same number of houses cannot be built with the same amount of money without reducing standards. That is because of the present annual increase in housing costs, quite apart from inflation, largely because of wage rates and materials, common throughout the world. Then there is the famous S.E.T., which incidentally will become V.A.T. Do not imagine that its abolition means a bonus. The Prime Minister, if he takes the country into the Common Market is obliged to impose V.A.T. in place of S.E.T.
Mr. MacArthur: Not on housing.
Dr. Mabon: Yes. The hon. Gentleman does not know his common Market. Every service and manufacture. Within the Glasgow context, if all these houses which have been promised are to be built and yet the volume of housing in financial terms is to remain the same, it

1791
means that the number of houses built in the rest of Scotland will be much smaller.
There are no target figures. I asked the right hon. Gentleman today to confirm that he would try for 44,000 but he is not having that. At present the Government are heading for 30,000 a year—in other words, what their predecessors did 10 years ago. Yet I can remember the great revival of 1951 when the Tory Party claimed that they would build 300,000 houses a year. We debated these later targets in manifestos. In 1966 they said they could get 50,000, or 500,000 in the United Kingdom. Now the Tory Party are ratting on that.
Mr. MacArthur: What did you do?
Dr. Mabon: We did 44,537 and that is the very best year in Scotland's history. I ask: may we just get that in one of the next few years while the Tory Party are in office? It is not too much to ask, but I doubt whether we will get it.
The Under-Secretary went to a conference in Bonn. This was a conference of Ministers in charge of regional development and I read the interesting report. I attended a debate on the subject quite recently. The hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that the general position about infrastructure was splendid; there were improvements still to be done, a great rolling programme, but on the whole the picture was good and—this is a very good selling point for Scotland—we have very good roads, very good sewerage systems, plenty of good water, good water boards—and we all remember that wonderful Act of 1967. This is not my description, this is summarised at page 95 where it is said clearly in paragraph VII.20 that Scotland's infrastructure is splendid. That is what the Committee says.
Who created the infrastructure? We did. They printed all the papers and all the pamphlets, but we built all the roads. We doubled the road system in six years, from 100 miles of dual carriageway to 209 miles. We set a splendid example in housing, we spent a good deal of money on all kinds of infrastructure. It is said in this Report that Scotland, of all European countries, is well ahead in infrastructure. To whom does the credit go?
1792
Obviously to the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman has given £20,000 to the Scottish Council, less than a penny a head, to promote the whole of Scotland. That was as a result of his visit to Germany. He thought that we ought to promote ourselves in Germany, little realising the costs of promotion.
The Highlands Board requires £100,000 for 250,000 people. It is right to spend that money. The hon. Gentleman suggests that Scotland should have £20,000 and tells the other areas and parts of Scotland not to ask individually for money, because the Government are promoting Scotland as a whole. He is being absurd. This is ridiculous. Scotland needs a £1 million promotion programme overseas to try to attract investors and to get industries in the South and Midlands of England to go to Scotland.
I turn to the Amendment. We have complained about the disappearance of the direct investment incentives. In paragraph IV.49 on page 55 of the Select Committee's Report there is reference to the pilot study which was carried out by the Ministry of Technology to discover whether a full survey should be carried out into industrial grants as against industrial allowances. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite took office and issued on 18th January, 1971, their own pejorative version of the summary. They say that they have decided not to do a complete study of this subject. But in fact they were committed by the Tory manifesto not to do so.
The Secretary of State, in a curious act of logic today said that because in 1969 we had not observed the restriction on industrial development certificates, imposed by ourselves to some extent, he could abandon it permanently. He thinks that because we did not observe it in one year the Tories need not observe it ever again. So we have this substantial concession to the 10,000 sq. ft. limit in I.D.C.s.
There is this curious argument on which we must have some answers about the reduction in regional expenditure. The figures as I understand them are these, leaving aside the difficult years of transition. The saving by the abolition of investment grants in 1972–73 will be £365 million. It will rise to £600 million by 1974–75. But the cost of capital

1793
allowances, which will replace investment grants, will be £235 million, rising to £485 million in 1974–75. So the Government will gain £130 million in the first year I mentioned and £115 million in the last year I mentioned. I do not know how one assesses the reduction in corporation tax, but there are itemised savings in other expenditures on industry, and so on. There is to be a saving of £44 million in 1972–73 and £105 million in 1974–75.
That represents a clear profit for the Government from the monetary, fiscal cuts in regional investment. Whatever the Secretary of State says, he cannot skate away from that fact. This is a saving of Government money. The same amount of money is not being invested.
I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Development to tell us how these figures are reflected in Scottish terms and how Scotland is to get out of its difficult situation. The Government have ignored the Select Committee entirely. They have even ignored their advisers. Professor Campbell, who as far as I am aware is not a dedicated Socialist, of the Chair of Applied Economics at Dundee University and an economic adviser to the Secretary of State and co-author of the Tayside Study together with the Chief Planning Officer of the Scottish Development Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is a good plan."]
—the plan is good; I am not sure about the prospects.
Last weekend, Professor Campbell described his plan as he saw it. He said that the Tayside people had to recognise that there were new obstacles to the realisation of his plan for Tayside. He said:
"Recent changes in regional development policy would also make it much more difficult for the region to attract the jobs needed both to counteract the decline in existing industry and provide a base for future growth."
Who, looking at Dundee and seeing recent events there, cannot be worried about what is happening in that great city and the hinterland and which is so valuable to us in terms of the study?
I charge the Government that they ignored the pilot study which we left them, the Select Committee, their own economic advisers and the officials in the Scottish Office in order to embrace, in a doctrinaire, blind way, their manifesto.
Mr. MacArthur: Hear, hear.
Dr. Mahon: There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
They embraced their manifesto and declared their position before they had any of the instruments of Government at their hand to decide how they should conduct themselves and what would be in the best interests of Scotland. In other words, they behaved irresponsibly; they behaved in ignorance; they behaved with that enormous conceit and arrogance which we always associate with the Tory Party in power. For that we condemn them roundly tonight.
9.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I am very glad that we have had the chance of this debate today. It started off as a debate, for which we have all been waiting a long time, on the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It also developed in part as that, but in part it developed into what was almost a survey of the Scottish economy.
I should like to start by saying just a very few words about the Select Committee itself, having myself been a member of it, and I would like to do so because I have felt for some time that I should like to say one or two things about it. I found it to be an absolutely fascinating, most enjoyable, most useful experience, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and which I would not have missed for anything, and I would advise anyone in this House who has a chance of being on a Select Committee to take that chance with both hands, because not only did I enjoy it very much but I found it most valuable in every way.
However, there are one or two things which I think ought to be said about Select Committees—this is a personal view of mine—as they affect Scotland. A Select Committee depends, I think, for its success on the feeling among the members of the Committee, the feeling of getting together and making, as it were, common cause to probe and find the ultimate truth from those whom it cross-examines. The most successful Select Committee—and most of them are successful—achieves this very well. The only question mark I would put, and I

1795
am speaking personally, is that I myself wonder whether we in Scotland do not know one another too well to get this particular form of dialogue between the members of the Committee and the people whom we cross-examine. This is a personal experience; it may not be the experience of other hon. Members on the Committee with me; I do not know.
Nevertheless, I myself have felt that we ought to think carefully about how we handle these things in Scotland, because I felt that we really were not able to get at the fundamental points, which we really thought we ought to investigate, because we were too much involved with one another in our daily political battles and because of the fact that we know one another too well, in a way, to get the best out of the Committee. This is a personal view, and any hon. Member is at liberty to disagree with me, but I felt it only right to say that, seeing that we are discussing that Committee today.
There are some very good parts of the Select Committee's Report, which are in every way very well worth while having. In particular I would refer to the remarkably interesting evidence presented by the then Minister of Technology, who gave a most impressive performance, very worth while measured by any standards, and, with respect, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gave evidence which was extremely fascinating to all of us in the Committee. It was at least to me. I thought it first class.
Having said that, there is one further thing which I would like to say. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me. I would say how very impressed I think we all were by the fairness and patience of Mr. Tom Steele who acted as Chairman of the Committee, which was, at times, by no means easy. I should like in this tribute to join with him the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who acted as a sort of deputy Chairman, and did a very good job indeed.
Mr. Lawson: Would the hon. Gentleman say a word about the Clerks?
Mr. Younger: Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. As is the case with all Select Committees, we were helped immensely by the services of our Clerks and advisers, whose work was most valuable and helped us a lot with ours.
I will answer as many individual points as possible. This has been a most entertaining and interesting debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock came along with his biggest pair of gumboots and floundered around producing quotations from odd corners of the Report to support his case, leaving aside all the others that supported the case which he was not putting forward.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was in one of his cost constructive moods. I much enjoyed his contribution. We had the usual speech from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—I am sorry, the hon. Member for Hunterston—who delighted us by his instruction to Scottish Office Ministers to get off their hind legs. I am not sure what one does when one gets off one's hind legs. The hon. Gentleman was doing what he has been doing since last July. He has been making the speeches which he was preparing to make when my right hon. Friend turned down every part of the Hunterston development. I wonder whether some time he will come back to earth and realise that things have not turned out as he expected. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) was his usual knock-about self, and no one was in the slightest bit disappointed about his contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) asked the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to the economic and social aspects of the proposed closure of the Kyle railway line before giving his consent to the closure proposal. Yes, my right hon. Friend will take those very much into account.
The hon. Member for Paisley said that it was in the new industries rather than in the old ones that we were losing jobs. I do not think that he is quite right in that. It is still the case, as it has been for five years or more, that the main job losses are in agriculture, mining, shipbuilding, metal manufacture, textiles.

1797
transport and distribution. There have been one or two recent redundancies in newer industries. In Honeywell Controls there have been 400 redundancies, in Burroughs 370 and in Saxone 250. Inevitably, rationalisation leads to some shakeout in new firms as well as in old ones. There is no doubt, as stated by the firms themselves, that current world market forces are a material factor in this. Honeywell stated this publicly when the news came out. The longer-term prospects for firms of this sort continue to be good. For example, only last week my right hon. Friend opened a new Burroughs factory, offering substantial new employment opportunities at Glenrothes.
The hon. Member for Paisley also asked a specific question about U.C.S. It had not occurred to me that my wind-up speech would contain a list of firms which were not going into liquidation, but I understand that U.C.S. has this afternoon effectively disposed of any such rumours which may be around. This will cause great satisfaction to all hon. Members. Both sides of the House will welcome the great strides that U.C.S. has made in recent months in getting orders for its new standard ships, and we look forward to the realisation of the energetic plans for capturing a further share of the present buoyant world ship building market.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister dispose of the rumours by giving some indication of what the Cabinet meeting was about in relation to private industry?
Mr. Younger: Even if I knew what went on in Cabinet meetings it would he entirely out of order for me to tell the House.
Mr. Dalyell: I thought that it might scotch the rumours.
Mr. Younger: I hope that I have managed to scotch the rumours suggested by the hon. Member for Paisley.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked specifically about future plans of the British Steel Corporation. He made the rather unfortunate statement that Scottish steel would be liquidated by 1980, except for one obsolescent plant at Ravenscraig.
Mr. Lambie: I was quoting a statement made by the secretary of the steel
1798
workers of Scotland in an article in the Glasgow Herald. Certainly the representative of the steel workers of Scotland is a better source than is the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Younger: As the B.S.C. stated at the Hunterston inquiry, the corporation's policy is to increase its productive capacity in Scotland to over 4½ million tons per annum by 1975. Plans for production beyond that are now under consideration, and the Secretary of State's decision to give planning permission for an ore terminal at Hunterston must substantially strengthen Scotland's case for providing deep-water facilities for a new integrated steelworks.
Mr. Lambie: There is a feeling in Scotland that the British Steel Corporation will be willing to invest £6½ million in an ore terminal while at the same time it is willing to spend £200 million on a new integrated plant in the north of England. There cannot be an ore terminal without an integrated steel plant. My case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—and the case of the steel workers of Scotland is that when we get an integrated steel plant an ore terminal must follow. My criticism of the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long!"]—is that he is doing nothing at present in these planning stages to influence the B.S.C.
Mr. Younger: I have been far too generous in giving way, and if I continue to do so we shall get nowhere. I have made the position clear in regard to the British Steel Corporation. It is beyond reason for anybody to talk about the complete disappearance of the Scottish steel industry by 1980. I hope that we shall hear nothing more of that.
Mr. Ross: Can we be assured that the Secretary of State is being kept informed of the plans of the B.S.C. on this long-term business of a new integrated plant and that, despite the policy of non-intervention, he still has powers to let the corporation know how we in Scotland feel about the future of the steel industry?
Mr. Younger: Yes, I can state that my right hon. Friend is in the closest touch with what is going on and that he is, and will continue to be, in the closest touch with the corporation about all its future plans, which are, of course, of great interest and importance to us all in Scotland.

1799
I wish to refer to what was said by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. First, I wish to make it clear that legislation is not needed to set up a special development area in the Glasgow conurbation and Clydeside. The right hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that the special development areas were only in areas of coal mine closures. We must remember the exception of Millom where, for special reasons, this policy was implemented. The policy is flexible to that extent. My right hon. Friend made an announcement on this matter today since he thought that the House would wish to be told that this was to be done.
I am glad that, apart from one or two discordant notes, the announcement received a warm welcome as a necessary and valuable addition to the pull which the Clydeside area should from now on be able to command in attracting industry to replace the jobs which it has been losing for some time. I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan) will not feel at a disadvantage that this is to happen. I am convinced that an effective improvement in the employment situation on Clyde-side would have an effect throughout Scotland in the general prosperity of the country as a whole. I am glad that this announcement was welcomed as a wise and statesmanlike move by my right hon. Friend and the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman then took me to task for ignoring the report of the Select Committee. He would not accept for one moment that all members of all Select Committees should be committed to everything recommended by those Committees for ever more. I do not think that that is what he was suggesting. It is not true that I have in any way ignored all the recommendations of the Report. For instance, the Select Committee made some very trenchant and helpful suggestions for improving the economic planning machinery in Scotland. To a very large extent the changes which my right hon. Friend has introduced go at least some way to meeting the points made very effectively by many people on both sides of the Select Committee. The Scottish Economic Planning Council, with the best of intentions, gave the impression of doing a job which it was not doing. That part of the Report is an
1800
example of what is being carried out following its publication.
The main tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was based on the theory that the Select Committee had found clearly that investment grants were superior to investment allowances. One can find plenty of evidence to suggest that investment grants are a good thing, but the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to any of the evidence suggesting that investment allowances were a good thing. There is the evidence of Professor Wilson and Professor Brown, who were quite outspoken about this, as they were about discrimination against service industries, which was such an undesirable feature of the policy followed by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State.
It is not true to give the impression that the Select Committee found in favour of investment allowances or grants. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that. [Interruption.] The effect of the Report was perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Motherwell was nearer than anyone else to this. It was that the Select Committee's Report was quite equivocal between these two different forms of incentive. It came to the conclusion that more study was needed. That is the only firm conclusion one can take from the Report on this matter.
The be-all and end-all of the argument about grants and allowances comes down in the end to a matter of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—between one side of the House and another, and a matter of opinion—[Interruption.]—between one industrialist and another, and a matter of opinion, as was perfectly clear—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Younger.
Mr. Younger: I must get on with my speech otherwise we shall never get anywhere.
The clear message of the Select Committee was that there were arguments both ways. The Government have decided that the balance of advantage for Scotland lies in the new system. It is a system not only of investment allowances but of better grants, bigger grants under the Local Employment Act, 10 per cent. higher building grants—we heard nothing from hon. Members opposite about that —and more generous criteria under the

1801
Local Employment Acts as to the number of jobs per pound of loan given—and we heard nothing about that. In the opinion of the Government, which I thoroughly support, the new package is one which is likely to do a better job in attracting new industry than the old one.
We must all listen to the right hon. Gentleman's views on this with great respect. But we must remember that, whether one likes one system or the other, it was crystal clear that the old system was not producing the right results. It the right hon. Gentleman had been able to say that the old system has produced such marvellous results and that we have gained jobs in Scotland all through the years in which it was in progress, it would have been very difficult to suggest making a change. Are we supposed to imagine that it is a coincidence that it was almost exactly the month of March, 1966, when the change took place from a steady gain in jobs to a steady, if not rather larger, loss in jobs in Scotland? One has to be extremely gullible to think that there is no connection between the change in investment incentives and the drastic change in jobs which has caused so much redundancy.
Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose——
Mr. Younger: No. I am sorry. I must continue with my speech.
Mr. Norman Buchan Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)rose——
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given way.
Mr. Younger: I normally give way, but I have been very kind to a number of hon. Members, and I must get on with my speech. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked me a number of questions, and I will not have time to answer them unless I am allowed to continue my speech.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for more details about the mention made by my right hon. Friend of the housing help for Glasgow. The hon. Member for Greenock also pressed me on this point. My right hon. Friend is aiming to secure the provision of 17,000 extra houses for the redeployment of Glasgow's population which was recommended in the report of the joint working party on Glasgow's housing.
Dr. Dickson Mahon: That has all been done.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman may have got it wrong. He referred to this in an earlier debate, and I should have corrected him then. These 17,000 houses are additional to all the existing commitments left by the previous Government——
Mr. Ross: They are not.
Mr. Younger: It is a fact that they are. That is why we are setting ourselves to produce the means of implementing the extra 17,000.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: How many in total?
Mr. Younger: The proposed development under new town powers together with the additional programme of S.S.H.A. houses between them should attain that total of 17,000 houses additional to anything calculated at the time that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. This would provide good housing in good surroundings for something like 60,000 extra people.
What the hon. Member for Greenock did when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office was to talk in general terms about further out-county building. What this Government have done is specifically to earmark the resources to do it, first by co-operation in the working party which identified the problem, second by accepting the conclusions of that working party in full, which were not available to the hon. Gentleman, and third by providing the means through the S.S.H.A.—extra building to anything specified by the S.S.H.A. and the new town powers which are now specifically mentioned—for these houses to be built. I can be specific about this——
Mr. William Hannan Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill) rose——
Mr. Younger: No. Hon. Members are entitled to this information, and I cannot give it unless I am allowed to continue.
What the previous Government did was to announce on 17th January, 1969, that they were willing to pay for the cost of preparing a master plan for a development at Stonehouse and that the planning agency might be the East Kilbride

1803
Development Corporation. They did not say that they would do anything to implement it. The intention was to have the plan ready for implementation by re-organised local goverment. The only firm proposal was for a limited development plan amendment at Canderside Toll for 2,000 houses. The amendment is at present under consideration. Nothing else has been able to be done for that. This would have involved about 2,000 S.S.H.A. houses and an industrial estate associated with it.
What is new in this Government's proposal is not simply to prepare a master plan but to consider new town powers to get the building of a new community under way, irrespective of the timing of local government reform. This is completely additional to any of the plans made before. It involves a considerable financial commitment, too. Clearly, if the S.S.H.A. is to build something like an additional 7,000 houses, they will cost the central Government a great deal of money. This is part of a considerable contribution to the Glasgow Corporation's problems.
Mrs. Judith Hart: Are we to understand that there is a precise commitment to 7,000 houses in the Stone-house area in addition to the 2,000 which my hon. Friend earlier announced? Is the East Kilbride Development Corporation to be the agency for building the houses, or has a decision not yet been taken about it?
Mr. Younger: The decision has not finally been taken, but we are prepared to consider putting this proposal to the East Kilbride Development Corporation. It is us to the corporation.
I cannot tie myself to 7,000 extra houses at Stonehouse—[Interruption.]—but there will be a lot of houses in addition to the 2,000 at Canderside Toll. [Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members opposite will greatly regret it if they laugh too much about this, because it is a real, genuine, extra commitment which has never been given before.
It is no use the Opposition coming to the House tonight at the end of a debate on the Select Committee's Report and making out that the whole of the regional development policy is being changed for the worse by the new Government. Nor
1804
is it any use saying that this Government have done nothing in the seven months that they have been in office. We have already changed the whole basis whereby the service industries were discriminated against throughout the Labour Government's period of office. All who are involved in the service industries are now thoroughly delighted and very thankful.
We have already put in hand changes in the regional development policy which, in our opinion, will make a better contribution and bring more jobs to Scotland than in previous years. The one thing which it was not open to us to do when we took office in June was to sit back and say, "Everything is running beautifully. We can leave it all as it stands."
In that context, I wonder what the Opposition think of the fact that their own investment incentives, which have had this effect over the past five years, were running throughout last summer and yet the slide continued.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that there was a change in investment incentives on 27th October. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if it were the case that everybody was dreading that change there would have been an avalanche of people trying to get in their developments before it happened. We would have been inundated with applications in July, August and September. That did not happen, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. Throughout last summer the inexorable trend of the last five years continued. We were losing jobs year by year. This Government were not prepared to allow that situation to go on. Today my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose——
Mr. Younger: Today my right hon. Friend has shown that he recognises that special measures are needed to deal with the situation which we inherited and which we are honour bound to do something about. That is why my right hon. Friend introduced the proposal for a special development area in the Clyde-side and West Central Scotland areas where the main problem of redundancies and unemployment now lies. This is something which the people in that area can look to as a clear recognition that we know that they need an extra pull to get new jobs into the area.

1805
I should like to conclude by mentioning promotion. I hope that no one will sneer at the necessary efforts to co-ordinate and bring together the efforts of the many agencies in Scotland which are going out to England and abroad to encourage new investment and industry to come to Scotland. If we sit back and just complain about our difficulties and troubles we shall never get the new jobs and the new investment which we need. I hope that, irrespective of party political problems or anything else, we can have the
support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for our efforts.
Mr. James Hamilton Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 312.

Division No. 122.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Albu, Austen

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Driberg, Tom

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Allen, Scholefield

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Dunn, James A.

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

Armstrong, Ernest

Dunnett, Jack

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Ashley, Jack

Eadie, Alex

Judd, Frank

Ashton, Joe

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Kaufman, Gerald

Atkinson, Norman

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Kelley, Richard

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ellis, Tom

Kinnock, Neil

Barnes, Michael

English, Michael

Lambie, David

Barnett, Joel

Evans, Fred

Lamond, James

Beaney, Alan

Fernyhough, E.

Latham, Arthur

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)

Lawson, George

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Bidwell, Sydney

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Bishop, E. S.

Foley, Maurice

Leonard, Dick

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Foot, Michael

Lestor, Miss Joan

Booth, Albert

Ford, Ben

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Forrester, John

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Bradley, Tom

Freeson, Reginald

Lipton, Marcus

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Galpern, Sir Myer

Lomas, Kenneth

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

Garrett, W. E.

Loughlin, Charles

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

Gilbert, Dr. John

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Ginsburg David

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Buchan, Norman

Golding, John

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

McBride, Neil

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gourlay, Harry

McCartney, Hugh

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McElhone, Frank

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

McGuire, Michael

Cant, R. B.

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Carmichael, Neil

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mackie, John

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Mackintosh, John P.

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Maclennan, Robert

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, Peter

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Cohen, Stanley

Harper, Joseph

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

Coleman, Donald

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Marks, Kenneth

Concannon, J. D.

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Marquand, David

Conlan, Bernard

Hattersley, Roy

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mayhew, Christopher

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Meacher, Michael

Crawshaw, Richard

Hilton, W. S.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Cronin, John

Horam, John

Mendelson, John

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mikardo, Ian

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Millan, Bruce

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Huckfield, Leslie

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Davidson, Arthur

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Molloy, William

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hunter, Adam

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Janner, Greville

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Federick

Deakins, Eric

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Murray, Ronald King

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

Ogden, Eric

Delargy, H. J.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

O'Halloran, Michael

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Oram, Bert

Dempsey, James

John, Brynmor

Orbach, Maurice

Doig, Peter

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Orme, Stanley

Dormand, J. D.

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

Oswald, Thomas

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Tomney, Frank

Padley, Walter

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Torney, Tom

Palmer, Arthur

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Tuck, Raphael

Pannel, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

Urwin, T. W.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

Varley, Eric G.

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wainwright, Edwin

Pavitt, Laurie

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

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

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Sillars, James

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Pendry, Tom

Silverman, Julius

Wallace, George

Pentland, Norman

Skinner, Dennis

Watkins, David

Perry, Ernest G.

Small, William

Weitzman, David

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Wellbeloved, James

Prescott, John

Spearing, Nigel

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Spriggs, Leslie

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Price, William (Rugby)

Stallard, A. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Probert, Arthur

Steel, David

Whitlock, William

Rankin, John

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Richard, Ivor

Strang, Gavin

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Woof, Robert

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Swain, Thomas

Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Roper, John

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Mr. William Hamling.

Rose, Paul B.

Tinn, James

NOES

Adley, Robert

Cooke, Robert

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Coombs, Derek

Grylls, Michael

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Cooper, A. E.

Gummer, Selwyn

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Cordle, John

Gurden, Harold

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Cormack, Patrick

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Astor, John

Costain, A. P.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Atkins, Humphrey

Crouch, David

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Awdry, Daniel

Crowder, F. P.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Curran, Charles

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Balniel, Lord

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Batsford, Brian

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Haselhurst, Alan

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

Hastings, Stephen

Bell, Ronald

Dean, Paul

Havers, Michael

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Hawkins, Paul

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hayhoe, Barney

Benyon, W.

Dixon, Piers

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Berry, Hon. Anthony

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Heseltine, Michael

Biffen, John

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hicks, Robert

Biggs-Davison, John

Drayson, G. B.

Higgins, Terence L.

Blaker, Peter

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hiley, Joseph

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Dykes, Hugh

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

Body, Richard

Eden, Sir John

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Boscawen, Robert

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Holland, Philip

Bossom, Sir Clive

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Holt, Miss Mary

Bowden, Andrew

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

Hordern, Peter

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Emery, Peter

Hornby, Richard

Braine, Bernard

Eyre, Reginald

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Bray, Ronald

Farr, John

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Brewis, John

Fell, Anthony

Howell, David (Guildford)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Hunt, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Iremonger, T. L.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bryan, Paul

Fortescue, Tim

James, David

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

Foster, Sir John

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Buck, Antony

Fowler, Norman

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Fox, Marcus

Jessel, Toby

Burden, F. A.

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

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Fry, Peter

Jopling, Michael

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

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Carlisle, Mark

Gardner, Edward

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Cary, Sir Robert

Gibson-Watt, David

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Channon, Paul

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Kershaw, Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Kilfedder, James

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Kimball, Marcus

Chichester-Clark, R.

Goodhart, Philip

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Churchill, W. S.

Gorst, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Gower, Raymond

Kinsey, J. R.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gray, Hamish

Kitson, Timothy

Clegg, Walter

Green, Alan

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Cockeram, Eric

Grieve, Percy

Knox, David

1808

1809

Lambton, Anthony

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Spence, John

Lane, David

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Sproat, Iain

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Osborn, John

Stainton, Keith

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Le Marchant, Spencer

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

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

Paisley, Mr. Ian

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

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

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Stokes, John

Longden, Gilbert

Peel, John

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Loveridge, John

Percival, Ian

Sutcliffe, John

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Tapsell, Peter

MacArthur, Ian

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

McCrindle, R. A.

Pink, R. Bonner

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

McLaren, Martin

Pounder, Rafton

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

McMaster, Stanley

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Tebbit, Norman

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

Temple, John M.

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Maddan, Martin

Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

Madel, David

Raison, Timothy

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Maginnis, John E.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Tilney, John

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Marten, Neil

Redmond, Robert

Trew, Peter

Mather, Carol

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Maude, Angus

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Mawby, Ray

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Vickers, Dame Joan

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon

Waddington, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Ridsdale, Julian

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Miscampbell, Norman

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Wall, Patrick

Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Walters, Dennis

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Ward, Dame Irene

Moate, Roger

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Warren, Kenneth

Molyneaux, James

Rost, Peter

Weatherill, Bernard

Money, Ernie

Royle, Anthony

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Russell, Sir Ronald

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Montgomery, Fergus

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

More, Jasper

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Wiggin, Jerry

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Scott, Nicholas

Wilkinson, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Sharples, Richard

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Mudd, David

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

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Murton, Oscar

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Worsley, Marcus

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Simeons, Charles

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Neave, Airey

Sinclair, Sir George

Younger, Hn. George

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Skeet, T. H. H.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Normanton, Tom

Soref, Harold

Mr. Hector Monro and

Nott, John

Speed, Keith

Mr. Victor Goodhew

Onslow, Cranley

Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in Session 1969–70 on Economic Planning in Scotland (House of Commons Paper No. 267).

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

TRAFFIC WARDENS (SCOTLAND)
10.13 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
This Order extends and consolidates the functions which may be carried out by traffic wardens in Scotland, their existing functions having been laid down in the previous Orders of 1962 and 1966. This is in similar terms to the Order approved for England and Wales in December last year.
The main effect of the Order is to permit chief constables to employ traffic wardens on some functions which are at present undertaken by the police in connection with the regulation and control of traffic. These new functions will give traffic wardens, if so employed by their chief constables—I emphasise that it is only if they are so employed by their chief constables—power to control and regulate pedestrians as well as road traffic; power to obtain the names and addresses of drivers, owners of vehicles, and pedestrians when offences appear to have been committed against the laws they are permitted to enforce; and power to enforce the vehicle excise law. In addition, it will be an offence for pedestrians and drivers to disregard directions given by a traffic warden.
As elsewhere, the volume of traffic in Scotland is increasing substantially year by year. In the five years ending in December, 1969, the number of vehicles registered in Scotland rose by over 200,000 to produce a total exceeding 1,100,000.
By sharing some of the duties which were previously undertaken only by the police, traffic wardens will be able not only to play an increasingly important role in ensuring the free flow of traffic in our towns and cities but to assist the police further by allowing them to be released for other duties such as the prevention and detection of crime.
Since they were first employed in Scotland in 1962, traffic wardens have had
1812
their powers extended only once before. That was in 1966 when an Order was approved permitting them to direct and control moving traffic at road junctions and other places similarly liable to become congested. At the time when that Order was before the House there were only 120 wardens in the whole of Scotland. This number had risen to 566 at the end of 1970.
Traffic wardens are responsible to the chief constable, and they act under his direction. We believe that it is most important that traffic wardens should be adequately trained before undertaking their duties. Indeed, this is a requirement of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, and we have drawn the attention of chief constables to this Act.
Consultations on the Order have taken place with the organisations representative of the police and also with the local authorities and the motoring interests.
As I am sure the House will agree, the value of traffic wardens in relieving the police of some of their more routine traffic duties has come to be very widely recognised. All of us are now accustomed to the sight of traffic wardens on point duty, particularly during rush-hour periods; and I do not think that any of us, nor indeed the public generally, consider this as something exceptional.
I pay tribute to the contribution traffic wardens have made to the successful regulation of traffic in our burghs and cities. We hope that the Order will serve to provide further support for the police in their traffic duties and also in their primary task of fighting crime and maintaining law and order.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Neil Carmichael: The Under-Secretary will realise that we would like to have a number of points elucidated, particularly about the power traffic wardens are to have to enforce the law.
The House has a right to know precisely what is meant by traffic wardens enforcing the law. I can understand their being given powers to ask for information and to take note of vehicles contravening the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, or of vehicles being parked in such a way as to be hazards to safety or the free flow of other traffic. However, the Order goes

1813
further, at least in words—unless the Under-Secretary has another interpretation—and empowers traffic wardens to enforce the law. Exactly what powers are these? Are they the same as those possessed by constables?
In Article 3(2), in the expression
"For the purposes of the discharge by traffic wardens of such functions, references to a constable or police constable in the following enactments shall include references to a traffic warden"
is there a difference between "constable" and "police constable"?
Have the police been fully consulted about this transfer of powers to traffic wardens? The Under-Secretary will expect me to ask whether he has consulted his fellow Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). In the debate on the English Order, which gave English traffic wardens almost the same powers, the hon. Member for Cathcart, who at that time represented the Police Federation, said this:
"We should be thinking in terms of a fundamental change in our way of tackling the problem. The real answer lies in the development of the police forces as we now have them. The problems of traffic control are far too serious to be considered in any other way, and it is for this reason that I should be reluctant to give approval to the Order without more explanation from the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 446.]
The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned with the police and no doubt is fully aware of their views. No doubt also he has conveyed them to his hon. Friend.
How do the police view these new powers, particularly the power to enforce the law? Suppose, for example, a person in charge of a vehicle refuses to show his driving licence or in general is difficult. As a layman, I would regard the wording
"employed to enforce the law"
as giving the traffic warden the same power as the police constable in that he could apprehend the person and escort him to the police station. Is that envisaged? The idea that the traffic warden may be employed to enforce the law seems to be a big departure.
There is another point which causes certain annoyance in certain towns. In paragraph 3(3)(a) of the Order there is reference to lights or reflectors. I assume
1814
that the traffic warden will be able to check vehicles parked in the street, including their lights and reflectors. Will there be any change in local byelaws which permit the police to allow parking without lights, as is the case in many towns in Scotland? This provision has caused some confusion. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that there are one million vehicles in Scotland. All of us get a bit mixed up with the law occasionally in regard to our rights and obligations in charge of motor vehicles. Very often, in going to strange towns—as we all do—we are unsure whether we may leave our car under a street light or whether we must take it off the main highway or leave it with a parking light. It is a small point but it interests many people. Is there any basic change?
There appears to be a discrepancy between paragraph 1(1)(b) of the Schedule and paragraph 3(3)b) of the Order. The Schedule refers to a vehicle
"being left or parked, or being unloaded or loaded, in a road or other public place".
The Order itself makes no reference to any place other than a road. Is there anything significant in this difference?
I recall the unfortunate experience we had when I was at the Ministry of Transport in that there can be no amendment of Orders of this kind, so it is important to have a full explanation now. It might seem a minor point but the Order becomes law tonight and we should have a satisfactory explanation. I am sure that there is a simple explanation, but the traffic laws are complicated, no doubt necessarily, and are, therefore, confusing.
Paragraph 3(3) refers to the functions in the Schedule and to Section 14 of the 1960 Act, but that is omitted from the Schedule. No doubt there is a simple explanation, and I should be glad to hear it.
This is an important Order. When traffic wardens were introduced, there was much concern to ensure that their powers would be strictly limited. However, their powers were extended in 1962 and 1967, and this is a further extension. All that seems to be omitted now is authority to operate from a moving vehicle, and perhaps this is the point beyond which the police would not allow traffic wardens to encroach on their responsibilities. Was this the point at

1815
which a compromise was reached with the police, or are the police totally unhappy about traffic wardens being given these extra powers?
This debate provides us with one of our few opportunities to consider this subject. We seem to be moving inexorably towards some sort of special road police. This has been the view which hon. Members have voiced as Orders of this kind have been introduced for Scotland or for England and Wales, regardless of which party has been in power. Does the Under-Secretary think from his discussion with various organisations and with his officials, if it is the Government's intention that there should be such a force——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): To discuss new functions while we are dealing with the Order would quickly lead the hon. Gentleman into becoming out of order.
Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making the point that this was just one more step, and after taking one step, it is always easier to take the next, and so one goes on and on. This may not be the appropriate moment to ask, but I wanted to know whether the Under-Secretary thought that the Order would take us closer to having a separate road police force, as is the case in other countries. Are these new powers sufficient to permit chief constables or Ministers to set up a totally separate road police force, or does the Order fall far short of that point?
Will the Order take us much further, allowing for the present police pattern? Are there enough powers in the Order? What powers has the Under-Secretary had to omit because of the necessity to reach a compromise with the police, for instance, and what powers does he think he may require in future? Has he considered the whole subject of traffic and its increase while drafting the Order, and is he unlikely to need additional powers for a long time?
Whenever Orders of this kind have been brought before the House by Conservative or Labour Governments, all hon. Members have been fascinated to know whether it was the intention to establish a separate police force to deal with traffic offences, or whether the present powers would be sufficient to allow a departure
1816
from our pattern of police forces towards that of the separate traffic police, as in many other countries.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: When I looked at this Order originally I thought it was fairly harmless, but the more I examine it the more suspicious I become. The House will understand that the debate of this type is necessarily short and narrow, and so I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I appear to be unreasonably brief.
I want to pay a deserved tribute to the traffic wardens, as did the Under-Secretary in his remarks, which I thought were rather curt. This warrants a little more explanation than he gave us and I shall try to fill in a few of the gaps.
The traffic wardens are being given what might be called quasi-police powers. There are certain qualifications needed to become a member of the police force, relating to age, height, education, and physical fitness. There are no such qualifications as far as I know for traffic wardens. Almost anyone can be a traffic warden.
Mr. Ernie Money: Perhaps the hon. Member will accept that good character is a basic qualification for a traffic warden in any circumstances?
Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree. That is a necessary qualification for police and traffic wardens. I am saying that there are certain qualifications required of the police which are not required of traffic wardens. This Order gives functions which have hitherto been performed by men and women with the necesary qualifications of education and physical fitness to those who do not have such qualifications.
The same applies to training. The hon. Gentleman said that traffic wardens will be trained, but we do not know anything about that—how long or how intensive the training will be, what training grants there may be and whether they will be paid during training.
The purpose of the Order is set out in the Schedule which specifies the functions of wardens. In paragraph (2) on page 2 it says, in effect, that the functions to be discharged by traffic wardens will in many cases be the same as are currently being discharged by police constables. The hon.

1817
Gentleman said that this was being done to allow the police to get on with more important work, such as the pursuit of criminals. But is it not being done because there is a shortage of police and the police have put in a substantial pay claim which the Government will resist'? The Government say that they propose to deal with the inflationary spiral in the public sector. Supose they take certain functions from the police and say, "Now you have less work to do. Therefore, your wage claim becomes weaker."
This is a very sinister part of the Government's prices and incomes policy. If the police threaten to strike, the Government can say, "We will get the traffic wardens to do your job."
Mr. James Sillars: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the traffic wardens took over more duties of the police they would have an irresistible case for a wage increase?
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is jumping the gun. I have thought of such matters and I propose to put them forward.
In any event, there will be an increase in public expenditure. The White Paper on public expenditure published yesterday refers to a quite substantial increase in the amount to be spent on law and order in Scotland during the period 1969–70 to 1974–75. I want to know how much of it will be devoted to the police. If we get the necessary number of recruits for the police, it will not be necessary to transfer these jobs to the traffic wardens; we shall have enough police to do the job for which they have been trained and are qualified.
Let me return to the question of the increased burdens which will be placed on the traffic wardens. The Minister went out of his way to say that the authorities concerned had been consulted —the police, the motoring organisations and the local authorities. I wonder whether the advisory council for the police was asked for its advice and what its opinion was. I do not know to which union the traffic wardens belong—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: They belong to the National Union of Public Employees, the Municipal and General Workers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union. They
1818
are very well organised. If I get the chance, I shall say a few words on this
subject.
Mr. Hamilton: I would think that they were in several unions, in which case they would come within the Industrial Relations Bill, which is very sinister legislation. The more we delve into this matter, the more we find behind it. To bring the Order on for debate at this time of night makes it impossible for us to discuss it properly.
Let me deal with some of the extra duties of the traffic wardens. Paragraph 3(3) of the Order refers to what may happen if a traffic warden
"has reasonable cause to believe that there has been committed an offence

(a) in respect of a vehicle by its being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness …without the lights or reflectors required by law;

(b) in respect of a vehicle by its obstructing a road, or waiting, or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded, in a road;

(c) in contravention of section 14 of the Act of 1960;

(d) in contravention of a provision of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962(b)"—

all of which I have looked up. I was tempted to bring the provisions into the Chamber, but I did not do so in view of the shortage of time. Some of my hon. Friends might care to do so: the provisions are in the Lobby.
Paragraph 3(3) of the Order goes on to refer to offences
"created by section 42 of the Act of 1967".
That is the one relating to parking offences. If one of these offences has been committed, or if the warden has reason to believe that it has been committed, the warden can demand the name and address of the person concerned.
These are extremely wide powers. Traffic wardens will become law enforcement officers, and the Schedule says precisely that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Lord Advocate?"] He should have been here. He has probably gone home to bed. We shall divide on this Order, because it is extremely important.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hon. Members on the other side—there are only a couple here—were jeering when my hon. Friend mentioned the Lord Advocate, but there are some serious legal points which I

1819
want to raise if I can catch the eye of the Chair, and I do not think the Under-Secretary is able to answer them. Perhaps my hon. Friend can assist.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend understates the case: the Under-Secretary cannot answer anything, let alone on matters of law.
Paragraph 1 of the Schedule has this extremely worrying sentence:
"Traffic wardens may be employed to enforce the law".
This is the first time, in my knowledge, that somebody who is classified as a civilian warden, who is not a policeman, is given authority to enforce the law. Does that mean that wardens will have the power to arrest? Suppose an individual refuses to give his name and address. What happens then? Does the traffic warden arrest him? Suppose the traffic warden is a blonde of 18 or 19, and there is a big Glaswegian who has just come out of a pub and she tries to get his name and address. She might be misunderstood.
An Hon. Member: So might he.
Mr. Hamilton: So might he. I am just drawing the attention of the House to the implications of this Order.
Quite apart from that, the words I have quoted about having
"reasonable cause to believe that there has been committed an offence"
might lead to malicious prosecution. A traffic warden may have a grievance against his neighbour, and may say, "I will get you. I have reasonable cause to believe you have been obstructing this road" or "The reflectors on your car are not according to regulations", or he may allege one or another of a dozen other offences. The traffic warden can say, I will have your name and address. I will report you." The more I have studied this Order the more sleep I have lost.
The Schedule says:
"Traffic wardens may be employed to enforce the law".
I do not know what that means. Is it at somebody's discretion? If so, at whose discretion is it? Who will decide that traffic wardens will be used to enforce the law? Is it the chief constable?
1820
Is it the local authority? Is it the Scottish Secretary? I presume it is the chief constable, but I would like to know.
Paragraph 1 (1,a) refers to a vehicle
"being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness"
without the necessary lights or reflectors. What is the difference between leaving a vehicle and parking it? I do not know what the legal difference is. Again, the Lord Advocate would have been the very fellow to answer this. I am not quite sure, but if a fellow leaves his car for 10 minutes it is parked, so far as I know, and if the traffic warden is maliciously minded he or she can say, "It is parked, not just left." In any event, if it is left for 10 minutes he or she can say, "Give me your name and address." These are important points which deserve an answer.
Then I come to paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule, which refers to offences under Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967. Traffic wardens can act in that respect as if they were police constables, but it does not make clear what they can do. Section 80—I think I am right; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am not—enables a police constable to punish without prosecution; that is, he can give one a ticket for a fine, and one pays without going to court. Traffic wardens can do that, I presume. I suppose that that is the only punishment traffic wardens can mete out under that Section.
Paragraph 2(1) of the Schedule says:
"Traffic wardens may … be employed as parking attendants at street parking places".
Earlier today we had a debate in which Scottish unemployment figured prominently. In certain parking places and official parks unemployed men hang around presuming to look after people's cars and earning a few shillings, for which they are grateful. Anyone is grateful for anything with this Government in power. These men may be done out of a job if traffic wardens take over that duty.
Mr. Norman Buchan: If the Government continue with their economic policies, there will be fewer and fewer people with cars and greater competition for fewer and fewer parking places.
Mr. Hamilton: That thought occurred to me when the hon. Gentleman was talking about the increased number of vehicles in Scotland. If the motor industry continues in the way it is going, there will be fewer vehicles in the next few years and the Order will be irrelevant.
The Schedule also provides that traffic wardens may take the place of "lollypop" men on road crossing patrol. These jobs are done by old men and women who earn a few shillings to add to the inadequate family income. The Government are saying that people shall not have wage increases, so more and more people will be looking for these jobs which are now to be done by traffic wardens.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: When the initial Orders were introduced a great deal of concern was expressed because the jobs mentioned by my hon. Friend had previously been done by members of the British Legion in the pay of the British Legion. We should bear this in mind.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, this is a vicious attack on the British Legion and the ex-Servicemen who do this job. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to bring in the Order without saying whether he has had consultations with the British Legion about the effect on the employment of ex-Servicemen.
Mr. James Lamond: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would deal more fully with the financial implications. Local authorities will have to meet a considerable part of the cost of traffic wardens. Police expenditure attracts a 50 per cent. grant from the national Exchequer, but what percentage of the cost of traffic wardens will be met by the national Exchequer?
Mr. Hamilton: I am leading up to this. The Government are on record as saying that they want a high wage economy so long as it is linked to increased productivity. Traffic wardens will be doing work they have not done before and will be entitled to a productivity bonus. The Government have got rid of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and therefore, they themselves will sit in judgment. They might even set up a court of inquiry and appoint Jack Scamp to look into the pay of traffic wardens in Scotland.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Or even Lord Wilberforce.
Mr. Hamilton: We want to know how this will be financed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The hon. Gentleman will see from the heading of the Order that this relates mainly to functions.
Mr. Hamilton: I understand that perfectly well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the functions imply extra work for the traffic warden. I doubt whether the Government are adopting a new doctrine that the more work one does the less pay one gets, but if they are imposing more jobs on traffic wardens those wardens have a right to claim extra pay. All I am asking is whether this exercise has been costed and who will pay what. I want to know how much will be borne by the local authority and how much by central Government.
Mr. Bob Brown: My hon. Friend has mentioned pay and conditions in relation to productivity. Is it not a frightening thought for Scottish motorists that such productivity might be on the basis that the more motorists a traffic warden can knock off the more he can justify an increase in pay?
Mr. Hamilton: That is a very good point. My hon. Friend is suggesting that productivity could be measured by the number of motorists' names and addresses wardens can take. I do not know whether that will be the case, but this is the problem the hon. Gentleman is creating for himself by this Order.
To take another example, if these wardens are to be put on to directing the pedestrians who attend football matches, taking over this function from the police, is that again not good ground for a pay claim? I hope Jack Jones and other union leaders are having a good look at such Orders as this.
Mr. Lamond: My hon. Friend may have noticed that one paragraph mentions carrying out duties in a moving vehicle. Would this not be an impediment to increased productivity, and, therefore, is it wise to have such a disabling paragraph in the Order which might inhibit traffic wardens from obtaining more wages as a result of increased productivity?
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has anticipated what I was about to say. Paragraph 5(2) of the schedule says:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the functions described in sub-paragraph (1) to be exercised by a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle."
Suppose he is on a bike—he is not then in a moving vehicle.
Mr. David Stoddart: My hon. Friend will no doubt realise that traffic wardens already uses mopeds. Perhaps he could ascertain whether those would be classified as "moving vehicles".
Mr. Hamilton: I do not know whether this Order is an exact copy of the English one and whether that matter has any significance. Can a traffic warden using a moped be deemed to be in a moving vehicle, and if such is used will he be precluded from carrying out these duties?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend considering the fact that this is actually happening now in London where we see Panda cars with police officers——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is out of order, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, to discuss the functions in the English Order.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have not discussed the functions of the English Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am giving an illustration of what is now happening, or what may happen, in regard to that particular paragraph of the Order we are now discussing. I am asking my hon. Friend whether he is aware that traffic wardens are to be found in Panda cars and police cars and whether—I do not know whether my hon. Friend is legally knowledgeable enough to answer this without the advice of the Lord Advocate—because the traffic warden is in a moving vehicle he could act in the way provided by the Order.
Mr. Hamilton: I do not know. I am not legally qualified to answer that question. I hope that the Lord Advocate has been sent for to answer it. If he has not, it is a gross insult to the House
If paragraph 5(2) is to be implemented, traffic wardens will be less efficient in carrying out their functions than they would be if they were allowed to travel in moving vehicles. It seems an absurdity, on the one hand to give them these additional
1824
functions but, on the other hand, to restrict them.
Mr. George Lawson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is reading this correctly:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the functions described in sub-paragraph (1) to be exercised by a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle."
As I read that, a warden cannot exercise the function of taking anyone's name and address when he is in a moving vehicle. I am wondering whether it is not incorrectly written, and whether it means a traffic warden who is "with" a moving vehicle. I cannot understand how a warden could possibly take someone's name and address when he is in a moving vehicle. There is something very sinister in this. In a Committee upstairs we have been discussing for about 22½ hours the meaning of certain words. It would take more time than that to obtain the meaning of these words.
Mr. Hamilton: That is a case for extending the debate. A possibility which occurs to me is that a warden might be in a moving vehicle which is being driven by the owner, and then discover that the lights are inadequate or that the driver is causing an obstruction, and then he might say to the driver, "Give me your name and address". That is a possibility which would be precluded under the terms of paragraph 5(2). There is a lot more to the Order than meets the eye.
Mr. Lawson: It would be undesirable to preclude the traffic warden from exercising her powers under those circumstances, so again those words seems to defeat at least any intelligible purpose which one can read into the Order. My hon. Friend will agree that we cannot think that an Order should be so drafted as to completely defeat its purpose. There seems to be something very far wrong or sinister here.
Mr. Hamilton: Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend has been rather tediously repetitious. That is exactly the point which I made five minutes ago. I shall be tediously repetitious——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) insists on pointing out that he is being tediously repetitious, the Chair

1825
will perhaps bring to his notice that this is so.
Mr. Hamilton: I withdraw that remark Mr. Deputy Speaker. In one and the same Order, it seems to be absurd and a contradiction to say to traffic wardens, "You may be ordered to carry out certain functions but you are not allowed to do so in one of the most efficient ways; namely, in a moving vehicle." That is the point which my hon. Friend was making. Why is this sub-paragraph in the Schedule at all?
My remarks have been quite brief, but I hope that I have covered—
Mr. Buchan: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would examine the problem which arises from the difficulty of defining "a moving vehicle". Could a traffic warden ask for a person's name and address on an escalator, for example?
Mr. Hamilton: Well, the words are "in a moving vehicle". A person does not travel "in" an escalator. That is why I mentioned a bicycle: a person cannot be "in" a bicycle.
This problem of obtaining clear definitions is one which has occupied many hours in the Scottish Grand Committee. Hon. Members want precise definitions, and it is not good enough for the Under-Secretary to make a five-minute cursory speech and hope to wrap up the whole matter. We are deeply suspicious of this Government. The hon. Gentleman is a very charming character, but we do not trust him further than we can see him.
11.1 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: At a time when Scottish police forces are under strength and sorely pressed, I have never heard more stupid remarks than those to which we have just listened—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Just listen from now on!
Sir J. Gilmour: Surely we should be seeking ways of making the job of our hard-worked police forces easier, and one obvious method would seem to me to be by amending and strengthening the powers of traffic wardens.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in dealing with some of the abstruse questions which hon.
1826
Gentlemen opposite have sought to raise. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members in all parts of the House want to do all that they can to help our police forces by the increased use of traffic wardens. Those who say otherwise are being obstructive citizens and should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart: I hesitate to intervene in a debate on a Scottish matter, but there are some important points which require clarification, one or two of which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
The Police Federation is bound to view any extension of the powers of traffic wardens with grave suspicion and alarm. It is well known that our police forces are very much under strength, and that they have a substantial wage increase in the offing which is being resisted by the Government.
As a member of a police authority and having some experience of policemen—in that sense, of course—I know that they are extremely upset at the way in which their pay claim is being treated. Any proposal which appeared to undermine their powers and duties would naturally cause them dismay. When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he ought to deal with this point and give our police some assurance that the Government do not intend to undermine their duties or erode their position and their relationship to people in other professions.
Hon. Members should also pay some attention to the physical job which traffic wardens will be expected to perform under the terms of the Order. When this point was raised by my hon. Friend, I noticed that some hon. Members opposite tittered a little. It is no laughing matter. We have all seen policemen standing for hours in pouring rain, in snow, in hail and in vicious cold, especially in Scotland. You know that better than I——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Chair may or may not know. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide.
Mr. Stoddart: I apologise. I meant that the Minister knew better than I about the physical conditions in Scotland.

1827
I should think that before men and women were put on this kind of job they would need a rigorous medical examination. I should like to hear what the proposals—they would have to be new proposals—are for ensuring that people to be employed on this kind of work undergo a medical examination to make sure that they are really physically fit for the job and will not suffer illness because of it.
I should also like to mention the indemnification of traffic wardens. This is an important matter. The British public have accepted over a long period that policemen are there to help, that they are their friends and, therefore, happy to help. Policemen have becomes an accustomed part of the scenery. But traffic wardens have not been with us all that long——
An Hon. Member: Too long.
Mr. Stoddart: That may be. Nevertheless, that is indicative of the public attitude towards traffic wardens. They have not been accepted by the public.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not agree.
Mr. Stoddart: I do not expect my hon. Friend to agree with everything that I say. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will agree when I have gone on a little longer.
The fact is that, even under the present law, there have been many assaults upon traffic wardens simply and solely for issuing parking tickets. What will be the situation when the traffic warden not only issues parking tickets, but wants a person's name and address? The traffic warden will be laying himself open to even graver physical assault than has taken place on previous occasions. It is therefore very important that they should be indemnified to a great degree against assault.
It would indeed be an erosion of individual freedom if these additional powers are a step towards not fixed penalties, but on-the-spot fines. This would be inimical to British practice and would not be accepted by the public. We need to be assured that the extension of these powers to traffic wardens will not lead towards on-the-spot fines.
Article 3(3)(a) of the Order states:
"in respect of a vehicle by its being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness".
1828
I understand that at present a traffic warden works what might be called office hours—a nine to six job. The article does not say during certain hours of darkness; but
"during the hours of darkness"
Is it proposed that traffic wardens should do a rotary shift similar to that worked by policemen? I think that the Minister should deal with this important point when he winds up the debate. As the article reads, it appears that, far from having restricted hours, traffic wardens will be able, and perhaps required, to work round the clock. I therefore hope that that point will be answered.
Under paragraph 5 of the Schedule traffic wardens will be able to direct "foot passengers". I am a great believer in individual liberty. The pedestrian, the chap who walks on his two feet instead of driving around on four wheels, has had a pretty bad deal over the past few years. He has been shunted off his usual roads; he has been hemmed in by railings; he can cross the road only in particular places; his shopping centres have become cluttered up with fuming, smoking noisy vehicles; his whole environment has been ruined; his home has become a dumping ground for vehicles, whether in good order or with the wheels removed. Here we are suggesting that even more people should order him about, as to where he should and should not walk. It is a fundamental right of an Englishman—[Interruption.] —of a Britisher, including a Scot, to walk where he will. It is odious that we should extend to other people the right to order him about.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to clear up these points. If he cannot, I feel that I and my hon. Friends will be unable to vote for the Order.
11.12 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I initially thought that there was very little to this relatively short Statutory Instrument. But having heard the various points of debate I feel that it is clear that this is a matter of some import.
The first thing we should hear from the Minister is the extent to which there has been consultations with various organisations. We have heard a great deal from his hon. Friends about trade

1829
unions recently, and we should have thought that trade unions would be consulted. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that the Police Federation had been consulted, but I am not sure that he said that he had consulted anybody else. A number of trade unions that might have been consulted have been suggested. The traffic wardens are in the process of setting up their own union, and they are very concerned to have their own negotiating rights. We want to know how far they might be consulted.
New Members have to learn their trade. I am surprised to see in Article 1 that:
"This Order may be cited as the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971 and shall come into operation on 1971."
There is no date; we have no idea when it will come into force.
The heading tells me that this is a Draft Statutory Instrument. I wonder whether, when we have decided on this Order tonight, another comes along for us to have a second look at it, or is this the only opportunity we shall have to consider the matter?
In Article 3(3) there is something that also causes me to wonder. We have an extension here of powers of traffic wardens not yet mentioned in the debate.
That provision reeds:
"For the purposes of the discharge by traffic wardens"—
in the plural—
"of the functions set out in the Schedule to this order, references in section 226 (1) of the Act of 1960 to a police constable shall, in so far as it applies to the furnishing of names and addresses, include references to a traffic warden if the traffic warden has reasonable cause to believe that there has been commited an offence …"
Wardens in Aberdeen always hunt in pairs, and ratepayers have complained about the necessity of having two to do the job of one. This is a serious matter of ecnomocis and efficiency. If one of the pair is late for work, the other cannot start. There might be some deterrent in the fact that they are, unjustly, referred to as "yellow perils"——
Mr. Lamond: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a notice of motion before Aberdeen Town Council, which is a police authority in its own right, asking it to make representations to ensure that one
1830
warden be permitted to operate in place of two?
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the same local authority as I am. This Order may make the passage of that motion unnecessary—
Mr. Lamond: Or more difficult.
Mr. Hughes: If the Order makes life more difficult, I hope that the usual channels are in operation, so that I and my hon. Friend can go north to Aberdeen to pass on the knowledge which we gain tonight.
This is a very important point of law. Again, we must deprecate the fact that the Lord Advocate is not here. The reason that wardens hunt in pairs is that, for prosecution, corroboration is needed, even of a police constable's word.
Mr. William Hannan: Is my hon Friend aware that, in the Scottish Grand Committee, on the subject of salmon stealing and poaching, we fought to the death on the issue that, on the testimony of one witness, a person could be accused. This is dangerous ground.
Mr. Hughes: When I used to do a lot of fishing, I seem to remember a fish with "yellow" in its name. My hon. Friend need not worry about the salmon and the grilse.
This point about hunting in pairs and this reference in the Order to "wardens", in the plural, is important, because it refers to "the warden" having reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed. Does the Order mean that, if two traffic wardens, in their normal duties, are out on the beat and one has reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed and the other has not, they must then seek to act in unison? By the time they had argued the matter out, the smart motorist would have driven off to avoid being booked.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West will not take offence if I cross swords with him over paragraph 2 of Article 5, which says:
"Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the functions described in sub-paragraph (1) to be exercised by a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle".

1831
My hon. Friend thought there was no need for that provision but, considering the eloquent plea made towards the end of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) about the liberty of the individual, I suggest that there is real point in it. In Article 5(2) one is referred back to sub-paragraph (1) and this makes it difficult for those of us who do not have legal experience to understand these matters. However, sub-paragraph (1) points out that
"Traffic wardens may be employed to enforce the law with respect to an offence—
(a) committed in respect of a vehicle by its being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness".
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has sufficient legal experience to deal with the word "may" in that context. Does he consider that "may be employed" could mean "shall be employed", meaning that a traffic warden would have to do this work?
Mr. Hughes: I hesitate to give a legal definition of "may" as opposed to "shall". If I did, we might find ourselves discussing it all night.
Article 5(2) is extremely important because it would be intolerable if a police constable or even a chief constable, let alone a traffic warden, were given authority to decide, while travelling in a moving vehicle, whether a vehicle was improperly parked or had improper reflectors, and so on. If a traffic warden were speeding past a parked vehicle and represented that an offence under this paragraph had been committed, all sorts of difficulties, including that of identification, could arise.
I can imagine some extremely ingenious defences, and I am not a lawyer. Motorists might, for example, question whether a warden in those circumstances could adequately see the number plates of a parked vehicle. For this reason I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that this provision is absurd.
However, I do regard Article 2(2) as absurd in that it says:
"A traffic warden may exercise functions conferred on a traffic warden by a traffic order or a street parking place order".
Why not simply refer to a traffic warden exercising "his functions"? After all,
1832
there is nobody else on whom the functions will be conferred. It is obscure language like this which makes hon. Members who are quite new to Parliament wonder what other matters require our attention, and we cannot be expected to have examined the Order minutely.
11.25 p.m.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: My hon. Friends are right to raise the points they have raised in the course of this short debate. At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of my hon. Friends, I warmly echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), because he stressed the need for the police to be relieved of part of their responsibilities. This need was very much in the minds of those of my colleagues who were responsible for these matters at the Scottish Office in recent years and action was taken in the form of enrolment of cadets, the mechanisation of police units, and so on.
Over the past few years the extension of the power of traffic wardens has caused an undesirable friction between wardens and members of the police force. The Scottish Police Federation made strong comments in this regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and I have no doubt that the federation will be making similar comments to the present Secretary of State; because, anxious though the federation is to protect the interests of its members, it is only right that it should make these points to whoever is at the Scottish Office for the time being. We do not want any friction to develop between traffic wardens and their colleagues in the police force. We want relations to be as amicable as possible. It was right for my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) to ask the questions they did, so that any difficulties which might arise between the police, traffic wardens and the general public can be straightened out.
I have read the Order carefully. I do not pretend to be an expert on Statutory Instruments. I am sure that my hon. Friends noticed with great delight that for much of the debate we have been blessed by the presence of the Minister

1833
for Local Government and Development —the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—who when in opposition was the doyen of Statutory Instruments. I tremble when I think what would have happened to the Under-Secretary had the hon. Member for Crosby been performing the function that he used to perform in opposition, because the hon. Member for Crosby would have been very displeased with the Under-Secretary's performance in attempting to explain the Order to us.
The Order uses the words
"without the lights or reflectors required by law".
Not long ago the hon. Member for Crosby brought this matter to the attention of the House when he asked an Under-Secretary to specify much more clearly what he meant by reflectors as defined by law; the hon. Member quite properly wanted to know the diameter of the reflector involved, and so on. It may well be that tonight the hon. Member for Crosby came to the Chamber to counsel the Under-Secretary on matters of this kind, in the unavoidable absence of the Lord Advocate. Far be it from me to interfere in the domestic arrangements made by the Government Chief Whip.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am delighted to hear that the Lord Advocate is unavoidably absent, but what evidence does my hon. Friend have for that statement?
Mr. Mackenzie: Being normally a courteous man, I was assuming that there was some explanation and that in the course of his comments later the Under-Secretary would be making an apology for the Lord Advocate's absence. Far be it from me to interfere in the domestic arrangements of the Government and their supporters. It is a matter between the Lord Advocate and the Patronage Secretary and we would not want to make an issue of that kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon raised the whole question of the definition of "hours of darkness" from the point of view of whether or not traffic wardens are to be employed on such a basis that they would have to work overtime, round the clock and so on. I am concerned about it from a narrower, perhaps personal, point of view. Most of the traffic wardens in
1834
Scotland have to concern themselves with the operation of the meters. The meters operate from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Saturday and not at all on Sunday. At certain times of the year. we have darkness between 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. But there are times when we do not. Perhaps we have misread the Order but we should like an assurance that the hon. Gentleman intends to advise local authorities to keep to the times of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for meters because it appears to innocents like myself that the term "hours of darkness" means that we could have meters operating all the time, day and night, as they do at some of our airports. I know that meters are essential but to some of us they are rather awkward. My constituents and I would not like to think that the meters were going to operate any longer in the day than they do at present.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has my hon. Friend considered the inequity which arises, if his line of reasoning is correct, from the different hours of darkness in different parts of Scotland and how undesirable it would he in the Western Isles that there should be meter parking hours much longer than in Galloway, for instance?
Mr. Mackenzie: My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) represents a part of the country I know very well. My people come from Stoer, where it would be a great hardship if meters were operating throughout the hours of darkness. The same goes for Lochinvar. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with this important question.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By leave of the House, I will reply to some of the points raised in the debate. I am sorry that so many hon. Members who were anxious to take part have not been able to have the opportunity. What has been so encouraging is that in the closing stages, in the hours of darkness, of a uniquely Scottish day in the House, there has been such tremendous interest by hon. Members from South of the Border. My only real disappointment is that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was unable to get in. He

1835
has supported certain additional powers given to traffic wardens in England.
Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis indicated assent.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give us the support of at least one hon. Member opposite, for giving traffic wardens certain powers in respect of vehicle excise duties. It is a cause he has pursued over the years.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like myself, is rather disappointed that I did not catch Mr. Speaker's eye, because I was indeed going to support the Government on this, which would have been a unique occasion. I was going to disagree with my hon. Friends. However, I did not catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Perhaps I can explain it all later to the Lord Advocate, who was not here.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Lord Advocate would particularly enjoy a discussion with the hon. Member. That is why I mentioned this subject at the beginning of my reply. I knew that I would get the support of the hon. Member and that it would give him great pleasure to support me this evening. I am glad that he has now had that opportunity.
Hon. Members complain about the Order being taken late at night, but in doing so they show great ignorance of the procedures of the House, for when they were in power, there were many nights when I stayed up to debate Orders which they introduced, and I see among my hon. Friends who are present tonight many who supported me on those occasions in that job.
I assure hon. Members that I can deal adequately with the many legal questions which have been asked. By calling for the presence of the Lord Advocate, Opposition Members were merely demonstrating their jealousy of the fact that we have the services of the Lord Advocate available to us, while for six years they were unable to have a Lord Advocate sitting in the House. There is no need for them to show such petty jealousy on happy occasions such as this.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), who is usually so level headed on these
1836
occasions, should have shown his jealousy at our having the services of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). If hon. Members opposite had shown the sort of skills which my hon. Friend showed so frequently from the Opposition Box, I would have approached the debate with far more trepidation.
It has been interesting to note that the Chair has several times had to call the attention of Labour Members to the narrow confines of the debate. Opposition Members have discussed the general principles of the use of traffic wardens in helping the police. Those are principles which we have often debated in the House, and there is no change of principle in this Order. There is an extension of the functions of traffic wardens, but not of principle. I was distressed to see that, with the exceptions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen, hon. Members have given little credit to the police for their job of traffic control and the job which traffic wardens themselves do.
Mr. Peter Doig: Traffic wardens have no discretion, but the police have. The Order will give traffic wardens additional powers which the police could exercise with discretion. Will not the hon. Gentleman now take steps to give discretion to traffic wardens?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member has exposed the shallowness of so many of the arguments of Labour Members and the low standard of their speeches. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), for instance, and I always enjoy the usual courtesy which he shows towards me and the kind remarks he makes, made a speech not worthy of his usual standard. He was toiling to find arguments.
That demonstrated the purpose of the debate and the schizophrenia of hon. Members opposite—they say that we must not give traffic wardens any more powers, and so reduce the importance of the police, and, on the other hand, they want traffic wardens to have an extension of powers and more to do.
I except the hon. Member for Woodside, but if hon. Members opposite want

1837
to criticise these Orders, they must at least make up their minds about what they want and not advance several conflicting arguments at the same time.
The other strange thing is the extraordinary interest taken by hon. Members in the Order. This is an important Order and I welcome their interest. I do not object to English Members coming in and I will be pleased to answer the points raised, but the interesting thing is that there is a parallel English Order, which came before the House on 10th December and which occupied precisely four lines in the OFFICIAL REPORT:

TRAFFIC WARDENS (FUNCTIONS)
Resolved,
That the functions of Traffic Wardens Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sharpies.]"
People like the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) who have been greatly interested in these things did not adduce arguments on that occasion.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled earlier, when I made a passing reference to what was happening in England, that I was out of order. The Minister has been talking about the English Order for some time now and I suggest that he should stick to the Scottish Order.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will return to the Scottish Order because I know that I will have the support of the hon. Gentleman. Dealing with the matter of consultation, I said that we had had consultations with interested bodies. There was opposition to this from the Scottish Police Federation. It was particularly opposed—and the hon. Member for West Ham, North will gain no pleasure from this—to giving wardens power to enforce the vehicle excise law and to obtain information as to identity and address. We took the views of the federation seriously. I have close contact with it and respect its views. The Secretary of State and I took the view that the extension of these powers would have no adverse effect on the police—on the contrary they would emphasise the importance of police duties, which only the police are able to carry out. We believe that the extension of these functions gives the police more time for their own duties, for the prevention and detection of crime. We believe that this Order helps them——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business):—
The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 30.

Division No. 123.]

AYES

[11.44 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Curran, Charles

Havers, Michael

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hawkins, Paul

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Heseltine, Michael

Atkins, Humphrey

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

Hicks, Robert

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Dean, Paul

Holt, Miss Mary

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Hornby, Richard

Benyon, W.

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Blaker, Peter

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Eden, Sir John

Hunt, John

Boscawen, Robert

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

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Bowden, Andrew

Eyre, Reginald

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bray, Ronald

Farr, John

James, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Fookes, Miss Janet

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fortescue, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Fowler, Norman

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Bryan, Paul

Fox, Marcus

Kershaw, Anthony

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

Gibson-Watt, David

Kilfedder, James

Burden, F. A.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Goodhart, Philip

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

Goodhew, Victor

Kinsey, J. R.

Chapman, Sydney

Gorst, John

Kitson, Timothy

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Gower, Raymond

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Churchill, W. S.

Gray, Hamish

Knox, David

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Green, Alan

Lane, David

Clegg, Walter

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Cockeram, Eric

Grylls, Michael

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Cooke, Robert

Gummer, Selwyn

Le Marchant, Spencer

Coombs, Derek

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Cooper, A. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Cordle, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

MacArthur, Ian

Cormack, Patrick

Hannam, John (Exeter)

McCrindle, R. A.

Costain, A. P.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

McLaren, Martin

Crouch, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Raison, Timothy

Stokes, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Redmond, Robert

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Mather, Carol

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Sutcliffe, John

Mawby, Ray

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Tebbit, Norman

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

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

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Moate, Roger

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Tilney, John

Molyneaux, James

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Montgomery, Fergus

Rost, Peter

Waddington, David

More, Jasper

Russell, Sir Ronald

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Weatherill, Bernard

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Sharples, Richard

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Mudd, David

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

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Murton, Oscar

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Heave, Airey

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

Worsley, Marcus

Normanton, Tom

Soref, Harold

Younger, Hn. George

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Spence, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Sproat, Iain

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Paisley, Mr. Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mr. Hector Monro and

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Steel, David

Mr. Keith Speed.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

NOES

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Pentland, Norman

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, Peter

Price, William (Rugby)

Cohen, Stanley

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Sillars, James

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Doig, Peter

Lambie, David

Swain, Thomas

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lamond, James

Torney, Tom

Eadie, Alex

Latham, Arthur

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

English, Michael

Lawson, George

Evans, Fred

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fernyhough, E.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Mr. James Wellbeloved and

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Palmer, Arthur

Mr. William Hamilton.

Ford, Ben

Resolved,
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

HOSPITAL SERVICES, RUGBY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
11.53 p.m.
Mr. William Price (Rugby): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of vital importance to my constituents. I represent a politically militant area, but if there is one issue which certainly arouses emotions on a non-party basis it is the future of our hospital. There has been a long, involved argument, extending over more than 10 years. It has not been without its share of bitterness, and I am quite happy to admit my part in it. I have kept up a continual flow of Questions, and a long series of letters to various Ministers, and I have attracted my share of abuse from Birmingham Regional Hospital Board and Coventry Hospital Management Committee.
1840
I certainly make no apology for that.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary some fairly detailed questions. I do not really expect too detailed an answer tonight, and I shall be quite happy if he in due course will let me know the answers to what I ask this evening.
The one question which I want to ask above all others, and on which I hope he can give me information is this. What is happening to the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board's £3·8 million proposed development at the hospital of St. Cross? This proposal followed recommendations of the working party established by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) when he was Secretary of State to consider the future needs of Rugby and Nuneaton.
A decision was promised in June, and some of my constituents feel that we have waited far too long. I do not criticise the Department on that score. With new Ministers and a change of Government the Secretary of State is entitled to take a long look at major capital spending programmes, and I do not think that this decision has been delayed unduly. We

1841
are in Rugby reasonable people, and the Under-Secretary of State will be relieved to know that I am not expecting him tonight to give me £3·8 million. We appreciate that there are many demands on his limited resources and many other priorities. We know that our scheme is a major one which we could not expect to be implemented for perhaps five to seven years. We understand all that and accept it. What we want and what we are entitled to is a statement of intent from the new Government about the future of St. Cross and its ancillary hospitals, St. Mary's Harborough Magna and St. Luke's.
We are getting the worst of both worlds. The uncertainty of recent years is having a sad effect upon the morale of the staff. We have lost certain specialist facilities. There has been talk of taking accident cases to Coventry and maternity cases to Nuneaton. In addition, in recent weeks three other matters have arisen which cause us concern.
First, on one recent week-end, as a result of staff shortages, the accident and casualty department was closed. People coming to the hospital late at night for treatment—and I spent two hours there in the middle of the night—were told to go to Coventry, 11 miles away. This decision was taken at the last moment and no publicity was given to it. When that happens to a major hospital we are entitled to know what is going on.
Secondly, I discovered last week that a newly-adapted ward produced out of an old operating theatre which would have provided desperately needed beds has failed to open because Coventry and Birmingham between them have refused to supply the two nurses which are needed to staff it. That ward, with six beds, has been ready for six months, the operating theatre is available, the surgeon is available, the capacity is there, but it remains closed because we cannot have two nurses.
Thirdly, the General Nursing Council proposes to take away State Registered Nurse training because the number of beds has fallen below the 300 minimum. At the moment when the Secretary of State is considering a major development for this hospital the General Nursing Council proposes to take away the most important part of nurse training. We will
1842
not accept that decision. We shall fight it every inch of the way. I have never been clear what authority the Secretary of State has over the General Nursing Council, but I suggest that that decision should be postponed at least until we what the long-term future of St. Cross is likely to be.
Among the Questions currently down for Answer was one asking for comparable State Registered Nurse examination results for Rugby, Coventry and Nuneaton over the past 10 years. I now have the Answer and I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at it closely. He will see that the hospital with by far the best record of the three is the one which is likely to be run down.
Behind this decision and many more decisions involving Rugby hospital looms the £9 million hospital at Walgrave, some 11 miles away. I believed from the beginning that Rugby would have to make a significant contribution to the cost of that hospital and, knowing all that has happened in the past three or four years, I have no cause to change my mind. I understand there are severe staff difficulties at Walgrave and it is bound to look for staff from Rugby.
I am convinced that there are people on the Coventry Hospital Management Committee who are determined to run Rugby down, if it can possibly be done. I personally do not get on very well with the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. I do not find many people who do. It is a strange masonic-type organisation. Getting information out of it is a work of art. With one or two exceptions, the board is made up of amiable people who cause the least trouble, plus officials who stand no nonsense. It is not a happy set-up.
Occasionally a Minister makes a mistake and appoints to the board a member who tries to lift the veils of secrecy. There has been one famous case involving a Mrs. Theresa Stewart of Birmingham. Her period of service has just been ended by the Minister. That is what she got for her trouble. I know where the recommendation came from, and I know Members in the West Midlands, including myself, will seek to ensure that the Minister and his right hon. Friends hear a great deal more about Mrs. Stewart. Her sacking was, in my view,

1843
a piece of political malice and vindictiveness. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to comment on this, but if he is looking for a replacement for Mrs. Stewart, I am delighted to offer my services. I hope the hon. Gentleman will pass on that information to whom it may concern. We already have my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) on the regional board and I dearly should like to follow him.
I do not believe the board has been open and honest with Rugby, even allowing for its difficulties—and I know it has many. I am prepared to admit that some of the criticism levelled against it from Rugby has been severe. In the past some of us have tried to argue that, if we were not careful, Rugby would slowly be reduced to cottage hospital status. The board denies it and in one respect it is correct; there will never be any announcement of that nature.
What worries us, however, is that there is more than one way of taking a pig to market. We say that anybody setting out to run down St. Cross, to amalgamate, call it what one will, could hardly go about it in a more effective way. The pattern has been predictable and inevitable. We lose our specialist services, nurse training, possibly our matron, possibly also our accident services. Our staff drift away and others cannot be recruited. Where do we go from there?
The Under-Secretary of State said in the House yesterday:
"At a meeting with representatives of the Birmingham Regional Board on 28th January it was agreed that further consideration should be given by the Board to the provision of acute beds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1452.]
I was interested in the Answer and grateful for it. It indicated, perhaps for the first time, that something was beginning to happen.
Several question arise. First—and this is the crux of the matter—when are we likely to see some development and what is it likely to be? Secondly, what has happened to the proposed 112 geriatric and 40 maternity beds, all part of the £3·8 million proposal? Thirdly, is the promise by Mr. Julian Snow, as he then was, in a similar debate to this one in 1968, that work would start as soon as possible after 1969–70, to be fulfilled?
1844
The Rugby Advertiser, which has a long and honourable record on hospital matters, recently described the hospital issue as "an incredible saga", and it added:
"The bewilderment must not be allowed to continue. The Minister for Health must himself sort out just what is going on in Birmingham, and he must be prepared to tell the people of Rugby the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
The Chairman of the Rugby Social Services Hospital Committee, Mr. Norman Edyuean Walker, is a man with many years of service to hospitals. He was recently quoted as saying:
"Some patients requiring cold surgery are waiting up to two years and yet St. Cross has modern theatres which are not worked to capacity simply because there are not enough beds. It is quite scandalous."
Parliamentary answers have indicated that our waiting list for surgery is about 50 per cent. above the national average. I ask that the Ministry should take the view that the time has come to put the matter right.
Finally, I understand that the Under-Secretary will be accepting an invitation to visit our hospitals. Perhaps I could thank him in advance and assure him of a most cordial and possibly warm welcome.
12.6 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) for providing an opportunity for us to discuss the future of the hospital services at Rugby, and for making his speech commendably brief.
As he mentioned, I intend to visit the hospital of St. Cross at Rugby later this year, so I have naturally been interested to hear his views and comments in advance. Over the years, the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in not only that hospital but all the hospital services in his constituency. He has frequently drawn the attention of the House to the existing provision. I know that he has the hospitals' interest very much at heart and I will try to give him at least some of the assurances which he has sought.
Perhaps I can place the debate in its proper local context. There are at present three hospitals at Rugby: St. Cross, St.

1845
Luke's and St. Mary's, Harborough Magna. The hospital of St. Cross is a former voluntary hosiptal standing in about 16 acres of land. The original hospital was built in 1882 but there have been a number of additions since then, the most recent being the provision of a twin theatre suite in 1966. St. Cross has 154 acute beds and provides most of the general hospital services for the town. I understand that the buildings are quite substantial and in reasonable condition. I shall have a chance to assess them when I visit Rugby.
There are several capital schemes proposed for the hospital to provide day and out-patient facilities for mental illness patients and to upgrade the existing X-ray facilities and engineering services. The southern portion of the hospital site, about seven or eight acres, is vacant and available for building purposes. It is on this site, as I shall explain later, that the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board proposes to redevelop the existing hospital services, and I stress that.
St. Luke's Hospital is a former poor law institution and occupies a four-acre site which is built up on all sides. It currently consists of 30 acute and 96 geriatric hospital beds and is, I am told, far from adequate.
The other hospital in the area is St. Mary's Harborough Magna, about five miles from Rugby. This is a former isolation hospital standing in nine acres of land. The present buildings date from the mid-1930s and it provides some 47 maternity beds.
The board intends to concentrate the hospital services at Rugby on the Hospital of St. Cross site. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 11th November, the board proposes to redevelop this hospital to provide 376 beds, made up of 224 acute, 112 geriatric, and 40 maternity beds, together with supporting services at an estimated cost of £3,800,000. The first stage of the main development is planned to provide 40 maternity beds and 128 acute beds, with other services including new boilers, ante-natal clinic and pharmacy. That is the first stage development which the hon. Gentleman asked about. When this stage is completed, it is envisaged by the board that St. Luke's and St. Mary's will no longer be required for their present use.
1846
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this as a firm and categorical declaration of intent, to use his words. He is aware of all this, I think. At least he will be more confidently aware of it now.
As the hon. Gentleman said, his main concern is not only if, but when. I hope that I have settled "if" to his satisfaction. He is also concerned as to when the new provision will take place. My Department, together with the Board, is at present examining the functional content of the proposals, as I told him in answer to his Question yesterday, and we are especially concerned about the acute bed ratio for the size of the population and the revenue consequences of this capital development. All these are under consideration, and they are typical of the sort of detailed scrutiny which only serves to underline the reality of what is in prospect.
I should perhaps explain now that part of our planning requirement is not only to cater for current need but to attempt to assess demand in a decade's time taking account of such factors as population estimates, local authority social services and possible changes in medical techniques. Regional hospital boards and my Department have acquired a certain amount of expertise in this field. The hospital building programme is based on a high degree of co-operation between the boards and the Department. But it is the regional hospital boards which are primarily responsible under the National Health Service Act for their own building programmes giving priority to the areas of greatest need.
The estimates for the Birmingham Region show that it has to plan for a population which is expected to increase by at least 10 per cent. to some 5½ million by as early as 1981, largely by a high rate of natural increase and also by movement into the region from outside. The major problems are to provide for this increase, including the new towns developing at Telford and Redditch, to provide better accommodation where there are large populations and to improve the hospital services elsewhere. Inevitably, the board is faced with tremendous problems in assessing priorities where the backlog of old and inadequate buildings is very considerable.
It is against this background that the hon. Member's demand for replacement

1847
of the present hospital services in Rugby has to be slotted in and examined. The original Hospital Plan published in 1962 envisaged a start on the construction of a district general hospital within the decade. Since 1962, as circumstances have changed, various alternative dates have been adopted for planning purposes. As I have already mentioned and I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there are numerous difficulties confronting regional hospital boards in formulating and keeping up to date their capital building programmes where these are projected several years ahead. Needs and priorities within the region must be assessed, costs must be estimated and a programme of building drawn up which is realistically matched to the resources which are likely to be available in future years.
These and other factors such as the rate of capital expenditure on building works in progress are by no means constant. In fact it is inevitable that over the necessarily long period involved these capital programmes are often highly variable. Such programmes must therefore be capable of adjustment, and starting dates other than within the current financial year provisionally adopted for planning purposes must necessarily be tentative. It is unrealistic at any stage of planning to attach too much weight to a starting date several years ahead which is arrived at solely for planning purposes. The hon. Gentleman might be better served if we did not attempt to give him more than this firm assurance that we are committed to what I have already said, without giving a factual and firm date at this stage.
However, I must point out to the hon. Member that this Government, as one of their early actions, have taken steps to ease these difficulties faced by hospital boards. In our public expenditure review we have been able to more than maintain an expanding hospital building programme. Solid additional funds will be provided over and above those planned by the previous Administration for the National Health Service over the next four years, and some of these will undoubtedly be available to the building programme. As my hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 11th November, this will enable the normal
1848
development of the service, including building programmes, to continue and progress to be speeded in vulnerable sectors, such as the care of the mentally ill, mentally handicapped, and the elderly.
In addition to the general problems inherent in a capital programme, the board has to grapple with the particular problems related to a large catchment area—in this case the provision of hospital services for the Coventry, Nuneaton and Rugby area. The board's first priority for the area was to provide a new district general hospital at Walsgrave, Coventry, to replace the totally inadequate hospital services resulting from the severe bombing of Coventry during the Second World War. The Walsgrave Hospital is now open and provides a hospital service not only for the people of Coventry but various specialist facilities for the Rugby area, such as neurology, cardio-thoracic and E.N.T. surgery. The board's plan in fact for the whole area is based on the district general hospitals at Coventry with supporting hospitals being provided at Rugby and Nuneaton.
It is, of course, the prospects for this subsequent provision that has led the hon. Member to raising the matter this evening. As I have explained, the board is at present examining in depth the scope of the hospital provision, particularly acute beds, to be provided in future for Rugby. The current plan is to provide a medium-size hospital concentrated on the St. Cross Hospital site within the town. I hope, at the invitation of the Hospital Management Committee, to be able to visit the existing hospital and new site later this year and to examine for myself the extent of the existing provision and the need for its replacement.
I suspect, without prejudicing my visit at all, that I will find a standard of hospital provision at St. Cross and at Rugby generally not dissimilar to that which exists at present in many other towns in England. Certainly not the ideal medical provision for the 1970s, but of a standard that we all too frequently have to accept as adequate. There still exist too many "black spots" outside Rugby in our hospital service and it is the replacement of these, as I am sure everyone will agree, that must take first priority.
It is very much to the credit of the hon. Member that he has pressed his

1849
claim for new hospital provision in his constituency with such diligence. I note that he seeks to pursue it even more actively by proposing himself as a member for the board. We shall have to look at that separately.
The board will, I am sure, meet the hon. Member's claims as resources and priorities permit. Of course, similar claims could be pressed on the board by all the hon. Members representing constituencies in that region. All in all, I think the board is sensibly following a carefully prepared programme with reasonable provision being made for the most urgently needed areas.
Perhaps I might touch briefly on three points made by the hon. Gentleman. I would rather not comment on the first matter about accident and emergency services without looking at the facts, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
The approval of nurse training schools is conducted by the General Nursing Council, the statutory body responsible for nurse training. The Council has no responsibility for staffing the hospitals, except to ensure that there is adequate supervision for student and pupil nurses; but it is very much concerned to ensure that nurses in training receive the best education and experience available
1850
It is both the Council's and my Department's policy to introduce group training schools based on the hospital group area when a group, such as the Coventry Group, adopts the Salmon structure of nurse administration. This ensures that the experience available in the group is used to the benefit of all students. As the existing school at Rugby barely meets the Council's minimum requirements the introduction of a group training school will clearly be to the benefit of students there. Previously, because of the necessary secondments to complete their experience students at St. Cross spent only about 18 months of their three-year training on the wards of St. Cross. In the group school students recruited at St. Cross will spend 12 months on the wards, there but the decrease in service provided should be offset by increased recruitment and retention of nurses as a result of the better training facilities available.
Therefore, I do not think that there is much fear for the St. Cross nursing prospects, with the group school that we hope to develop which will possibly raise the standard both of the nursing profession and the recruitment possibilities in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee
Wednesday, 3rd February, 1971
[MRS. LENA JEGER in the Chair]

Second Reading Committee

  The Committee consisted of the following Members:
  Mrs. Lena Jeger (in the Chair)

  Cockeram, Mr. Eric (Bebington)

  Osborn, Mr. John H. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Cronin, Mr. John (Loughborough)

  Pentland, Mr. Norman (Chester-le-Street)

  Crouch, Mr. David (Canterbury)

  Pounder, Mr. Rafton (Belfast, South)

  Drayson, Mr. G. B. (Skipton)

  Redmond, Mr. Robert (Bolton, West)

  Ellis, Mr. Tom (Wrexham)

  Ridley, Mr. Nicholas (Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, East)

  Gower, Mr. Raymond (Barry)

  Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)

  Rost, Mr. Peter (Derbyshire, South-East)

  Huckfield, Mr. Leslie (Nuneaton)

  Skinner, Mr. Dennis (Bolsover)

  McGuire, Mr. Michael (Ince)

  Stewart-Smith, Mr. D. G. (Belper)

  Ogden, Mr. Eric (Liverpool, West Derby)

  Wilson, Mr. Alexander (Hamilton)

  Miss Beston, Committee Clerk.

  MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [Lords]
  10.30 a.m.
  Resolved,
  That if the proceedings on the Mines Management Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's Sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesdays at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Mines Management Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  The Bill is a small and not, I hope, a very complicated one. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to introduce it briefly and describe what it does, then listen to questions and points raised by hon. Gentlemen and, with the leave of the Committee, reply at the end of the debate. I will try to introduce the Bill in the shortest terms
  to allow the maximum opportunity to hon. Gentlemen to debate this Bill.
  Basically, the Bill brings up to date the important and generally acceptable family of legislation dealing with safety in mines. The first Bill in this family was the Coal Mines Act, 1911, followed by the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. This placed the sole responsibility for safety in mines on the manager and under-managers of a pit, and gave specific responsibilities to deputies and to mechanical and electrical staff. Secondly, it placed specific statutory duties and responsibilities upon those individuals, and it prescribed further that the manager of a mine, and his under-managers, were deemed to be guilty of an offence if the regulations were breached.
  This Bill is necessary because of the change which has taken place in mining practice since 1954. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis),

  1853
  fresh from direct experience as a manager of a colliery, will agree that there have been major changes in the ways that coal mines are managed, which stem from the heavy mechanisation of the pits, together with the change in structure of the Coal Board. Now we have much bigger outputs. Often the output from a face can be bigger than the output used to be from a whole colliery. The Coal Board has changed its structure to having only three tiers—the board, the area and the colliery level— and collieries have become much bigger because several faces can be working.
  These changes in mining practice have led to a need to amend the mines safety legislation in order to bring it up to date. Basically, there are two changes in the Bill, embodied in Clauses 1 and 2. Clause I recognises the fact that a manager of a modern large colliery often will need assistance. He cannot attend to all the duties at the same time. For instance, he might have a qualified mining engineer as his underground manager; he might appoint a chief engineer to deal with electrical and mechanical problems; he might wish to appoint a surface superintendent to co-ordinate all the activities above ground. At the present time, none of these individuals can be made responsible for safety because they are not mentioned in previous legislation. Therefore, the Bill gives power to the manager to give written authority to any such person to take responsibility for the matters specified in a written notice. This will not absolve the colliery manager from carrying the full share of the responsibility himself, hut it enables the person to whom responsibility for safety is delegated to accept his share.
  As hon. Gentlemen who have experience of coal mining will agree, statutory responsibility is coincidental with authority in the coal mines. Therefore, it is necessary to regularise the position of assistants who may be appointed——
  The Chairman: Order. It is disorderly to smoke in Committee.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: And dangerous, too!
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) must also have regard to safety in these proceedings!
  1854
  The power is contained in the Clause for the manager to give written authority to share his responsibility, and there are further provisions relating to this.
  Clause 2 makes a minor change in relation to the rôle of under-managers. This is the second change which the Bill seeks to bring about. At the moment, the law requires them to accept responsibility in limited circumstances. If there is a contravention of safety regulations in the area for which an under-manager is responsible, he is deemed to be guilty of an offence. The responsibility is limited under the present law in terms of the area of the pit, either the level or the face being worked, and that limitation can be applied at the present time to an under-manager's responsibility.
  However, in modern mining there is much more shift work, and it is not possible under the present law to excuse an under-manager from responsibility where a contravention takes place when he was not on duty and he was not at that time in the pit controlling the operations in the area of his responsibility. So Clause 2 gives the power to excuse under-managers when they are off duty and another under-manager is in charge of the area concerned.
  Of course, it may be possible that some act of his, before leaving work, contributed to or caused a later contravention of the regulations. This is taken into account in the way that the Clause is drawn, but it does not deem him automatically to be guilty if the regulations are breached in an area of the pit for which he is responsible when, in terms of time, he was in no sense present or responsible.
  It is intended to apply these new regulations in the first instance to the large mines where the problems have arisen already. My right hon. Friend has power under the Bill to prescribe by order those mines or those areas of mining activity to which the Bill shall apply. We would certainly extend the provisions of the Bill to all mines or to whatsoever mines appear to need it, if future experience makes it seem right to extend the provisions of the Bill to smaller mines where the problems I have described have not yet arisen.
  The responsibility cannot be transferred to other persons except if a written notice is sent to the local inspector of mines

  1855
  and quarries, or a written notice is preserved at the mine indicating precisely those parts of the manager's responsibility which he has imposed upon his juniors. So the position is known to all and is regularised.
  Further, there are in the Bill certain basic and fundamental responsibilities of which the manager is not empowered to divest himself, and these cannot be passed on to his juniors.
  Fourthly, there are provisions in the Bill to make sure that everyone who receives authority under the Bill to be responsible for safety matters has the necessary qualifications.
  I believe this Measure has been agreed by all those concerned—the professional institutions as well as the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers—and I believe it has the general support of the entire mining industry. I even dare to go so far as to say that I hope it has the support of the Opposition, because I believe they drafted the Bill before the election and would have brought it forward in other circumstances. So I commend the Bill to the House.
  I would not wish to end this brief statement about the Bill without making a few remarks about the safety record of the mining industry in the last year. I am very pleased to say that the numbers killed and seriously injured in 1970 were the lowest ever recorded in the history of the industry; 90 men were killed and 641 were seriously injured. Those figures are still provisional, of course, and compare with 100 killed and 712 seriously injured in 1969. The reduction in the numbers more or less accurately reflects the contraction in manpower in the mining industry, so that one cannot say that the safety per thousand employed is very much better. Nevertheless, I am sure that it gives us all great pleasure and satisfaction that the total number is falling and we hope that that progress will continue year by year. If the Bill makes a small contribution to that improvement in the safety record, I feel sure that it will be welcomed by the Committee.
  10.40 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: May I first declare my interest as a sponsored member of the National Union of Mineworkers, as indeed are the majority of my hon.
  1856
  Friends in the Committee. Those who are not actually sponsored by that union are very closely connected with the mining industry. Some of us have been declaring that interest for a good number of years, but since there may be new Members on the other side of the Committee who may not be directly aware of that, it is perhaps appropriate that we declare that interest again today.
  This is a particularly important occasion for Labour Members in Committees of this kind because, as the Under-Secretary indicated, we have on this side, I think for the first time in many years, an actual mine manager. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis).
  The Under-Secretary was right to describe this as an enabling Bill. It makes arrangements possible, but it does not impose them on any one manager. The purpose, as he has described it, is to provide for an improved system of management of large and complex collieries, to remove many anomalies which face colliery managers and under-managers under existing legislation, and to recognise in law the needs of those who have the very heavy responsibilities and duties for the safety and livelihood of many thousands of coalminers.
  We are very grateful to the Under-Secretary for the safety record figures in recent months. There is always a conflict between safety considerations and production considerations. Safety must always come before production, even though production is greatly needed.
  On many occasions we talk of those in other industries who have tremendous responsibilities for capital investment. We hear of jumbo jets and so forth. Yet too often we forget the actual capital investment involved in a coalmine and the amount of capital investment for which the manager of a coalmine and his under-managers are directly responsible. They have the duty and responsibility of leading in an industry which is vital to the power needs of our country. They therefore have three rôles: the direct responsibility for the colliery; the needs of their own safety and production; and responsibility for the capital, as well as the wider rôle of providing energy needs. When we read in the newspapers of the difficulties in the Near East and other

  1857
  parts of the world with regard to oil supplies, we see that some of the things which we have been saying from the Labour benches over many years have been proved even more true in recent weeks than they were before.
  The Under-Secretary was right to claim that this is a good Bill. Let us put this clearly on the record. It was inspired by a Labour Government. It was drafted under the terms of a Labour Government. It was introduced by a Labour Government some 12 months ago, so it could hardly be anything but a good Bill. It had made some progress through the other House but it was one of the casualties of the General Election, one of the many tragic casualties of that "black Friday". Fortunately, somewhere in the new Administration some honest soul recognises true worth when he sees it, and the Bill has been rescued and reintroduced. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friends at least will agree that the only good Bills to be introduced this Session by the new Conservative Administration have been Bills which fortunately were introduced by the Labour Government, which unfortunately fell at the last General Election, and then because they had no other legislation to bring through, some of the honest souls in the party opposite at least reintroduced good Labour Measures. But that store of good legislation must be coming to an end with this Bill. This must be the last of the good vintage before the vinegar which we are likely to have in the years ahead.
  The hon. Gentleman, therefore, has the assurance that, although there will, no doubt, be critical comments upon parts of the Bill and its practical applications from those of my colleagues with direct knowledge, he has our support. He will have no need of a guillotine in this Committee. The lesson might be learned by his ministerial colleagues that if they could introduce good legislation they would never need a guillotine.
  Perhaps I may reinforce his comments on what the Bill does or does not do if I read some brief extracts from the Report of the National Executive Committee of the National Union of Mineworkers to the annual conference in 1970, just to check that their interpretation of the intentions of the Bill 12 months ago is precisely the same as what
  1858
  the Minister thinks that it will do now. There is no reason why this should not be double-checked. We do not want any legal difficulties to arise, as has happened on other occasions.
  In that Annual Report, the National Executive Committee of the National Union of Mineworkers said that the Bill had two main purposes:
  "The first is to confer statutory recognition and responsibilities on the persons, including specialists, required at a large mine to enable the manager efficiently to discharge the statutory responsibilities imposed upon him in the interests of safety and health. Such persons. by the nature of their work, may be required to give instructions to under-managers who, of course, carry statutory responsibilities. That under-managers should be criminally liable whilst acting under instructions from persons who have no such liability is seen to be anomalous, and the Bill seeks to remove this anomaly."
  That is the first purpose. The second
  "is to enable under-managers to be employed more effectively. Such an official under existing law is legally responsible 24 hours a day, with his jurisdiction extending to the whole or a particular part of the mine. The Bill proposes that he may be on duty for a particular shift and, when responsibility for a particular part of the mine is shared with other under-managers over 24 hours, that an under-manager should be absolved from liability for a contravention of the Mines and Quarries Act. 1954, which occurs when he is not on duty and for which he is in no way responsible."
  Then
  "the Bill recognises that the owner may appoint persons to whom the manager may assign the aforementioned duties. It will also empower the manager to give written instructions to these persons …"—
  That they are written instructions is an important point, because we know the difficulties which may arise with verbal instructions—
  "who will then, in relation to the matters specified in the instructions, bear the same statutory responsibility and be subject to the same penalties as the manager; equally they will have the same defences as the manager.
  The Bill will, however, provide that certain matters, such as the making of appointments already required or authorised by statute and the making of transport, support and tipping rules, will remain the manager's sole responsibility. His responsibility for the overall management and control of the mine will remain as before."
  There are other provisions about the powers of the Minister, who may change by regulation and consultation the collieries to which it will or will not apply, and there are also certain responsibilities

  1859
  and duties for the under-manager which, at least in this Bill, are set out in four reasonably clear and precise parts for a better arrangement of colliery management and a more equitable sharing of statutory responsibilities. It does not, of course, change the structure of management, but it recognises the changes which have taken place and their practical implications, bringing the law into line with practice rather than forcing change through the law. It is an enabling Bill.
  We should get it on record that there has, indeed, been consultation with all the interested parties—the National Union of Mineworkers, N.A.C.O.D.S., management organisations and the Coal Board who are in effect the major owners, although there may be one or two outside. We ask for the assurance that when the hon. Gentleman is drafting his regulations or beginning to implement them or change them, the same consultation which has taken place in the past will continue to take place in the future.
  I ask him again, because the point was raised in the other place, when questions were asked about the effects of the Bill and whether it would apply to opencast mining. The interpretation given some time ago was that the Bill does not apply to opencast mining, because under the law opencast mines are quarries and the Bill applies only to underground workings. I would ask for an assurance on that point.
  There is much debate nowadays on the relationship between the law and industry. If I may stray temporarily from the Bill and its Clauses, the Committee might think it appropriate to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the mine managers. Often they are unsung heroes. I hope that I shall not embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis). I am as guilty of this as anyone. We talk of those who work at the coalface, those who have to consume the product and the administration staff, but we rarely talk about those who hold responsibility for the running of a mine.
  I have known, and worked under, five colliery managers. They are a complex breed of people with all the technical qualifications of any technocrat. Added to that, they must be surveyors, electricians, accountants, lawyers, public relations people for their own Coal Board, welfare officers and politicians. It is
  1860
  not strange that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham came to the House by that route.
  On Fridays, when the morning shift comes up and one begins to sort out wage packets, although the mine manager's job may have finished underneath, and the under-manager's job may have finished below, there are consultations, discussion, arguments and rows about wage packets, conditions, and everything else. Friday afternoons must be marked out in red for every colliery manager, and anyone who has ever worked in a coal mine knows that the manager has a tremendous job to do.
  Whilst the manager may be a relative stranger to any part of the enterprise, as compared with the under-manager who is there all the time, sharing the physical work, the physical responsibilities and the dangers, when there is danger, something which happens too often, even in these days, the manager is there. Those who work in the coalmines know that the manager, the under-manager, the overmen and the deputies have the same practical knowledge as they themselves, and this is a very important factor in industrial relations and security, although it is not always appreciated.
  I remember one occasion when we had a fall on the top level of a very steep-rising face. After two days, the blocking was still on at the top of the level and a great deal of gas was known to be, or was thought to be, at the higher parts of the face. The manager, the under-manager and one canary went up the face, and we were gathered at the bottom. One of my colleagues, who expressed himself more bluntly than some, said: "There's one of those three that I feel sorry for, and that's the bird." But that same man, when the manager and the under-manager did not come down in what we thought was a reasonable time, was the first to lead us up the face to get the manager and the under-manager out. That is one way of expressing appreciation. I have given one example of partnership in an industry which is thought to belong to those who work in it. There are lessons to be learned from that relationship.
  The Bill recognises some past and present legal anomalies. It removes some of those anomalies and places some of the

  1861
  responsibility where it should be placed. Those who have the responsibility for making decisions and issuing instructions should accept the same legal responsibilities that face the managers and under-managers.
  The Bill has had a speedy passage on a number of occasions, but has fallen a victim of the Parliamentary system. It has now been rescued and introduced. We on this side want to see it passed through to the Statute Book as speedily as possible.
  10.56 a.m.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: After all the sweet things that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has said about colliery managers, which I am not sure that we deserve, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a word or two about the Bill.
  As the Under-Secretary has said, it is a short Bill, and it has been welcomed by everybody who has had anything to do with it—the unions, the Coal Board and Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I, too, welcome it, although not unreservedly. It might have gone further. What it does is on the right lines, but more should be done in the whole section of mining legislation.
  One of the difficulties of legislation, particularly in rapidly changing situations, is that one is always behind. One has no sooner prepared legislation than a situation has changed and the legislation is outmoded. This would seem inevitable by the very nature of the law and the legislative process. The law is at a disadvantage in this respect.
  In the last decade or so, that has been one of the great drawbacks of the British legislative tradition in the mining industry, an industry with a great deal of legislation around and about it. The British approach to mining legislation has been to codify the best practice current at the time when the legislation is introduced, which in slow-moving times is a sensible thing to do; a pragmatic, practical, typically British approach, ideal in slowly-changing conditions but not quite so good in conditions of rapid change. Undoubtedly, there has been much rapid change in the mining industry during the past 10 years.
  1862
  Not so long ago, about 80 per cent. of our coal was won under roof support systems which were outside the law. Every manager had to have an authorisation from Her Majesty's Inspectorate to enable him to work the faces outside the law, thus reflecting the slow-moving process of the law.
  The Bill deals with management structure—a phrase which I am always hesitant to use. Management is not structured; it is a personal thing. The more the law is applied to management, the more it is formalised. In modern conditions this is a bad approach, although it might be inevitable at the moment.
  The application of law to management may be more amenable to a theoretical approach than straightforward technology. One could use the law for a more creative purpose: to try to steer the ship, rather than merely to chart where the ship has been. This is the situation in which the law has found itself more often than not in the coal-mining industry since the enactment of legislation in the middle of the last century and with the 1911 Act and the 1954 Act.
  In mining, more than in most industry, the essential requirement is the commitment to the enterprise of everybody concerned with it and not merely, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said recently in the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill, the winning of consent, grudging or otherwise, of the worker by management. This is not good enough in mining. The very nature of the work, the lack of supervision and the difficulties of providing supervision, for example, all require the securing of full-blooded commitment.
  Inevitably, the winning of commitment implies a diffusion of responsibility. It cannot do otherwise. Such an approach is not acceptable to the traditionalists, and there are many traditionalists. If there must be a statutory framework for management, the Bill will help a little in diffusing the responsibility. I accept that the manager will still hold ultimate responsibility, as the Under-Secretary has said. There is, however, a sharing, and to that extent the Bill is a good thing. I wish that it could have gone further.
  Since the 1911 Act, management of a colliery has always been very much a one-man band. The legal framework

  1863
  might have corresponded with reality in 1911, with the triumvirate of the manager, the under-manager and the deputy. The three components of that trinity—an unholy trinity, I suppose, some might have called them—were the kingpins around which the whole mine revolved. That situation certainly does not correspond with reality today, when, as the Under-Secretary has said, there are large electrical departments, electronics departments, a considerable amount of mechanical engineering with thousands of horse-power installed underground and hundreds of prime movers, complicated ventilation departments, not merely concerned with measuring the cross-sectional areas of roads and the velocity of air, but dealing with complicated mathematical techniques, the use of analogue computers, and complicated safety departments. All this means that no manager can be in any real sense directly responsible for all that goes on in a mine. Today, no deputy in his district, any more than a manager in his mine, can be immediately in charge in any real sense. Long since have we had to delegate and depute, and I suppose that the Bill is a step towards recognising this.
  We went astray a little while ago in trying to specify statutorily in the most minute detail the jobs of various types of people in the mine, such as the electricians of the mine, the mechanics, and so on. It is a mistake in legislation to try to pinpoint too much of a specific nature in minute detail. The Bill does not fall into that trap; it leaves it to the manager to depute or to delegate. There is the safeguard of Her Majesty's inspectorial oversight; that is a very wise precaution. It does, however, leave it to the judgment of a manager to delegate as and when he thinks fit. This is a sounder approach than trying to tie up the whole thing with a kind of job description of what "assistant manager" ought to be, which would be outmoded, I like to think, in less time than it would take to say "0.P.E.C., the miner's friend".
  That, in the first two subsections, is the burden and purport of the Bill: that a qualified man can carry statutory responsibilities and other duties in a flexible way at the discretion of the manager. It is the flexibility that is important in the Bill. It is a step towards providing the
  1864
  opportunity for a less pragmatic ex post facto framework of mine management. A manager can now safely make one kind of statutory appointment which tries to anticipate events rather than belatedly follow along behind, as has occurred only too often in the past.
  Subsection (5) of Clause 1 deals with the situation when a contractor or his staff are proscribed from having these statutory qualities or responsibilities. I do not think that anybody who has had anything to do with the mines would disagree; this is a very wise precaution. Contractors provide a useful service in the mining industry. They follow in the itinerant tradition of the navvy and the ganger and, at one time or another, we have all appreciated their services. However, they are not appropriate for any kind of statutory authority or responsibility, if only for the reason of divided loyalties. In this context, I am a little anxious that nobody in the National Coal Board should make any part-time appointments under the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that no area ventilation officer, for example, would carry part-time statutory authority in a coalmine. That would be a big mistake. For my money, I should have liked to see written into the Bill some kind of provision specifically excluding that possibility. I hope that the Coal Board will be wise enough not to make that mistake. We shall have to wait and see.
  I welcome Clause 2. It will be interesting to see its effect. Here again, I hope that, at least at first, the limitation of times of responsibility for under-managers will be judiciously applied. The under-manager has played an important rôle in the history of the mining industry, and to some extent he has gone down in the world a little. Unfortunately, in my view, this might push him down a little further. I know it is said that
  "…a rose
  By any other name would smell as sweet",
  but I am rather worried that there is a danger that the under-manager will spend his fragrance on the desert air of the back shift.
  The back shift of the modern mine suffers from being a misnomer. There is really no back shift in the mine of today. Nevertheless, I think that we shall now

  1865
  have under-managers and under-managers, some being a little more equal than others. I trust that the Board will, in the first instance, make only a very judicious use of this provision.
  It is important that, in a particular part of the mine, at whatever time of day it might be, there shall be a continuous, unified under-managerial policy. This is where I am a little worried about some under-managers being a little more equal than others. We shall have to await developments and, presumably, we shall respond accordingly when the time comes.
  I should like to end with a brief tribute to my erstwhile managerial colleagues in the mining industry. I understand that I have recently acquired a certain notoriety in those circles as a result of a speech I made in the House of Commons not long ago. I should like to tell my colleagues that I think that the notoriety was undeserved; I am very much a lamb in wolf's clothing, and they have got it quite wrong when they think that I am trying to knock them. I am not. I want to pay them a very well-deserved tribute, and I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend pay his tribute. They perform a very heavy duty. It is only somebody who has himself shared some of that duty who can appreciate quite how heavy it is. If we, in Parliament, pass this piece of legislation, we can at least be pleased that we have done a good turn for colliery managers.
  11.10 a.m.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It seems rather ironical that we are debating the Mines Management Bill, which is closely concerned with the question of responsibility in mines, at a time when we are without a man at the top. Perhaps the Government are having more than a little difficulty in finding a man who is prepared to hive off and, at the same time, to be amenable to the National Union of Mineworkers and the other unions in the industry.
  Having said that, I do not wish to detain the Comittee too long on this matter. Whilst agreeing with a good many of the things that have been said by my hon. Friends, I think it is important to appreciate why it is necessary to have a Bill of this kind. It is necessary,
  1866
  as the Minister has remarked, because of the rundown of the industry and mechanisation has taken place during the past 15 years at a fairly rapid pace. What has not been mentioned yet is that during that period of time, there has been a massive run-down in the number of manual workers both underground and on the surface. During those 15 years, whereas there used to be one administrator at the pit to every 17 workers, there is now one to every seven. The very fact that that has happened, that we have had this run-down of manual workers, and at the same time no general run-down of the administrative staff, has meant that while there are as many managers and under-managers as there were previously, substantial numbers of different grades have appeared—such as the assistant manager-personnel and the surface superintendent, to whom a reference was made previously. Because of all this, we now have to produce a Bill in order to combat that situation.
  We do not want to be faced with a situation in a few years' time when, as a result of some further managerial appointments, we have to introduce another Bill in order to take account of the many and varied jobs that have been introduced within the Coal Board and the pithead structure. It needs to be placed on record that there are many people, certainly in my party, who have been very concerned about the number of appointments that have been made during the past 10 or 12 years. I voice the opinion of thousands of people within the mining industry who have been shouting from the rooftops that they feel there has been an overburdening of the managerial structure at the pithead and at area level.
  It is true that the structure has been changed from one of five-tier to three-tier, and many of us supposed that that would result in some massive changes taking place for the better. Whilst some of these changes have been for the better, we also recognise that it has been almost too difficult to get across to the membership of the National Union of Mineworkers that this is for the betterment of the industry as a whole. Therefore, whilst it may be necessary to pass this Bill as it is, in order to take account of the changes that have taken place and the new appointments that exist, we must

  1867
  warn everyone concerned, including the absent landlord, that we have seen enough of the new appointments and that we hope we shall not have any more. If there are, the kind of outburst that has occurred in the mining industry during the past two years will increase in intensity.
  I think it is important to place on record the fact that there are thousands of miners throughout the country who have been upset about the new changes and the new appointments, and we want to ensure that there is no increase in the number within the next few years, which would result in the necessity to introduce another Bill to take account of those changes.
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. D. G. Stewart-Smith: I wonder if I might give two points of view from people engaged in the industry. I have a letter here dated 25th January, 1971, from the Secretary of the Institution of Mining Engineers, and he says very simply:
  "… my Institution gave an official opinion on the above legislation to the Ministry in March, 1970. Briefly, we supported the move to bring about the changes in management responsibilities. These were anticipated and should result in a much needed sharing of the responsibilities in the running of the larger units."
  I think those words reflect the view of the mining engineers.
  Another view of those engaged in the industry appeared in an editorial in the Colliery Guardian of May, 1970, which made some quite good points. It consists of just a few paragraphs, but it is worth reading out in toto:
  "A recently introduced Bill, the Mines Management Bill, amends the law on the management of mines first by giving legal responsibility to senior staff appointed to assist mine managers, and second by making provisions about under-managers to facilitate working on a shift basis. Each new provision is only to apply to mines prescribed by Ministerial regulation.
  "This change in the law should be welcomed by mine management, since with the increasing size and complexity of collieries it becomes progressively more difficult and almost a physical impossibility for the manager to carry out in person all the duties placed on him.
  "Clause 1 of the Bill enables a mine manager to give written instructions to managerial staff appointed to the mine by the owner by virtue of which the staff will have legal responsibility
  1868
  and authority in relation to the matters specified in the instructions to the same extent as the manager. These instructions will confer on the officials the statutory responsibility and authority appropriate to their duties.
  "The Bill will also enable the degree and quality of supervision to be improved by facilitating shift working by under-managers. In fact in Clause 2 where under-managers have written instructions fixing their hours of duty (on shift basis) their responsibilities are limited to the periods when they are required to be or are in fact on duty."
  Then it gives this opinion:
  "Such steps as are being taken can only assist the mine manager in the day-to-day running of his colliery and should go some way to sharing what has, in the past, been a very unequal load of legislative responsibility. Now without prejudicing the running of his colliery under the Mines and Quarries Act he can concentrate on 'managing' and this he can do with a much easier conscience. This is an exercise he must carry out to the best of his ability if the industry is to remain viable."
  I think these are quite useful points of view.
  Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen and to thank them for their contributions. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden)—
  Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mrs. Jeger. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am almost certain that there will be some more contributions to the debate. This is not a criticism of any kind, but certainly from our side of the Committee there will be some more contributions, and it might be convenient to the hon. Gentleman to wait until he has heard them all. We are quite prepared to let him speak on any number of occasions that he wishes in this Committee.
  The Chairman: I called the hon. Gentleman because there seemed to be no one else who wished to speak.
  11.20 a.m.
  Mr. Joseph Harper: I should like to intervene for a few minutes. I was waiting for my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) to rise, but my hon. Friend is not quite used to Committee work and was a little slow in getting to his feet. The Minister wants to have his Bill passed, and passed pretty quickly, and he rose first. You were quite right, Mrs. Jeger, to call him.

  1869
  Nobody is delaying this Bill, because we want it just as much as the Government want it. It is really our Bill, apart from a sensible Amendment introduced in another place by their Lordships, who altered the words from "not capable of having any responsibility", to the words which now appear in this Bill—
  "not capable of having a statutory responsibility of the manager".
  In the very few minutes that I need for my contribution, I want to seek a clarification, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because he has given me the proper nomenclature. I too, like him, am a little bewildered by all the different types of jobs that seem to spring up within the industry, and I have only been out of the industry for 8¾ years. I feel that I have become a stranger to some of the practices that have sprung up during that period. The clarification I want is in relation to the assistant manager-personnel. This is an innovation of only a few years ago, by which the mines manager no longer has any responsibility for engaging people to work in the industry, or even sacking them. It is left to the assistant manager—personnel.
  I remember—I will not say how many years ago it was—when one used to toddle along to the pithead on leaving school to see the manager and say, "I want to come and work in the mine". One signed on the dotted line and started work, and that was it. Things went on fairly amicably, apart from little periods in between, until one retired. Now, however, that is no longer the case. The manager no longer has the responsibility, and, no doubt, he is pleased, because he can devote his time and attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) has pointed out, to more important work, especially in relation to safety. I wonder, therefore, how personnel managers' assistants are placed under the Bill and whether they will have statutory responsibilities, because they, too, in addition to the duties of seeing to the rundown of the colliery and the engaging of personnel to run the mine, spend periods down the pit.
  I am also pleased to see in the Bill that under-managers are not to be held
  1870
  responsible for 24 hours a day each and every day. They are to be excused when they are not on duty. At the same time, it is pleasing to see, in Clause 2(b)(ii), that if something occurs as a result of any act of theirs before going off their shift, they can be held responsible. The Minister will well know, because he has a long connection with the mining industry, that quite a number of cases have been successful at common law as a result of something that the men on the preceding shift have failed to do. Quite a number of these cases have been successful pursued in the courts.
  I would correct the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) in what he said about the hours of work of an under-manager. I do not think that things have changed too much in the mining industry, notwithstanding what I have already said, because the under-manager is, in my opinion, the hardest-worked man in the mining industry, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. He does not have any hours of work. If he is on the day shift, he starts at about 5 o'clock in the morning and, like a Member of Parliament, he does not know at what time he will finish. That is my experience. I am not trying to be too kind over this, but that is the situation with regard to under-managers.
  I am pleased that the Minister has made the point that the safety record last year was the best ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has spoken about the reason for this and the Minister, to be fair to him, made the same point, but he qualified his remarks by saying that safety per thousand employees is possibly not much better than it was before contraction took place in the industry. The safety achievements are due to the efforts of the National Coal Board and the N.U.M. Her Majesty's inspectors do a marvellous job of work. In particular, I want to praise my own union, because it spends a lot of time and effort, and also a lot of money, in pursuing safety. Safety is the keynote. We have local inspectors in the pits who are paid for by the N.U.M. and N.C.B. jointly. Safety classes are also held. A safety board operates within the N.U.M., even at pit level, and safety matters are discussed. They are the first thing that is discussed at any meeting,

  1871
  even before the discussions on wages, conditions and the like.
  The Bill is short, and it is much better for that. Long Bills are sometimes ghastly. It is a very important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said, it does not need the guillotine. We want to complete it this morning. Under the provisions of the Bill, the coal mining industry will be able to adapt its management structure to modern conditions. This is highly necessary because of the revolution in mining methods. As I have already said, one does not need to be long out of the industry to realise what one does not know about it. When we go back on occasion to see how things are progressing, we are amazed at the differences we find.
  I support the Bill, and we certainly do not oppose its Second Reading.
  11.25 a.m.
  Mr. Alexander Wilson: I have probably been nearer to the coalface than any other Member of Parliament. I worked my last shift at the coalface in May last year.
  Mr. Skinner: I did mine in June.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that he did his in June. I accept that stricture and I am glad that I finished a month before him.
  It is true that management and practice in the coal industry have changed considerably since 1954. While I incline to accept the content and purpose of the Bill, I nevertheless have some reservations even about the need for it. Since 1954, I have seen thousands upon thousands of mineworkers displaced from employment. At the same time, I have seen colliery management staff, colliery office staff and area level staff, not decreasing, but increasing. Nobody was more concerned with safety in the coalmines than I was. For over 15 years I have been concerned mainly with the dependants of the victims of the coal industry. I therefore welcome anything that will help safety, not only in the coal-mining industry, but in any other industry as well.
  I wish to make a comment on one part of the Bill and I should like the Government to take note of it. My hon. Friend
  1872
  the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) mentioned that there is not enough flexibility in management. I believe that the Bill tightens up the existing strictures on some managements. In saying that, I refer to Clause 1(1) regarding the appointment of
  "one or more persons to assist the manager"
  Those persons have to be given statutory duties. A note of those duties must be clearly given in writing to a person who is appointed, and the written instructions must be applied strictly to the letter. If that person goes into a district or an area in a coalmine and he oversteps his duties by so much as moving into another area, he will be in trouble, according to the Bill, unless there is an easy explanation. I do not like a person who has the necessary qualifications and who can carry out the necessary statutory duties being confined in any way by written instructions.
  I said at the outset that I had worked recently in the coalmines, and I have with me, not something taken from a book, but an illustration of my experience over the last two or three years. Hence my slight criticism of even the need for the Bill. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), an ex-manager, I do not accept that managements, and managers in particular, are constricted in any way in their duties. Rather the reverse. It is true that managers nowadays do not have anything to do with the planning of districts or planning the winning of the coal. Generally speaking, that is done by a planning department at area level, I have with me details of the personnel structure of management in one colliery, with a personnel overall of 1,400. We start with an area manager, and there are three under-managers on each shift. There are two extra, ready to step in at a minute's notice, should they be needed. There are area foremen, with very small areas indeed for which they are responsible. There are face foremen, who are completely in charge. These foremen are the only persons in charge of that particular mechanised face. Then there are face deputies, who are in charge of the face, given statutory duties as deputies by the manager. There are stall deputies at the end of each face length, generally about 600 yards. So there are three deputies in the space of 600 yards.

  1873
  a face foreman, an area foreman and an under-manager in the full area. There is an outbye deputy from the face. There are pump deputies. These are all in the same areas.
  Then there is the staff of the training officer—the man truly in charge of safety in every colliery. They have under them to some extent an under-management. There are shotfirers. I do not know the statutory duties of a shotfirer at the moment, but I know that he is allowed to fire considerably fewer shots than he did in the past, in the interests of safety, and we welcome that.
  Therefore while we welcome this Bill to place legal and statutory responsibilities on a section of management which did not have them before—something that is badly needed—nevertheless I warn the Government that if there is to be more contraction in the number of people I represent in this industry, I, as a member of my union, and as a sponsored Member of Parliament from my union, will be asking for a pro-rata reduction in management.
  So I welcome the Bill with the reservation that the Government should consider the industry from a humanitarian point of view. It is right that I should refer at the end of my speech to the campaign and the fighting that we did as miners to reduce the top-heavy management in the National Coal Board from 1958 on. I do not believe that that was ever looked into. However, should there be more contractions in the future, we should look very closely indeed at a pro-rata reduction in the men who work below the management level.
  11.34 a.m.
  Mr. Norman Pentland: I will take only a few minutes of the Committee's time to add my voice to that of my hon. Friends who have welcomed this Bill this morning. I think the Committee is fortunate in the sense that while we support the Bill, at the same time we have had the true voice of experience from the pits, both from the coal face and from management level, from my hon. Friends this morning. They know what they are talking about. They have spoken with sincerity, and have expressed certain doubts which I hope the Under-Secretary will take back to the Minister.
  1874
  In my last years at the pit, prior to 1956, my time was spent, day after day, week after week, fighting with colliery managers in order to get the best deal possible from the management for the members of my union which sent me to the colliery office regularly. Having said that, I endorse what has been said, that the responsibility of the colliery manager is very heavy and onerous, and we pay tribute to the work that he has done.
  Probably I welcome this Bill more than anyone because it tightens up an aspect of safety in our mines. It makes a contribution to safety. I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary's reference to the number of people killed last year in the pits. I remember attending a National Union of Mineworkers' conference shortly after the end of the last war, when the compensation secretary of our union had the sad duty to inform the conference that, taking average figures of men killed and injured—both serious and minor injuries—in the pit, every three minutes, night and day, someone was being killed or injured in our pits. Happily, we have now moved away from that terrible situation.
  I want to ask the Under-Secretary one question, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), about Her Majesty's inspectors. I understand that the Under-Secretary is to contact them—am I right?——
  Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley indicated assent.
  Mr. Pentland: —about the working of this Bill. I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman will deal with the men's inspectors, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, who are engaged by a number of pits in an area—what is known as a federation of mines—to carry out certain duties along with Her Majesty's inspector in the pits. I should like to see that they are also kept fully up to date on these issues.
  I want to reinforce what my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) have said. It is quite true that in the past the miners were very concerned about the excessive preponderance of people employed on the administration side. I do not think we can put the purpose and intentions of this Bill

  1875
  directly into that category. Here we are seeking assistance for the colliery manager to enable him to carry out the heavy duties imposed upon him. However, the Under-Secretary should take the point that there has always been concern about the preponderance of people engaged on the administrative side.
  My other point—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover referred briefly—is that there is a cloud of concern over the coal industry at the present time. The men are concerned about the policy that the Government intend to pursue. Here this Bill is relevant, in a way, to recruitment. There is a manpower problem in the pits. Here we are hoping to engage people who have to take statutory responsibility and obligations upon themselves. Therefore, we need the right type of man to take on this work. Thousands of men are needed in the coal industry, but there is this concern and doubt about the Government's policy in regard to selling off parts of the industry. I know this has been discussed in another Committee and on the Floor of the House, but it is only right that we here also should express our concern about the Government's intention.
  What my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said is quite true. The coal industry has lost the head of the Coal Board. Lord Robens has now left. Perhaps if Lord Robens had stated openly and publicly his reasons for disagreeing with the Government, and had carried on his duties for another five years. that would have cleared the air. Mrs. Jeger, I do not wish to impose too much upon your generosity this morning in dealing with this matter. All I wish to impress upon the Under-Secretary is that we hope he will convey to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister responsible for the power industries the fears which have been expressed in this Committee about the Government's intentions in this very dangerous field. I repeat that if one is to encourage recruitment and to obtain the necessary manpower in the industry, the Government, whether from a review or anything else, must make their intentions clear as quickly as possible.
  I wish to mention another point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) in his very helpful speech. He expressed the hope
  1876
  that a person appointed under the terms of the Bill would not have a series of responsibilities placed upon him in addition to the intentions of the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend meant that such a man must have full responsibility and that if he is to have statutory responsibility within the meaning of the Bill, that must be his job and his job alone. I think that that was the point which my hon. Friend was making.
  All of us on this side of the Committee welcome the Bill, quite apart from the minor doubts which have been expressed this morning. I welcome it very much indeed.
  11.43 a.m.
  Mr. Ridley: I think that I have got it right this time. I apologise to hon. Gentlemen, because on the last occasion when I rose to reply it appeared that no one else wished to catch your eye, Mrs. Jeger. I should also like to thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate for the very wise and helpful things they have said, as well as for their general assurance of support for the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that the Bill was one of good value and that if only the Government brought forward similar Bills dealing with other matters, they would be given the easy passage which has been promised for this one. I should like to conjure the hon. Member in the opposite sense, that the Government always bring forward good Bills and if only the Opposition behaved with the same sense of sweet reason and understanding that they have shown on this Bill, they would make their lives considerably easier. Let us, however, rejoice in the fact that there is no need for a guillotine or for disagreement on this occasion, even though we may not always be able to do so on other measures.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the interpretation which he read out from the National Union of Mineworkers' journal was accurate. I can confirm that it is completely accurate in all respects and adds up to a very useful summary of what the Bill does. We shall, of course, consult all parties concerned in the actual writing of the regulations. Indeed, there is a statutory duty in the

  1877
  1954 Act for such consultations to take place. I give the hon. Member the assurance which he sought on that score. Lastly, he asked whether the Bill applied to opencast mining. I confirm what he said. It does not, because opencast workings are intended to be treated as quarries.
  I should like to associate myself with the tribute which the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members paid to the managers of collieries. I was most impressed by the list of duties and the list of responsibilities which he read out. His story about the canary reminded me of a similar story. A friend of mine who is a pit manager once saw a couple of men working at a drift way out on the edge of a coalfield. He saw that the canary was in its cage on the surface and had not been taken down into the drift, although there was a considerable likelihood of gas being present. He shouted down the drift," Why haven't you got the canary with you?" The answer came back, "What? Take that bird down there with us? That bird's worth 30s." That shows the great sense of economy which miners can have.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), in a most attractive speech, discussed the very difficult question of how to apply the law to safety and managerial operations. I think that it is common ground in the Committee that the law should always be used to insist upon proper safety standards in industrial enterprises. One must, however, take the point made by the hon. Member that even safety standards and considerations quickly become out of date, especially in a fast-changing age such as the present one. If I may digress for a moment, I think that that might often be even more true in management considerations than in safety considerations, because what is impossible to foresee at the present time may well come to be without the law if one tries to legislate too much on the structure of management in any industry. That is a difficulty which arises in nationalised industries where the structure is enshrined in statute and one must frequently bring Bills before Parliament when the structure needs to be altered for reasons of technological change.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member that with regard to safety it is very important
  1878
  to keep the law up to date. That is why we are keen to have the Bill on the Statute Book. However, there is a slight difference between this Bill and many other safety measures in that it is more a question of placing responsibility. It is a good tradition, and one which one would perhaps like to see more widely applied in our safety legislation, that certain people are identified as bearing responsibility for safety. We tend so often to make regulations about what shall or shall not be done in factories or on building sites that one would, perhaps, like to get back more to the idea of giving people the responsibility for safety. In any case, I am sure that that is the only proper way to proceed with regard to the pits.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me in particular whether the part-time ventilating engineer might become a responsible person under the Bill. I assure him that the answer is "No". The only people who can have part-time responsibility are under-managers in the sense that at a given time they are not on the shift. Nobody else could receive delegated responsibility from the manager unless he were full-time and carried that responsibility full-time, because in all other aspects the manager's responsibility is full-time and, therefore, can be delegated only in a full-time context. It would be impossible to delegate part-time responsibility.
  The hon. Gentleman was almost a little too humble. He described himself as a sheep in wolf's clothing. Apart from the fact that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) said that he spent most of his time fighting colliery managers, I hope that this bodes well for the relationship between the two hon. Members in their later incarnation. I am not sure that either a sheep or a wolf is the right way to describe the hon. Gentleman. I thought that the simile between managers and hon. Members which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) produced was more appropriate. To say that the hon. Member for Wrexham had, perhaps, become a politician in manager's clothing would be a more appropriate simile. In any event, I think that the whole Committee would like to welcome him as one who has had his experience and to say that we recognise the very great responsibilities, difficulties and burdens which fall upon the managers

  1879
  of collieries and we greatly admire what they do.
  I must deal with the suggestion of the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson), and to some extent of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, about the number of staff in relation to the number of pitmen in the collieries. I do not know whether it is correct that the figure has grown from one in 17 to one in seven, but I would remind hon. Members that quite recently the National Coal Board cut out two tiers of its administration, reducing it from a five-tier to a three-tier organisation, an obvious and welcome streamlining operation. It would also be right to point out that as mining becomes more mechanised and technological, there are bound to be more specialists and white-collar miners—if there are such men—and more people will be required to look after the financial, legal and commercial dealings at the pit.
  My other point is on extending safety precautions and safety regulations as the hon. Member for Hamilton described. The number of people on a face, or near a face, with responsibility for the various mechanical, ventilating and electrical processes, and all the other aspects of modern mining, is of itself bound to result in a higher proportion of administrators than in the past.
  The same tendency is discernible in many industries. The actual function of manufacture or production becomes less and less demanding on labour, but the functions of supervising, making and maintaining machinery, and the services which have to attend to that, take an ever greater proportion of people. Projecting a thousand years into the future, there will be no one left in production or mining, only machines with people making them, controlling them and tending them. We are a long way from that at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract asked about the position of personnel managers under the Bill. The manager of a mine could, quite properly, delegate some of his responsibility to a personnel manager, if that personnel manager had the necessary mining qualifications, and if he so wished. That one of his functions might be dealing with personnel would not prevent this, although often the personnel
  1880
  manager may not be a qualified mining engineer, and may not wish to be given those responsibilities. This is not likely to occur, except in conditions in which everybody would agree that it should occur.
  The hon. Member for Pontefract and his hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street asked about the men's inspectors. I can give them two reassurances. The men's inspectors will have a statutory right to see the documents appointing assistant managers to positions of responsibility. These documents detailing appointments and responsibilities will be kept at the colliery offices, or they can be seen at the offices of Her Majesty's inspectors, and they will be available on public display. In addition, the manager of a mine would always wish to inform the men's inspectors of any delegation of responsibility which he has made. The hon. Member for Wrexham would confirm that it would be a rash manager indeed who delegated some of his responsibility without bothering to tell the men's inspectors what had been done.
  If there is any anxiety on this score, I assure hon. Members that we will be pleased to see how best to meet it, although, so far as I know, no representations have been made that arrangements are not as they should be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) emphasised the extent to which the Bill has been agreed by the relevant professional organisations, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board. I would like to join in the tribute to Her Majesty's inspectors and to say how much we owe to all concerned. Safety in mines is becoming less of a problem, and the figures are not as bad as they have been in the past. Mining is now a much safer job than it used to be.
  There are anxieties about the future of the industry, and what will happen to it, but this is not the place to discuss such matters. To have two parallel discussions on these matters would be superfluous, as well as out of order.
  I assure hon. Gentlemen that we are entirely at one with them in our desire to make the mines as safe and as proper a place to work as any other employment. The Bill will be a small contribution to that end. I thank the Committee for its

  1881
  support, and I hope that the Bill may have a speedy passage to the Statute Book.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Mines Management Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
  Mr. Ridley: It is customary, Mrs. Jeger, to thank you for taking the Chair so excellently and presiding over our proceedings. I hope that we have not detained you too long. It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I hope that you have found the subject as interesting and enjoyable as I have
  Mr. Ogden: It is not only customary, Mrs. Jeger, but it is very right and proper that we should all support the words of the Under-Secretary. One of the first things I look for on a Committee list is the name against the word "Chairman". When the name is your own, it is accepted and recognised that we will be allowed a

  THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Chairman)

  Pentland, Mr.

  Cockeram, Mr.

  Pounder, Mr.

  Ellis, Mr.

  Redmond, Mr.

  Gilmour, Sir J.

  Ridley, Mr.

  Gower, Mr.

  Rost, Mr.

  Harper, Mr.

  Skinner, Mr.

  Huckfield, Mr. Leslie

  Stewart-Smith, Mr.

  Ogden, Mr.

  Wilson, Mr. Alexander

  Osborn, Mr. J. H.

  little lattitude, but that you will bring us back to the proper course, when you have to do so, with fairness and good humour.
  This has been a good Committee. The Bill has had expert consideration from my hon. Friends and the proper silence and attention which it merits from hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the exception—which is forgivable—of the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith), who seems to be continuing the interventionist traditions of his predecessor.
  It is a good Bill, and I believe, Mrs. Jeger, that it is not the first Bill dealing with the coal industry over the proceedings of which you have presided. In those days, as you will remember, we talked of a contracting industry. Today, we have talked of an expanding industry, and we hope that the Government will do nothing to harm that. Thank you again for your chairmanship.
  Mrs. Jeger: Thank you very much.
  Committee rose at Twelve noon.

SCOTLAND
  Shotts Special Development Area
  Shotts Special Development Area
  Primary Schools, Lanarkshire
  Primary Schools, Lanarkshire
  Service by Youth (Report)
  Service by Youth (Report)
  Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1969
  Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1969
  Dog Breeding
  Dog Breeding
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Women's National Commission
  Women's National Commission
  Housing Policy
  Housing Policy
  Waverley Railway Route
  Waverley Railway Route
  Disabled Persons (Homes)
  Disabled Persons (Homes)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Electricity Prices (Pensioners)
  Electricity Prices (Pensioners)
  Edinburgh (Development Area Status)
  Edinburgh (Development Area Status)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Slums (Rehousing)
  Slums (Rehousing)
  Teacher Shortage
  Teacher Shortage
  Part-time Primary and Secondary Education
  Part-time Primary and Secondary Education
  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Primary School Teachers (Training College Graduates)
  Primary School Teachers (Training College Graduates)
  Sugar Beet Factory, Cupar
  Sugar Beet Factory, Cupar
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Drugs (Schoolchildren)
  Drugs (Schoolchildren)
  Lung Disease
  Lung Disease
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Housing Subsidies (New Towns)
  Housing Subsidies (New Towns)
  Open University (Teacher-students)
  Open University (Teacher-students)
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Highlands and Islands (Freight charges)
  Highlands and Islands (Freight charges)
  School meals
  School meals
  Farmers' Costs
  Farmers' Costs
  Amphetamines (Chemists' Stocks)
  Amphetamines (Chemists' Stocks)
  Schoolchildren (Sandwich Lunches)
  Schoolchildren (Sandwich Lunches)
  A742, Greenock
  A742, Greenock
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Secrecy
  Secrecy
  Programme Analysis and Review
  Programme Analysis and Review
  Government Work (Location)
  Government Work (Location)
  Staff
  Staff
  Industrial Civil Servants (Pay)
  Industrial Civil Servants (Pay)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Contracts
  Council House Contracts
  Construction Workers, Merseyside
  Construction Workers, Merseyside
  Council House Sales (Lambeth)
  Council House Sales (Lambeth)
  Dwellings, Bootle (Completions)
  Dwellings, Bootle (Completions)
  Housing, Islington
  Housing, Islington
  Louth
  Louth
  Rent Tribunals (Applications)
  Rent Tribunals (Applications)
  Flashing of Headlamps
  Flashing of Headlamps
  Sporting Organisations (Grants)
  Sporting Organisations (Grants)
  A30, Bridestowe
  A30, Bridestowe
  Mexborough (Bus Service)
  Mexborough (Bus Service)
  Driving Licences (Sight Tests)
  Driving Licences (Sight Tests)
  Lorries (Safety)
  Lorries (Safety)
  Thos. Cook & Son Ltd. (Sale)
  Thos. Cook & Son Ltd. (Sale)
  Transport Holding Company
  Transport Holding Company
  New Town, Central Lancashire
  New Town, Central Lancashire
  Lutterworth (Southern Bypass)
  Lutterworth (Southern Bypass)
  North-East (Industry)
  North-East (Industry)
  Hoddesdon-Ware Bypass Order
  Hoddesdon-Ware Bypass Order
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Development Plans
  Development Plans
  Rateable Values (London)
  Rateable Values (London)
  Local Authority Employees (Incentive Bonus Schemes)
  Local Authority Employees (Incentive Bonus Schemes)
  Local Government Reorganisation (White Paper)
  Local Government Reorganisation (White Paper)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Air/Sea Rescue Service (North-West Scotland)
  Air/Sea Rescue Service (North-West Scotland)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Romania (Canned Pigmeat)
  Romania (Canned Pigmeat)
  Aircraft Accident, Nottinghamshire
  Aircraft Accident, Nottinghamshire
  Airports, Midlands and Yorkshire (Traffic)
  Airports, Midlands and Yorkshire (Traffic)
  Advance Factories, Scotland
  Advance Factories, Scotland
  Leeds/Bradford Airport
  Leeds/Bradford Airport
  South Africa (Arms Supply)
  South Africa (Arms Supply)
AGRICULTURE
  Glasshouses (Heating Costs)
  Glasshouses (Heating Costs)
  Agricultural Production Costs
  Agricultural Production Costs
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
WALES
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Child Care (Departmental Staff)
  Child Care (Departmental Staff)
  Geriatric Cases (Cardiff and District)
  Geriatric Cases (Cardiff and District)
  Paediatrician (Mid-Wales)
  Paediatrician (Mid-Wales)
  Hospital Casualty Units, South Wales
  Hospital Casualty Units, South Wales
  Fox Control
  Fox Control
  Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport
  Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport
  Local Authority Members (Social Security Benefits)
  Local Authority Members (Social Security Benefits)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Standard of Living (Comparisons)
  Standard of Living (Comparisons)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Suggestion Schemes
  Suggestion Schemes
  Decimalisation (Guineas)
  Decimalisation (Guineas)
  Inland Revenue (Outstanding Tax Payments)
  Inland Revenue (Outstanding Tax Payments)
  Income Tax (Fixed allowances)
  Income Tax (Fixed allowances)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Bomb Attacks (Official Disclosure)
  Bomb Attacks (Official Disclosure)
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme (Property)
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme (Property)
  Coroner's Courts (Brodrick Committee)
  Coroner's Courts (Brodrick Committee)
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURTS LOCATION)
  SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURTS LOCATION)
  ABERYSTWYTH (CROWN COURT)
  ABERYSTWYTH (CROWN COURT)
DEFENCE
  R.A.F. Officers (Premature Retirement)
  R.A.F. Officers (Premature Retirement)
  Armed Services (University Cadetships)
  Armed Services (University Cadetships)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Forces' Mail (Delivery)
  Forces' Mail (Delivery)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Welsh National Theatre
  Welsh National Theatre
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Absenteeism (Lost Working Days)
  Absenteeism (Lost Working Days)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Norwich
  Norwich
  Leeds (Engineering Firms)
  Leeds (Engineering Firms)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Postal Charges
  Postal Charges
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Western European Union (Delegates' Expenses)
  Western European Union (Delegates' Expenses)
  Mr. Speaker King (Pension)
  Mr. Speaker King (Pension)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Low-income Households
  Low-income Households
  General Practitioners' Lists (Middlesex)
  General Practitioners' Lists (Middlesex)
  General Practitioners (Number Qualifying)
  General Practitioners (Number Qualifying)
  Vehicles for the Disabled
  Vehicles for the Disabled
  Retirement Pensions (Increase)
  Retirement Pensions (Increase)
  Possum Equipment (Severely Disabled People)
  Possum Equipment (Severely Disabled People)
  Prescription Charge Exemptions
  Prescription Charge Exemptions
  National Insurance Benefits (Decimalisation)
  National Insurance Benefits (Decimalisation)
  National Census (Staff Payments)
  National Census (Staff Payments)
  Complaints against Hospitals (Committee)
  Complaints against Hospitals (Committee)
  Somerset House (Registration Certificates)
  Somerset House (Registration Certificates)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

LORD THOMAS
Sir William Miles Webster Thomas, Knight, D.F.C., having been created Baron Thomas, of Remenham in the Royal County of Berks, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Longford and the Lord Rennell.

AIRCRAFT SALES AND PURCHASES
2.49 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimates they have before them of the expected balance-of-payments effects of the sales and purchases of civil aircraft (including engines), and associated spares over the next ten years.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, it is not the practice to publish forecasts of commercial sales or purchases of civil aircraft.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, while appreciating what the noble Lord has said, may I ask whether he is really saying that he cannot put the House in possession of the estimates which were before Her Majesty's Government when they reached the decision on the BAC 311?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord is asking for a long-term estimate of balance of payments in connection with civil aircraft. As he will no doubt recall, these estimates are made from time to time as occasion requires,
1188
but they have never been published in the past and it would not be appropriate to publish them now.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord accept that these days a considerable amount of public money goes into most aircraft developments, including engines, and therefore that the fullest information ought to be disclosed to the public?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, one reason for not wishing to publish these figures is that they are bound to be tentative. They are based on a great number of variables; and, of course, there are complexities of international financing. This would make any year-to-year estimate of balance of payments very difficult and almost worthless unless the assumptions on which they were based were given, and that would not be in the interests of aircraft construction.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, if I may pursue the point a little further on one aspect of the question, may I ask whether the noble Lord is able to tell us if, over the period in question, he expects that B.E.A. or B.O.A.C., or both of them, are likely to be net spenders of foreign currency rather than net earners?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. I could not give that information without notice, and I am not certain that I should be able to give it even with notice. But if the noble Lord will put down a Question, I will see what can be done.

FALKLAND ISLANDS AND THE ARGENTINE
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position of the Falkland Islands in respect of the Argentinian claims made on this British territory.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister

1189
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear in another place on July 20 last year, Her Majesty's Government's position is that in deciding the future of the Falkland Islands there can be no question of any transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the inhabitants.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, may I ask him whether it implies that the Argentinian Government are still pressing their claim? Meanwhile, may I ask whether the people of the Falkland Islands are living now in tranquillity? Thirdly, can the noble Marquess say whether the dispute has affected the economy of the islands to any extent?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I answer the last question first? The Falkland Islands' economy, as I understand it, has not been affected in any way. They are living in "tranquillity", as the noble Lord put it. His first point regarding sovereignty is not really an issue at the moment. Talks are going on, but they are entirely concerned with matters of communication.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that the will of the people of the Falkland Islands was taken by referendum? The decision was supported, and I am pleased with the outcome. Can we not have a referendum among the British people with regard to Britain's entry into the Common Market?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess explain why we should congratulate the people of the Falkland Islands (and I share in those congratulations) in refusing to abandon their sovereignty, when we are so ready—apart from the majority of people in this country, who are perhaps more intelligent than the minority—to abandon our sovereignty and enter the Common Market?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think we are straying on to somewhat different grounds.

CHINA: DETENTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
LORD RATHCAVAN: 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 can give the names of any British subjects at present either imprisoned or otherwise detained in China, together with the period of imprisonment or detention in each case.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, last year seven British subjects were released from detention, but there are four British subjects still believed to be detained in China. In spite of repeated inquiries we have been given no information about them. All four previously worked for the Chinese Government and have lived in China for many years. They are: Mrs. Gladys Yang, who is the British wife of a Chinese citizen who worked as a literary translator and is thought to have been detained in July, 1968. There are three others, Mrs. Epstein, Mr. Michael Shapiro and Mr. David Crook, who are thought to have been detained towards the end of 1967. We are continuing to make representations on their behalf to the Chinese Government.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions? First, were those now in prison charged with any offence, or were they merely arbitrarily arrested? Secondly, is our Chargé d'affaires in Peking allowed to keep in touch with the persons detained?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, so far as I am aware—and I cannot, I am afraid, give my noble friend a categorical answer on this—there has not been any charge brought against these four persons. The answer to his second question is that no consular access has been granted.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Marquess used the words, "are believed to have been detained". Is it really the case that we do not know whether these people have been detained or not?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, perhaps I can put the noble Lord right. So far as we know, they are detained. There is a slight difficulty of interpretation.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether any attempt has been made through the representation of other States to secure information and possibly the release of these four people?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord an answer on that point, but I will let him know in due course.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the improved relations between this country and China, will the noble Marquess assure the House that the Chinese authorities will be continually informed of our concern in the hope that they will permit our authorities to see the detained people, and, if possible, obtain their release?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly undertake, as the noble Lord says, to keep the Chinese Government informed as to our concern about this matter. The last time any representation was made was just before Christmas.

BUSINESS
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three, my noble friend Lord Sandford will be making a Statement on the proposed New Town in central Lancashire. It might also be convenient if I added that light refreshments will be available tonight.

MASS MEDIA COMMUNICATION
2.57 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY rose to call attention to the use and misuse of mass media communication; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I feel it is a great privilege to be opening this debate in our House to-day as I am convinced that the subject is of the utmost importance. I thought it incumbent on me—your Lordships arc, after all, an expert audience—to prepare myself as well as possible,
1192
including reading more pornographic literature than I have come across since I studied my classics for my Greats Finals at Oxford. It seems to me in retrospect that the Greeks and Romans had a greater sense of humour and a lighter touch than we have. Nevertheless, there seems to be a rather sinister likeness in some respect in the degeneracy of morals at the end of the Roman Empire and our own. Be that as it may, due to a paragraph in a daily paper that I saw a little while ago suggesting that this would be a highly critical debate, I should like to indicate that, I have not come to bury Ceasar but to praise him.
I am going to start by quickly running through the ways in which mass media communication has developed. There are, of course, in the first instance, the African tom-tom and war drums, and other such primitive, but effective means of communication. In our two Houses these have been superseded by the Division bells. One of the most dramatic instances of the interruption of mass media communication came to my mind from the Old Testament. It was in the Tower of Babel, when Jehovah took exception to the presumptuous skyscraping ambitions of the Babylonians, and introduced the Diversity of Tongues, an immediate and very imaginative form of intervention, which entirely disrupted the proceedings. It occurred to me the other day, in the Gallery of another place, how grateful the Speaker of that place would be if he had such powers from time to time. It seems to me that a little of the Hubris and pride of the Babylonians has communicated itself to our television services. The Babylonian drawback to communications was restored in an equally dramatic intervention in the New Testament with the Gift of Tongues at Pentecost so that the Disciples should not be handicapped in spreading the Gospel.
Other forms of mass media communication in the old days were the ballads passed on from generation to generation; Royal Proclamations; the town crier; the pulpit; the orator able to command a big forum, and the simple bonfire on the heights, such as we had at the time of the Armada. That is commemorated in our particular village by a bonfire on every great occasion. I remember that at the end of the last war we were all so tired we could not get quite to the

1193
top of the Downs, and we lit it half-way up.
However, most of these mass media were in the hands of the ruler for the time being, be he king or dictator or military commander or the leader of temporary importance. And it was not until the printing press came into its own that this monopoly of the ruling classes was broken. From then on, thinking man had the opportunity of expressing himself to the general public, and the general public had the opportunity of reading and choosing what they wished to read. This might be described as the childbirth of democracy for the world in general. The printing press also gave the impetus to the challenge to established religion (the Reformation) and established Government (the abolition of the Divine Right of Kings). After that, books, plays and pamphlets multiplied; Shakespeare and other great writers and philosophers must be considered from then on as an important form of mass media.
Let us come to the development of the daily newspaper, and we must not forget the rich empire of films. In our present time we have also the powerful advertising medium and, more vociferous still, the demonstrations, peaceful or otherwise. Mass communications have now reached a greater variety and influence in our lives than at any other time in history. Moreover—and this is an important point—the repercussions are immediate the world over. This is a vital aspect. I wonder sometimes how soon we shall have mass communications from Earth to the stars. Even looking at this very wide perspective, I am not at all sure that the little village does not still hold the blue riband for communication. It is quite extraordinary, certainly in our village, how whatever happens at one end of the village is known within seconds at the other end, without any apparent medium of communication.
My Lords, we must accept a tremendous new force in our daily lives and more especially in our own immediate homes. I am speaking here, of course, of radio and television. For many years we have had our daily papers, but they are coloured by our own choice, and there is much good sense in that. Incidentally, it is becoming more and more difficult to obtain house delivery of news-papers.
1194
Even in my case, in a residential part of London, I am unable at the present time to get delivery of the Daily Telegraph and The Times. I have a feeling that the newspapers, who are now very much up against it financially, should really make a better effort at selling themselves. It is not much good printing a newspaper if it cannot get to its customer.
Radio and television, on the other hand, are there by your chair in your home, and you can of course choose the programme and turn it off if it does not appeal. I must confess that I myself am more addicted to radio than television. And here I should like to say how very much I enjoy Radio 4, the Home Service. Perhaps my preference for radio is because I like to do things with my hands, whether it is necessary housework, embroidery, painting, pressing, or whatever the task may be, all of which can be done while listening—or occasionally not listening—to the radio. But you cannot do that with television; television needs attention. I am therefore more attracted in television to news, immediate live events, serials such as the Galsworthy serial and that absorbing series we are having at the present moment on Henry VIII and his six wives (I do not know whether this would be described as a sex film or not) and, of course, nature films. I feel I want to get away from the kitchen-sink type and the complicated psychological plays—problems which I hope will not be bothering my own grandchildren.
I also have one criticism to make of announcers. I know they try to be entirely objective, but there is a very important point which has worried me a good deal, because there is a great difference between announcing news and making comments. I am sure the announcers do their best so far as this is concerned. However, the tone of voice; the felt though not seen smile; the eagerness with which disasters seem to be announced, do betray the man or woman behind the voice, and occasionally give offence. I know this is a difficult matter especially in the regions of politics, religion or medical science. Few are chosen to do this particular job and one feels bound to ask: Who chooses the few; and is note taken of the individual performance? Quis custodiet custodes?
There are complaints of political bias in the B.B.C., and I have suffered personally, with no redress. I suppose it is bound to happen from time to time, but I think we can appeal to this great institution, and not in vain, to remember their unique and immense responsibility in the matter of trustworthiness, for which they have a very deserved reputation, not only in this country but abroad. It seems to me that whereas the nuclear bomb is probably the greatest instrument for destruction in the world to-day, so radio and television are now the greatest instruments for good in human hands. Let us make the most of them. I should like to see the first sentences of the Gospel of St. John sunk deep into the hearts and minds of the operators in this field. Perhaps there will be a rush to the Library to look up the Bible after I have finished speaking, but I mean this quite seriously.
Importance must be attached to trends. We are living in an era where violence seems to have superseded persuasion. How far are our forms of mass media communication counteracting this tendency or encouraging it publicly? Persistent viewing of violence and reading about it tend to affect, even harden, the ordinary, normal person. Violent demonstrations are unpleasant and frequent occurrences in our present times. The hijacking of planes; kidnapping—incidentally, I was in Uruguay and had lunch at the British Embassy the day our Ambassador there was kidnapped—and the ridiculing of law and order, are all serious symptoms of underground activities in our present times. Again, the boring exploitation of sex shows a lack of maturity and good taste which is a reproach to our educational system and our parental responsibilities. These are matters in which mass media communication could do an inestimable amount of good. Are they playing a sufficiently responsible part? I am not quite sure that this is always so; and it is for these reasons that I thought that a debate on this subject, in this really very wise House, would be in the public interest.
I have had some correspondence with extremely sensible people. I have been sent posters and literature distributed
1196
widely and on sale which, frankly, do no credit to our society but are difficult to pin down as transgressing the law at present. I rather think that the permissive outlook has gone too far. Some of the beautiful things in life are in danger of being besmirched and destroyed, and the British character undermined. The joy of innocent childhood; a happy family life with the security of father and mother providing for their children; the comfort of close companionship between husband and wife in old age; the respect for a good life, holding on to the great ideals to the end; the belief that a man's word is his bond, that our country's history and glorious episodes have real meaning—these things we should like mass media communication, not to preach, because nobody wants to be preached to or at, but to keep in mind and not let us be swamped by the sensational, the sordid, the degrading and the animal side of life.
I am sure noble Lords who are taking part in this debate will touch on many other sides of the mass media communications which I have not mentioned—Arts, advertisements, educational media, et cetera. I do not want to speak for too long, as we have many speakers, and however tempting the subject I very much hope that they will bear this fact in mind. I should now like to thank all noble Lords who have put down their names to support my Motion and I will leave the subject in their hands. I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am certain that I shall have the whole House with me if I congratulate the noble Baroness on the Motion that she has brought before us, and in particular on the commendable brevity with which she has introduced it. I shall certainly do my best to follow her example.
I think I ought to make it clear that, unlike other noble Lords, I find myself perhaps in the same position as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in that I am a conscript. I myself would not have volunteered to speak in this debate, because when I saw the Motion I was uncertain whether it was to be a debate on (shall we say?) a broad philosophical argument on the media, whether it was

1197
to be an orgy of criticism of the media—that there is too much sensationalism; too much sex and violence; too much portrayal of the sordid and sick society that does exist, but only in a minor degree—or whether we should be involved in criticism of political bias at the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. No doubt these matters will be raised, but I hope that they will not dominate our debate this afternoon.
I suspect that on this subject the only difference between noble Lords on the Benches opposite and us on this side of the House is, perhaps, the general approach as to the extent to which commercial interest should be involved in radio or television. I think we have now grown used to commercial television and I do not know of anyone who would advocate the abolition of the I.T.A. Clearly, commercial local radio raises particular and special problems. I do not intend to say anything on this subject this afternoon because I think it would be unwise until we have the Government White Paper on the subject.
One other regret is the decision of the Government not to continue with the Annan Commission on the Future of Radio and Television. Radio and television are an evolving industry and production. The extent to which they make an impact on our lives is at the moment relatively unknown, I think, but I am quite clear that if there are any changes to be made those changes should emerge from a public examination by independent people and not from (shall I say?) the rooms of Ministers or Departments. In this particular field, which has such an important bearing not only on our entertainment but also on our knowledge, the public are entitled to know the reasons for any particular change of policy.
I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is to speak this afternoon because I think this is a recognition that the theatre plays a very important part in the communications media. I know that there is great concern among many people about recent developments in the theatre. I can well imagine the position and can sympathise with the noble Viscount and the Arts Council in the very difficult decisions they have to take as to whether grants should be made available for this or that type of production or theatre—because, of course, if a grant
1198
is withheld from a particular class of production or theatre, it is in a sense a form of censorship. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is in a position to say something on this matter this afternoon.
To me, however, the great interest of this debate is to examine the extent to which the media succeed or fail in providing education and informing the general public of the great events and the challenges of our time. Therefore I should like to concentrate my remarks mainly on radio and television and the newspapers. My Lords, democracy demands of its members an active and intelligent participation in the affairs of its community. It assumes that they are sufficiently well informed about the issues of the day to be able to form a broad judgment required by an election, and also the vigilance necessary in those who govern. Democratic society therefore needs a clear and truthful account of events, of their background, of their causes, and the means whereby individuals and groups can express a point of view and advocate a particular course.
We lay great stress—and quite rightly so—upon the freedom of our Press and our television and radio. Throughout our history there has always been a clash between those in authority and those who work in the media. This is true of all Governments, of all shades of opinion, and it was interesting to read the other day of the deep concern within a Coalition Government of the views that were expressed in certain remarkable programmes by J. B. Priestley during the war. Even the "Brains Trust" was regarded as a dangerous forum of new and radical ideas. Perhaps a more startling clash, and certainly the most prominent, was that of the Coalition Government with the Daily Mirror.
The problem of media and Government is perhaps best set out in some remarkable words of Mr. Oliver Whitley, the B.B.C.'s Managing Director of External Broadcasting, in this year's B.B.C. Handbook. He writes as follows:
"Any broadcasting organisation"—
and I suppose this can be taken for the Press as well—
"which consistently aims to tell the truth is bound to make things difficult for the Government of its country and will only be tolerated, let alone sustained and encouraged, by that Government so long as the politicians and the

1199
civil servants who comprise it are persuaded that the long-term benefits of having a broadcasting service trusted more than themselves exceed those very real short-term irritations."
He goes on, a little further down:
"It cannot be a comfortable position to be in. It is no small thing for politicians, and even more so perhaps for civil servants, to support the constitutional independence and practical freedom of broadcasting, in spite of the thorns in its own path, at all times when the freedom of broadcasting depends eventually upon their readiness to stand up and be counted in its favour. This demands their foresight, wisdom, patience and restraint. The broadcasters' credibility could not exist without these sophisticated official attitudes, any more than without the steadfastness and perception of the broadcasters themselves."
I think we must recognise that there will always be, and I think perhaps rightly so, this clash of view between those who are responsible for the media and Government.
How do we judge the present media? I suppose—and here I speak only for myself—the very best example of informing and educating people is the B.B.C.'s overseas broadcasts. I have lived overseas and know how much people overseas value them. The extent to which the general public overseas place deep faith and trust in the news that comes forth from the B.B.C.'s Overseas Service is extraordinary. This trust has been built up over very many years; but, oddly enough, many of my friends overseas, despite anything one may say, still do not believe that the B.B.C. Overseas Service is independent of the Government. If you discuss it with them, they ask, "Where does the money come from?" You immediately find yourself on the defensive, because you say, "The funds come from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office". Which produces the comment, "Ah, you see; it is controlled". My Lords, I wonder whether the time has not come when we should finance the overseas broadcasts in a different way. I think it would certainly strengthen the argument with our friends overseas if the funds for that service came from elsewhere. The sums are not all that large, and I should have thought there is no reason why they should not come from the general licence revenues.
At home, television and radio, I believe, provide us with standards that no other country enjoys, not only in terms of the production of comment and entertainment
1200
and sport, but also as to quality of picture; and I believe, too, that both services provide about the right balance between sport, entertainment, education, news and comment. We shall all be watching with the very greatest interest, and I know sympathy, this exciting venture of the Open University, which is so much a consequence of the tenacity of my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, spoke about the question of comment programmes and the interviewer. I must say that I have a degree of sympathy with her on this matter. I cannot help feeling that both organisations, both producers, feel that the public like confrontation. This is the reason, I think, why Question Time in the House of Commons is the most popular period to take visitors there. But I think there is a danger (and I should like to dwell on this later) that the interviewer, particularly if his face has become as familiar as if he is a member of the family, can dominate and seek to put too much influence upon the course of the interview. Indeed, I should like to go one stage further in this: I think that occasionally interviewers do something which I regard as utterly unforgivable, and that is to seek to put words into the mouth of the person who is being interviewed.
Having said that, I would add that it seems to me that the radio and television have about the right balance. Sometimes things do go wrong, it is true; but I think that the authorities, within the means that are open to them, seek in a later programme to counter any faults. I have dwelt for a moment on radio and television; and I believe that they have an assured place, not only in our homes now, but also in the future, and that money will be found for their development.
My Lords, what about the Press? We in this country perhaps have more national and provincial papers than any other country in the world. To that extent, I think, we are well supplied. But I think the question Parliament will have to ask itself in the near future is: how long are we going to continue to be well supplied? It can be said, I think, that the layout of papers is attractive and easy to read; their news service is highly organised and is resourceful; their feature pages display imagination, and at best

1201
are both imaginative and informative. On the face of it, it is a very successful Press, and one that matches the needs and the appetites of the community. But the fact is that most of our papers are running at a loss. This debate is about the use of the media, and not about the structure or the economics of the publishing industry, which is wide open to criticism. I will not dwell overlong on this point. But if we believe, as I do, that a free and varied Press is an essential to the democratic society as Parliament itself, then there arises the question, can Parliament fail to have concern about the future of its Press—its quality, its breadth of opinion—in which ever-increasing concentration of ownership is an essential factor and a real threat?
The Royal Commission on the Press in 1949 said that at the time of their reporting the degree of concentration of ownership in the national Press did not call for any action, but that they would consider any further concentration undesirable. Since then there has been further concentration of ownership. Therefore we should view with very great concern the future of the Daily Mail and Evening News group of papers, and take particular note of the continuing losses of The Times, the Guardian and other important papers.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? So far as the Daily Mail is concerned, there is no question of risk. I speak with some authority, and the Daily Mail has no plans for closing down.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I know the noble Earl is to speak later and he will no doubt make his point then. But, without developing this matter, I know there is considerable concern, and I share that concern. There are some who say that provided the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. provide a proper coverage of news the loss of national papers is not at all important. I believe that to be very wrong. I would regard newspapers as complementary to radio and television, providing within the medium something that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. cannot provide. All of us would accept that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. should not have an editorial line or a commitment to any particular view, although there are occasions when they come pretty close to it. But a strong clear line of opinion is essential to
1202
democracy, and that is for the newspapers to provide.
I believe newspapers provide something else. What they report is on record. This is important, for it gives the community the opportunity to think about the problem itself. You may not agree with the leading article of the Daily Telegraph or The Times, but in disagreeing you are forced to argue the problem yourself. But with the B.B.C. and I.T.A. there is no record, and I suspect that one reacts as a consequence of the presentation of that news, and that by the time one starts to think about the problem one is looking at or trying to absorb some other piece of news. But I believe the impact remains, and if it is true that democracy depends on people thinking and making judgments, then the loss of the medium which provides them with a record and the opportunity to think is dangerous.
May I develop this thought for a moment? Noble Lords will remember the great moral and political issues of the war in Nigeria. If you took a transcript of the B.B.C. "24 Hours" programme or "Panorama" and compared that transcript with the reporting of events in the national Press, you would not see a startling difference; but if you took a transcript and compared it with your memory of the programme you would, in fact, question whether you were comparing your memory with the same programme. The noble Baroness herself touched on this point. The difference is not in what is said, but how it is said. If you had a hostile approach to the person who was supporting the Government, and a sympathetic approach to those who were supporting Biafra against a background of starving children, there could, I think, be only one conclusion for the general public if they did not know the facts: that the Government of the day were supporting the Nigerian Government and, by so doing, had a responsibility for those starving children.
There is a real risk that the manner of presentation on television and the comment programmes can distort, quite unintentionally, the issues on which they are reporting and commenting. How often have we remarked that a newspaper headline has little bearing on the full report in the paper? Often our approach to the article is the impact of the headline.

1203
But with a newspaper one can at least go back to the article and compare it with other papers. With television and radio that course is not open.
But there is a problem also with newspapers. The Royal Commission on the Press said that if a newspaper purported to record or discuss public affairs it should at least record them truthfully. It may express what opinions it likes, but opinions should be expressed without suppressing or distorting the facts. If a newspaper adheres to a political Party, that should be plain to the reader, but from the columns of opinion and not from the colouring given to the news. I think it is fair to say that, perhaps due to the shortage of Press space, it is harder to-day to see the difference between comment and news. Certainly one has to examine it most carefully. I believe that the conclusions of the Royal Commission remain valid to-day and that the Press, by the number and the variety of the papers, should, as a whole, give an opportunity for all points of view to be effectively presented. By and large, that is done to-day, but any further loss of national provincial papers will, I believe, be serious. Perhaps one could go further and say that this applies even to the reduction in the size of certain of our papers.
For the Government or Parliament to provide ways and means for newspapers which fail to attract readership sufficiently to make them viable will raise serious problems. The freedom of the Press may appear to be threatened. Yet we have so many checks and counterchecks within our sophisticated society that none of us would question the independence and the integrity of the Governors and the Boards of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. Therefore, I myself would not rule out provision for the maintenance of the wide and varied Press that we have to-day. But is it right, as has been suggested, that provincial newspapers which may lose advertising space as a consequence of the coming into being of local commercial radio should be encouraged to become part of a consortium for local commercial radio? I take the view that there is considerable risk that we in London may have only one evening newspaper, and I believe there are suggestions that the Beaverbrook
1204
organisation may be part of the consortium for commercial radio in London. I suggest that such a concentration of ownership in participation in a news medium in this particular locality would be wrong and open to the risks to which the noble Baroness in her Motion refers—the misuse of the media.
Before I conclude I would say that to some extent I think that the media fail to inform and educate public opinion. Why this is so I do not know. If one takes, as an example, the Industrial Relations Bill one finds that there are many who believe that this Bill will cure strikes and there are others who believe that as a consequence trade union leaders will be imprisoned. In fact, I suspect that neither will be the case. But few people really understand the Bill, what it does and how it will be used. Then, what about the Common Market? There are some who say that our entry would solve our economic difficulties, while there are some who believe passionately that it will result in the loss of our sovereignty and in mammoth price increases. So far, the media have failed to get the full challenge across. I wonder to what extent the Government, the opposition, those who are for going in or not going in, should be given greater opportunities to inform the public than have so far been made available to them, both in the Press and on television. I do not know. The question raises considerable doubts. Sooner or later, the British public will have to be consulted. I personally am against a referendum, but I believe the British people are entitled to know. I have tried to think how it could come about.
I should not wish to raise the delicate problem, at least for another place, of the televising of Parliament, but I am clear in my own mind that, having regard to the importance of our entry into the Common Market—a decision which is perhaps as profound as any that this country has been required to take—the British public are entitled to know the basis on which Members of Parliament and noble Lords in this House give approval or otherwise. I strongly believe that at least on the occasion of the major debates for entry into the Common Market the public should be able to see and hear our deliberations and decisions by way of television and radio presentations

1205
from both Houses. When speaking of the Press we talk of "the right to know"; and I should have thought that there is no other way in which the public could be so informed. I am sorry my speech has been longer than I intended. Like the noble Baroness, I believe passionately in the independence of the Press and the media. I believe that they have the responsibility. Sometimes they err; but when they err they seek to put it right.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, we on this side of the House wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for introducing a debate on a large and very difficult subject, one on which none of us knows all the facts, let alone what ought to be done. The Government are concerned about the problem of the use and misuse of the mass media, which we judge to be troubling a growing number of people. What we do about it is essentially a matter for public opinion. We are, therefore, most sincerely anxious to have any advice which noble Lords may care to give us in the course of the debate.
Looking at the long list of speakers, I think it must be a record for the House of Lords that there are no fewer than 10 noble Baronesses on the list. Whether that points to a particular concern of noble Baronesses in the use or misuse of the mass media or to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, is an exceedingly good unofficial Whip, I really do not know, but I think we shall be particularly interested in this quite exceptional contribution from noble Baronesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, said something that struck me very much. She said that she thought that the permissive society had gone so far that the British character was in danger of being undermined. That is a striking statement, and I welcome it because I think it focuses our attention on the central issue. What are we doing to ourselves when we suddenly let loose a quantity of material in print and pictures—quite unprecedented—which to many seems out of our character and to others deeply offensive? Does this really matter? This is not a problem that is going to be settled by legal action. As I see it, the
1206
crucial battle is being fought on this side of the law in the area in which prosecutions either cannot be brought or are not brought, but where standards are sometimes so low that most of us want to do something to improve them. The noble Baroness was concerned about this area, and it is to this area that I shall direct my remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a very interesting speech, and I am sure that the whole House appreciated the thought behind many of the constructive remarks that he made. I shall have something to say about them, but I will not follow him on the structure of the Press, or whether the proceedings of this House should or should not be televised. The Motion refers specifically to the mass media, but, as the noble Baroness said, the question of standards which they adopt is also affected by what goes on in the field of the arts; the Arts being quite often the pace-setters in the removal of conventions and restraints. I hope that the debate will range over the whole of this area.
The mass media and contemporary art of all kinds both reflect and influence the current standards of taste and behaviour. What goes on in society and what broadcasters, cameramen, writers and artists choose to tell us about it must react the one upon the other. When Parliament relaxes the law in relation to homosexuality, divorce or abortion, or when chemists put an oral contraceptive on the market, the mass media will reflect the changes in behaviour which follow. Equally, if the mass media set out to persuade the public that certain changes in behaviour, frowned upon in the past, are now the height of fashion, the public will take the cue and react accordingly. It is very easy to forget how many things we do now without shame and without risk of disapproval which only a generation ago we should have avoided like the plague. It would help us in this debate if we could agree upon the major reason why such changes in public morality have come about.
I cannot believe that the prime cause of the permissive society has been intellectual leadership of any kind. Psychologists, scientists, artists, priests in disarray and other modern thinkers have, of course, helped to speed up the process, but behind all the serious and the shallow

1207
propaganda a force more general and more profound must have been at work. This I take to be the clash between the collective personality of the British people and the restrictions imposed on the individual citizen by the political and technological changes of the last twenty or thirty years. I mean by our collective personality the sum of the experiences over the centuries which have made us what we are. All our history is a record of the individual's struggle to gain freedom from one kind or another of political or economic authority. But recently, in what has been a very short time in relation to the past struggles, individual freedom has suffered a series of checks—first because science and technology have made us servants of the machines to a degree we scarcely realise, and secondly, because we have imposed upon ourselves a network of laws and regulations which prevent us from doing exactly what we like in one direction or another.
I am not making any criticism to-day of these restrictions; the only point I want to make is that they could not, in so short a time, have destroyed the British passion for freedom. And so because we are now herded together in large conurbations and compelled to work in institutions too large for our personal influence to count for much, we turn instinctively to our private lives as the area in which we continue to explore the possibilities of greater freedom. The permissive society is our natural and, in one sense, robust reply to the concentration of power in industry and Government. We are now making a protest against an economic system which conditions ordinary men and women to want what it wants. That is a system which moulds their lives not as humanity would desire, but as technology and the market dictate. Anyone who shares this interpretation of the permissive society will not want to put the clock back by introducing a whole lot of fresh laws and regulations. That would be a defeat for all of us.
But one has to recognise that if we were to fail to use responsibly the new freedom to do as we like in our private lives we could easily find that we were teaching ourselves to be a sick society. A society is like a person who can make himself ill if his attention is always being drawn to his minor ailments, temptations and weaknesses. Unfortunately, it has
1208
long been a commercial fact that bad news, sensational news, salacious news, whether in print or pictures, sells better than news which reflects the dull, good things that make up so large a proportion of every day.
When, therefore, the communications industry finds that it can print, portray and sell almost everything, there must be a very great temptation to rationalise this freedom by saying that all experiences are equally valuable. This is a pernicious fallacy. It is used, I am sorry to say by some people who ought to know better, as an excuse for condoning anything anybody cares to say or do. The truth of the matter was very well put by Professor Roy Shaw of Keele University, who said this in one of his lectures:
"The assumption that some experiences are intrinsically better than others is a necessary starting-point to any educational endeavour. Reject it and anarchy will indeed replace culture."
This is what our debate is about: the risk that anarchy will replace culture if we do not learn to select with discrimination from among all the experience now offered to us. The child has his experiences selected by parents and teachers. When he grows up it is no less important that what he has to choose from should be the best society can offer him. In the field of the arts I know that those who make programmes and edit newspapers and put on artistic activities tend to underestimate the desire of the general public for high standards. I will return in a moment to this desire and capacity for something better, but first I must say a word following what the noble Baroness said about the prevalence of bad standards.
Discussion on obscenity, pornography or blasphemy will always be confusing, because it is so difficult to agree upon what these emotive words mean. How does one answer the question: what harm does it do us to participate in this kind of experience? I have seen no medical evidence to prove that pornography is catching, like measles. On the other hand, as the noble Baroness said, and as is very widely believed, if someone were repeatedly exposed to representations of lust and violence his sensibilities would certainly be blunted. It is not that he would become perverted or violent himself, though occasionally

1209
that might be the result, but that he would begin to take these ugly things as part of the normal condition of life, and so would become indifferent to them, or even afraid to make any protest when a protest was clearly in the national interest. To what extent is this view true? My noble friend Lord Windlesham, who is to wind up, will give the House the latest, and I understand reassuring, information on this vital point.
For my part, I am not prepared to say that because we cannot define pornography to the satisfaction of the lawyers we cannot recognise it when we see it. I think we can tell the good from the bad by sticking to the doctrine of man handed down by the Hebrew/Christian tradition. This tradition requires us to respect the mind and body of every human person, whereas pornography eggs us on to be as cruel as we like with, or to, anyone we can get hold of. These two concepts of humanity are diametrically opposed—the one leading to peace, the other to violence. And surely it is no accident that when the police pick up a sex maniac they expect to find a shelf of dirty books in his home. Someone will say, "But you cannot prove whether he raped little girls because he had read the books, or whether he read the books because he had raped little girls." That rejoinder from the medical side is fair enough, but is it more than a quibble? If a man walks into a bank carrying a shot-gun, the presumption had better be that he uses it for shooting; he might, of course, want it to poke the fire at home. My Lords, a pinch of common sense in these cases is really the best guide we have.
Whatever may be the precise effects of pornography, I do not believe we can cleanse the permissive society by fresh laws, but only by accepting the challenge to provide the public with enough material of a high standard from which they can choose. I suppose it is an act of faith, but I believe that the good will drive out the bad if we accept personal responsibility in this unending campaign. Having, then, declared myself firmly on the side of freedom, I must tell your Lordships that I am under growing pressure to see that there should be one convention that would restrict the freedom to write, produce and perform anything and everything which is outside the
1210
range of a criminal prosecution. Because I am myself sympathetic to this case I wish to act without prejudice.
The question at issue (on which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, touched), is the use of public money to finance works which affront the religious beliefs or outrage the sense of decency of a large body of taxpayers. I would not listen to anybody who wanted the return of the censor on works wholly financed from private sources. But I am responsible for the grants to the Arts Council, which are made with taxpayers' money. If the Arts Council could reach some understanding with their clients that takes into account the moral views of those who are putting up the money, I should be very glad. The Government would like to hear what your Lordships have to say on this delicate matter.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt hint? I hope that nothing in what he has said implies that he would in any circumstances consider political censorship or political direction of any kind. I hope he will agree with me that it would be impossible, under that kind of censorship, to obtain the services of the people on the Arts Council.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I need hardly assure the noble Baroness that politics are not in my mind or in my speech at all. I am speaking only about the moral views of a large number of people, and about asking the Arts Council to take those views into account, remembering that it is these people who provide the grants.
In this connection I have been asked whether the convention which we have in mind should include nudity on the stage. So far as I am concerned, nudity does no harm and will not make much progress in our climate. But the sexual act in public I regard with great distaste. Here I am in agreement with Leonardo da Vinci, who wrote in his diary that the sexual act is so ugly that if we all saw ourselves in the performance of it the human race would die out—la natura se perderebbe. That is a salutary observation from a great master which modern artists may care to consider. A convention that public money will not be available for financing works which

1211
affront many taxpayers is therefore the only restraint I would suggest in this field.
Apart from this, I am convinced that, provided that we can meet the public demand for programmes, newspapers, journals and artistic activities of high quality, we shall not regret that the permissive society has opened the way to wider personal choice. I am optimistic here for two reasons. The first is that the explosion of the live arts into the primary and secondary schools did not get going until the beginning of the 1950s. This means that even to-day only boys and girls under 25 are certain to have been exposed to this introduction to the live arts which has been well taught in many schools. It also means that every year that passes a larger proportion of the public will have had this experience.
As your Lordships would expect, the results of this change in teaching are just beginning to come through. I was in Plymouth a fortnight ago. The city library has a very celebrated collection of music scores and copies of plays for lending to performers in the area. A sudden and very rapid expansion in borrowing has taken place, and Mr. Best Harris, their admirable city librarian, told me that as many as 25,000 items are now out on loan at any one time. He also said that by far the fastest category in the growth of lending is in plays for reading, not for acting. That shows, my Lords, that we are at the beginning of a new movement of "do-it-yourself" in drama and music. I have no doubt that that upsurge is not only due to the teaching of the Arts in the schools but is also a direct consequence of television—what the Americans would call the "spin-off". I think it is generally accepted that more and more viewers are being stimulated by particular programmes to pursue their minority interest in a more direct way. That, of course, is exactly what radio did for music: now it is happening with television. There are others, perhaps even more, who are getting bored by television, and without knowing precisely what they want they go out in search of more satisfying experiences. I am told that the teenager who not so long ago stayed in and watched with mum and dad now slams the front door. Be that as it may,
1212
I do know that the young to-day are asking us for small theatres, small concert halls and small cinemas, where the platitudes and the generalisations of the mass media can be broken down into more penetrating expressions of the life which they so badly need to understand.
My Lords, in all this there is a great lesson for the mass media. They did not make the permissive society. They were presented with it; and as a result their responsibility to provide material of high quality is enormously greater than it was when the taboos and the inhibitions of my childhood acted as unseen censors of enormous power. These censors have melted away. The mass media are now operating in a sea of uncertainties. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that in comparison with their opposite numbers in other countries they have stood up very well against the new chaos in standards. But we must ask of the Press and broadcasting more than the avoidance of dirt. On what principles do they select what they communicate to the public? It is this power of selection which is sometimes badly abused, and I offer the House one or two examples. A television director decides to investigate the serious and very worthwhile question whether or not being coloured handicaps a man from getting a job. Twenty random interviews are shot. One person interviewed is dead certain that his colour lost him the job; two others are doubtful; the other 17 or so say that their colour was no handicap at all. But when the programme goes out, only four interviews are included—the three in which colour may have made some difference and one where it did not. I am sure that that is not typical of our television, but it shows how the power of selection can distort the truth. Here, of course, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the more newspapers we have, and the more channels we have for radio and television, the better, because that is at least one probable safeguard against distortion.
My second example is the television image of the businessman. Having lived among them, I ought to know what big businessmen are like, and I cannot recognise their portrait on television. In far too many programmes they are shown to be thinking only of making money and as being none too careful about the

1213
way they make it. My Lords, that is not a true picture, and it does positive harm to deceive the public about the character of any profession or occupation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education remarked the other day about the image of the student in this country. I think that she was right to say that to-day students have a poor image, largely due to the fact that over the last two years it has been the troublemakers who have always got "on the box". The great majority of students who have been peacefully getting on with their studies have no part in forming the image. This is very bad, my Lords, because the status and repute of our university system is something of cardinal importance to the country.
In conclusion, I come back to those in control of the mass media. They could do more to satisfy the public's desire and capacity to learn the truth about the human condition. We have no substitute for what the mass media do or leave undone in this vital area of our experience. Legislation cannot provide the range of experience which we should like to be available to everybody. Nor can Parliament prohibit large areas of experience which any civilised person would consider were debasing the coinage of society. Progress has to be voluntary because that is the effective way and the way of the British people. We must, on pain of death, learn both to remain ourselves and to absorb the world's technology. Shall we achieve that, or shall we allow a small minority to teach us to be a sick society? My Lords, no one knows the answer for certain, but we can all do something to see that responsibility and good taste win in the end.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, would the noble Viscount please clarify his answer to my noble friend? He said at one point that the Government would not take any political action; but later he seemed to me to say (unless I have it wrong) that action would be taken on moral grounds if the play, or whatever it might be, was considered to be offensive to some people. Will he clarify what he means by telling us on what grounds the action will be taken; how it will be done, and who are the people to be regarded as offended?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the action that we shall take is no more than consulting the Arts Council to see whether a convention can be reached that when a play of really disgusting blasphemy is put on a warning shall be given, if the producer is State-aided, that this sort of thing will not do. I am not going to be drawn by the noble Baroness into saying that we must have a legal definition of what is filthy and blasphemous; we can recognise it when we see it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I pursue that point a little further? Can the noble Viscount explain what would happen were the Arts Council perhaps not all of one mind—if there were some differences? If a convention were not available would he himself then personally intervene?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I will deal with that when I come to it. I have every confidence, knowing Lord Goodman, that we shall in fact arrive at a reasonable understanding. There are a great many people in this country who mind very much about these things; and their money should be protected. If other people want to go down into a cellar and see something thoroughly extraordinary, then let them pay themselves and not ask the body of the taxpayers to put up the money.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount what has happened to the Theatre Censorship Act?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, this has nothing at all to do with censorship. This is a question of whether Government money should be used partly to finance productions which affront the sensibilities of a great many people. The Theatre Censorship Act remains the same. Within that Act, anybody may put on anything from his own resources.

CENTRAL LANCASHIRE NEW TOWN
4.13 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like now to intervene to repeat a Statement being

1215
made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is as follows:
"As the House knows, the previous Government designated the site for a New Town in Central Lancashire. I have reviewed fully the case for this project, and have concluded that it is right to proceed with the development of this area under the New Towns Act. There will be no question of imposing some theoretical or arbitrary pattern, of development such as a long linear city. I shall be asking the development corporation in due course to see that the new development is primarily based on the existing towns in the area.
"I expect the private sector to play a much larger part than it has done in New Towns built hitherto; and I look to this project to make an important contribution towards the improved infrastructure which the North-West Region needs. I shall accordingly now proceed with establishing a development corporation under the Act."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the Statement, and for the fact that the noble Lord's right honourable friend has reconsidered this matter and has now confirmed the decision which was taken by the previous Administration. May I ask the noble Lord whether this means that the area designated by the last Government is being changed? Does the Statement also herald a new policy, in the terms of New Towns, of placing a greater emphasis on the private sector? Further, may I have an assurance that if the private sector is unable to meet the challenge of these New Towns, the public sector will then take up the slack?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, welcome this Statement? May I also ask the noble Lord to clarify one phrase in the Statement? His right honourable friend said that he will be
"asking the development corporation in due course to see that the new development is primarily based on the existing towns in the area".
Is this intended to inhibit the creation of a new entity, an autonomous and integrated
1216
unit? If not, how is the development corporation to work in with the existing towns?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for their reception of this Statement? I would confirm that the New Town will carry forward the designation made by our predecessors. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, ought to read into this Statement more than is there. My right honourable friend is confident that the private sector will be able to play the part assigned to it. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would confirm that what is intended is that the boundary will be relatively tightly drawn around the three components within it, Preston, Chorley and Leyland, and will not spread, as has been mooted in some quarters, right down into South Lancashire.
LORD BYERS: Will it be an autonomous unit?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, but the three communities that form the basis of it will retain their existing names.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, could the noble Lord state the position in regard to the designation of the population of this New Town, in relation to the terms of the New Towns Act laid down when the first six New Towns were designated as far back as 1945?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand the sense of the noble Lord's question. If he is asking a direct question about population, I can say that it is envisaged that this New Town will rise to a population of 430,000, of whom 250,000 are already there.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he did not understand the purpose of my question. Is the noble Lord aware that I represented a constituency in which the smallest New Town of the six New Towns that were agreed upon by the last Government was a place called Newton Aycliffe, with a designation of 10,000, and that alterations in regard to populations for that New Town have since been decided upon to enable the population to rise to no less than 48,000? That is the purpose of my question.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I hope that my answer then serves its purpose.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say where the extra 200,000 people for this New Town will be coming from, in view of the fact that over the last twenty years Merseyside and Manchester have lost 100,000 population and Preston over the same period has lost about 20,000?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the new housing requirements of Manchester and Liverpool are not now as extensive as was once thought. This New Town is designed to serve the North-West Region as a whole. The housing needs of this region are still substantial.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask two further questions? Will the noble Lord bear in mind, and have his Department bear in mind, that the prosperity of this New Town is bound to be linked in part with the development of West/East communications; namely, the improvement of the A.69 across the Pennines to the A.1? Will they also bear in mind the possibility of developing a maritime industrial development area on the Lune Estuary 15 miles to the North which may create a new source of employment and wealth?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the last part of that question is entirely different from the subject that we are discussing. The first part is highly relevant. It is very much my right honourable friend's concern that, as I have said, this New Town should serve the North-West Region as a whole and assist in its growing prosperity. There are a number of steps which will serve that end. First, North-East Lancashire is already designated as an intermediate area. My right honourable friend intends to advance progress on the Calder Valley road by one year in the case of Stage One; and there is an expanding programme of reclamation of derelict land. I was in Lancashire a week or so ago, to encourage the Lancashire County Council to expand even more; and we intend to accelerate the housing improvement programme. Both my right honourable friend and the Minister for Local Government and Development are going to Lancashire to take care of this matter, I think, on Friday of this week.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. The location of industry in the New Town is bound to be relevant to its design. In this case is there not an opportunity for being imaginative and preparing a site for industry near the deep water 15 miles to the North on the Lune Estuary. All I ask is that he will convey this to his right honourable friend.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly do that.

MASS MEDIA COMMUNICATION
4.20 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I should like to look at this problem of the use and misuse of mass media in communication in its broadest setting. If I seem to make the matter more complicated and difficult, I think it only shows how far-reaching and serious is the whole subject; and, by implication, how grateful we all are to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for raising it as a topic for debate. In that context may I apologise, not only to the noble Baroness but also to the whole House, that urgent and unavoidable duties in Durham compel me to return there to-night and so to leave before the end of the debate. I hope that any apparent discourtesy will be understood and forgiven, and I am glad that my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn will be able to stay until the end.
The problem before your Lordships is, I think, well put in a recent book, Ethical Values in the Age of Science, by a philosopher, Dr. Paul Roubiczek. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to quote briefly from page 249:
"Seen merely as a means of communication, television is an astonishing achievement of science and technology, a fact now perhaps too much taken for granted. But this aspect is not the only one to be taken into account; we should go on to ask which of its actual functions is truly useful. Should it be used only for the transmission of news or also of drama and music? Should it be a means of general or political education or of entertainment as well? What kind of information is useful and what kind of entertainment is valuable? Should criticism and the propagation of unorthodox views be encouraged or restricted?"

1219
Dr. Roubiczek concludes:
"Unless we define the means by its purpose and evaluate the purpose, we are in danger of becoming mere addicts of television as an end in itself, and then the lowest of the values—that is, the lowest kind of entertainment—will prevail, and the merit of every programme will be assessed on this level."
My Lords, what I have to say may be seen as no more than a commentary on Dr. Roubiczek's remarks. This issue is surely one which reveals, like none other, the whole moral predicament of contemporary society.
May I put it another way? Like a magnificent bridge built with all knowledge and skill, all that technological development can supply for it, mass media can be used for that kind of communication which shares ideas and ideals, which exchanges goods and services—all that we need for the up-building of a healthy and enriched community. But, on the other hand, just as that same bridge can carry the tanks and machine guns of oppressive invaders determined to quench the spirit of man, so, too, mass media can oppress and destroy. How do we ensure their proper use? As with the bridge, how do we decide what mass media shall communicate?
The easy, the all too obvious and, as earlier questions have already made evident, the explosive answer, is to talk in terms of censorship: "Let someone decide who is to cross that bridge". I think few would want to defend censorship, except perhaps in war time. In a lecture on The Conscience of the Programme Director, Sir Hugh Greene, urging that we have to resist attempts at censorship, reminds us that Professor Hoggart distinguishes attempts at censorship which come respectively from what he calls "the old guardians" and "the new populists". The old guardians, we are told—and Bishops will probably get excluded—are
"senior clergy, writers of leading articles in newspapers, presidents of national voluntary organisations and so on who like to think of themselves as upholders of cultural standards."
The new populists
"claim to speak for ordinary decent people"
and to be
"forced to take a stand against what they call unnecessary dirt, gratuitous sex, excessive violence and so on."
But notice, my Lords, where the criticisms lie. The guardians, in many cases,
1220
we hear, lack the qualities of intellect and imagination to justify that claim. The populists, we are told, have prior assumptions, anti-intellectual and unimaginative.
"In so far as they are successful they prevent artists and writers"—
says Sir Hugh—
"from undertaking those adventures of the spirit which must be at the heart of every truly new creative work."
But note, my Lords, that this still leaves us with the problem: how do we uphold cultural standards? Nay, more importantly, how do we legitimately foster new creative work of undoubted quality?
The proper use of mass media demands answers to those questions. In other words, whatever criticisms we rightly have of censorship, however much we may instinctively resist the tiresome pressures of guardians and even of new populists, let us not blind ourselves to the truth which in the end is at the heart of all their misplaced efforts. Let us not blind ourselves to the possibility, which their own restriction ironically might preclude; namely, that there can be no healthy society without some kind of moral consensus which holds together its technological developments on the one hand and makes its decisions coherent on the other—something which provides us with the right use for mass media.
The alternative traditional answer, rather than censorship, is, of course, tolerance—"Let all who wish to cross the bridge do so"—and then it is a built-in assumption that the best and the right will surely prevail. As we instinctively rebel against censorship, so do we instinctively applaud tolerance. We should certainly value the freedom of radio, television and the Press. We can, I think, be justly proud of a society in which there occurs the passage from the BBC Handbook 1971, written by Mr. Oliver Whitley, which was read by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. If I may risk being impertinent, and even of painting Lord Shepherd's lily, I would say that the provocative note on which Mr. Oliver Whitley starts is almost enough to make his point:
"… since time immemorial, the prime purpose of governments has been to govern, not necessarily to tell the truth."
Is it not significant that we can welcome here the freedom to say that?

1221
Again, there will be no proper use of mass media which neglects variety; not least, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in the newspapers. And it is so tempting to say, "let mass media find their own level in a free-for-all".
"After all, one man's programme meat is another man's programme poison,"
says Huw Wheldon in an essay on B.B.C. policy. But what if one man's meat becomes 40 million men's poison? Even when we rightly value tolerance for the freedom and variety it brings, something else is needed to prevent this freedom from becoming just multicoloured licentiousness—that is, if we wish to have a society which will nurture the spirit of man.
I entirely agree with Mr. Oliver Whitley when he says in that same article in the BBC Handbook:
"Telling the truth in any news context… does not necessarily or always seem to make for peace, peace of mind in the individual listener or peace in the world. It does not necessarily or always seem to enhance the reputation of Britain or the British people. But it is still telling the truth and it is probably just at such times that the precious reputation is made or enhanced; that is when it looks as though it hurts—when the broadcaster tells of a ship sunk, a contract lost, a strike prolonged, a trade balance in the red, a people destroyed."
And he continues:
"… after all plenty of pleasant things happen and are just as much facts as the unpleasant things': …"
And yet, holding that in our minds, must not true tolerance do something to balance those two approaches? Does not toleration, by the very derivation of the word, imply a true balancing of variety, so as to make for creative development? In other words, if toleration is to be more than an amiable and empty affability, there must be some kind of code of behaviour by which decisions—balancing decisions—can be made. The truth is that in all the possible variety of people crossing that bridge there has to be some principle of selection. Censorship by advertising revenue or by licence figures is no less censorship for being done by people other than the old guardians or the new populists and in a style rather different and with other criteria from the guardians or the populists.
In short, a battle for quality has somewhere, somehow, in some way to be fought. Even toleration demands that.
1222
And how will it be fought and where? The answer given to this problem is normally: leave it to conscience. But that word "conscience" in itself, like the more often used phrase "public interest", may be no more than a retreat from the problem into a euphoria of superficial agreement founded on vacuity. The appeal to conscience, indeed, brings my argument full circle, for it shows clearly where the heart of this problem is to be found, this problem of the use and misuse of mass media. The problem of mass media only underlines the general problem which haunts our society to-day. The Director-General of the B.B.C. may rightly say:
"The human conscience, responding to the principles of morality which are handed down from generation to generation, is the most stable element in a shifting scene and it is by this test we should judge ourselves and by this standard we should wish to be judged."
But the human conscience is not for certain Heaven sent. It needs education. It is not some entirely independent tribunal with built-in certainty. It is not independent of the facts and features of the world in which it lives and by which it must be nurtured.
Let me put the point in another way. The mass media themselves can be and often are directly and indirectly the means by which moral standards are upheld and, even more importantly, modified, changed and developed. Conscience and mass media are far more interwoven than any easy appeal to conscience can allow. Some time ago I had cause to look at some of the episcopal visitation records for the diocese of Durham, dating back some forty years. As to-day, society seemed, at least to my predecessor, to be in a moral decline and the mass media of those days were already being blamed. Then it was the cinema and the newspapers, significantly not yet the radio. But one clergyman, it seemed to me, showed a welcome hesitation to draw too simple a conclusion from the facts around him for he recalled that the very same argument, that they fostered moral evil, had been used a generation before about the comics which he had enjoyed innocently as a boy. It will always be difficult (if I may keep my claim modest after the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles) to argue for comics, cinemas, radio, T.V. and contemporary newspapers corrupting the public. There will always be enough

1223
complexity about the matter to be sure to keep members of research teams permanently in jobs. What seems undeniable, however, is that comics, cinemas, radio, television and contemporary newspapers are features of the social scene which broadly reflect, as the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, himself said, the mores, the consensus, the moral atmosphere from which society gains what coherence it has.
What then is my conclusion? It is that the problem of the use and misuse of mass media in communication is basically a problem of conscience itself. It is no harder or easier than the problem of finding a moral consensus in society. Indeed, the battle is not a battle but a campaign for the very survival of our society, for culture not anarchy, if I may repeat the noble Viscount's phrase. It is a campaign with which every religious faith, Christian or any other, must be entirely involved. It is a campaign which no humanist, Christian or any other, needs any persuasion to join. And if I may declare an interest, I am glad to think that the Social Morality Council, on whose Executive Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and I serve together, is alert to the depth, complexity and importance of this problem of discovering, somehow, some way, a moral consensus to give coherence to society, that which is a sine qua non for deciding moral problems and the use and misuse of mass media in particular. In that very broad setting, may I make a final suggestion? Sir Hugh Greene, in the lecture I have already mentioned, spoke rightly of the importance for the proper use of mass media of the personal attitudes of producers, programme chiefs and directors—who depend upon their own beliefs and upbringing—and, we may add, editors and columnists, and also that the use or misuse will depend on the proper sensitivity, as he said, of production staff.
Could there not be organised on some kind of national basis professional groups composed of these very producers, programme chiefs, directors, editors, columnists and production staff, but also having in those groups those who in various ways have shown themselves alert to the moral predicament of society—social workers, moral philosophers, Ministers (may I suggest?) and clergy? The only condition of membership for
1224
such groups would be good will, sensitivity, willingness to listen, a readiness to change and, even more importantly, to contemplate novel possibilities and embrace novel conclusions. If such groups could become a permanent feature of our national life, the use and misuse of mass media would be but one problem in our present predicament which we might hope could be eased. Even more widely, we should the more reasonably ensure that this present moral turmoil does not, if I may take up the point the noble Baroness introduced in her opening speech, herald the end of a second Roman Empire, but is rather the travail heralding the birth of a new era where technology and morality are aptly matched: or, if I may phrase it in perhaps a more explicitly Christian way, and one not very different from that which T. S. Eliot once described, where we should find a combination of "the deepest scepticism and the profoundest faith".
4.41 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, as I have listened to the speeches which have preceded mine I have been coming more and more to the uncomfortable conclusion that what I want to say is completely different, and I can only hope that the generosity of your Lordships' House will conclude that what I have to say may perhaps be one small facet of this Motion that we are discussing to-day. First of all, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, for what I would call her erudite exposition to start the debate. If I may say so, I thought it was exactly right, and one admires very much something that one is not capable of doing oneself. I am most grateful to her. I want also to thank the noble Lady for the width with which she drew her Motion, because I hope there will be others like myself who will perhaps (I do not mean to offend) be taking a more practical view of some of the near problems, as well as those who have spoken and have taken a philosophical view. I think that possibly there is room for us all in this debate.
I would expect that most people to-day would believe that television is the outstanding mass medium of communication. I had the pleasure of coming to your Lordships' House in 1962, and my second speech here was in July of that year in

1225
a debate on the Pilkington Report. From 1964 to 1969 I was a member of the Independent Television Authority, and of course I was debarred by the Addison Rules from taking part in debates in this House on broadcasting. So far as possible to-day I want to avoid mentioning programmes of personal preference. Once one becomes involved in personal likes or dislikes one is lost—at least, I think so. Personal taste can be very engulfing. What I want to do to-day is to put up for discussion and consideration certain aspects of television. I do not propose to include sound broadcasting. I am particularly hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with his vast experience in television, will be able to help me when he comes to wind up at the end.
The first matter I want to raise is, I think, one for Parliament. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that many of these matters have to be settled by public opinion; some I think have to be settled by the television organisations: but my first one is a matter for Parliament. On finance, I believe that the special tax (or levy) on television advertising should be abolished. In its place there should be a special tax on television profits. Your Lordships will remember that the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board in October last was precluded by the terms of reference from advocating the abolition of the tax (or levy) on advertising revenue. It rejected the idea of an excess profits tax, because it thought this would be difficult to administer and would discourage efficiency.
Sometimes I think people forget that the television industry has to bear costs that have been forced upon it by public policy. That policy, so far as Independent Television was concerned, was to set up a number of programme companies and separate them on a regional basis. Opinions may differ as to what is the right number of regions, but the regional set-up itself is public policy and has to be paid for: it was not invented by Independent Television. When people attack Independent Television for making enormous profits, I think at times that the argument tends to get out of all proportion. Certainly at the present time nobody could make the attack on grounds of enormous profits. But I have always felt that it was a trifle unfair to criticise
1226
the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, for his immortal phrase about "a licence to print money", because I doubt whether anybody else would have been willing to put up money to form Scottish Television at that time. It seems to me that sometimes people forget this. More recently, everyone must acknowledge the contribution made to our export trade by Associated Television and their two Queen's Awards in recognition of this achievement. I think this is widely known to-day.
I have mentioned the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board of October last. Included in it was a suggestion to ensure the putting out of the best possible programmes, and that the Independent Television Authority might be required to consider, so far as the contracting companies were concerned, a system of,
"two warnings, and the next time you are out".
I do not want to comment on that particular suggestion, but it leads me on to what I want to say next—and it is something that I think can be said only by someone who has been a member either of the Independent Television Authority or of the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. As I have said, I was a member of the I.T.A. (if I may use the initials) for five years from 1964 to 1969. I enjoyed this enormously, and I learned a great deal.
First of all, I should like to say something about the two Chairmen. We hear such a lot of "sniping", and about the Chairmen being members of political Parties. Personally, I have no objection. I think it is nonsense to talk about their being influenced by their own Party in Government. I am supporting the two I am talking about, not because I am a politician but because I have had one from each major Party and I never discovered a hint of bias from either; nor any different treatment towards either from the Government of the day. I would say also that they happened to be first-class Chairmen—and I think that everybody in this House knows what it is to suffer under the reverse.
Before leaving this point, I should like to say one thing more. Although he is not here, I wish to make one comment about the noble Lord, Lord Hill of

1227
Luton. He must know this, but not everyone does, and there are certain things that should be said in public. We—his colleagues—were devastated when he left the I.T.A. Noble Lords may not know that his departure was as sudden to him as it was to us. The noble Lord has had a rough ride since he left the Independent Television Authority, and I personally should like the House to know in what esteem he was held by his colleagues.
May I now come back to the Prices and Incomes Board suggestion of a warning system to the contracting companies? As I said, I do not want to comment on this suggestion, but during my five years I did learn that there were certain things—I thought important things—on which one just could not win. Perhaps we might look at advice to companies. A programme is shown which causes offence, and there is an outcry. What does the Authority do? It warns the company, but the programme has already caused the offence, and you cannot get it back. Why does the Authority not stop the programme from being shown in the first place? Surely it must have some idea of what is going on the air? Yes, my Lords, it has. But your Lordships do not need me to say that scripts do not always indicate exactly what is going to be shown on the screen. And I need tell nobody that so far as the critics are concerned, if you stop something from being shown you are narrow-minded and dictatorial: who are you to decide what the public should see? If you have not stopped it, you should have done. That really is true, and I have come to the conclusion that you "cannot win on this one." Certainly you get to know who may be the likely offenders, but public taste is a peculiar animal.
Let us now come to the contracts and whether or not companies should be warned before losing their contracts. There is a lot of self-righteous indignation about all this—and I say that most feelingly. If the House will take its mind back to 1967, when new contracts were awarded, I wonder if your Lordships—and I am sure you will—remember the outcry in the Press that it would be no use any company, other than the existing holders, putting in an application; that
1228
it was all cut and dried; that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and his colleagues (of whom the critics and the Press took a pretty poor view) would certainly not deprive any company of its contract. For this we were condemned in advance and at length, daily, weekly and utterly.
Well, my Lords, we did make changes. And never have I known the Press so completely wrong and so completely misled by their own certainties. I well remember one Sunday—leading up to the public announcement—reading such a firm, authoritative statement in a paper of standing that I rang up the relevant quarter to see whether something had happened of which I, a member of the Authority, was in complete ignorance. When the news broke, the Authority was wrong for having made any changes. My Lords, you just cannot win. If you sit on the Authority, or the B.B.C. Board of Governors, you might as well face that to start with. While I am on the contracts awarded, I should like to say that I have not changed my mind. They may have worked out well or they may not, but given 1967 over again I would stand by the same decision.
May we now deal with the question of alternating exclusive coverage of major sporting events. The area may be widened to include all events of national importance. I am not so widening my remarks for two reasons: first of all, I know more about sport, and secondly, there is an agreement that some events are of such national importance that they should be shown on all screens and be open to all. But I would not accept—and I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has to say on this point—that even these events should involve double expenditure on men and materials, although I think they should be shown on all screens. For example, Coronations, "splash downs", the Investitute of the Prince of Wales would all come into my category. Before dealing with the actual point at issue, I feel, and perhaps the House will feel with me, that it is not much use examining the viewing figures issued by either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. I am not accusing those who compile these figures of dishonesty, but it is apparent to us all that they differ so much that both cannot be right, and I should have thought we all would have agreed on this

1229
On this particular aspect of which organisation provides the "better" service on sport, perhaps I may make several points. For many years the B.B.C. provided the better service and thereby acquired, quite rightly, a reputation for doing so. Any argument on this aspect always provoked, and provokes to-day (and I would emphasise those words) a reaction from the B.B.C. to the effect that it is known that they do sport better than I.T.V. A letter from Mr. Huw Wheldon, published in The Times on May 13 last, said:
"On any big sporting occasion which is covered by both networks some people naturally watch it on I.T.V., but invariably two or three or four times as many, sometimes more, prefer to watch it on B.B.C.".
As I have just said, the B.B.C. had this reputation in the past, but I do not think that Mr. Wheldon's figures are acceptable to-day. To my mind I.T.V.'s coverage of sport has improved out of all knowledge. I think they do some sports better than do the B.B.C., and vice versa. It has been a difficult road to travel because of this ingrained belief in the superiority of the B.B.C. I want to avoid personal preferences because they tend to obscure facts, but, speaking for myself with reference to the last World Cup series, I found the B.B.C. commentating on actual matches more enjoyable; but the I.T.V. discussions here in the studio were quite outstanding and different. As a matter of fact, I thought they made the B.B.C. look old-fashioned and out of date. I would say to the noble Lord that surely it would have been better to have both—which brings me back to the main point of this section of my remarks.
My Lords, I love sport, and I personally have no objection to saturation on all channels. But equally I should have the strongest objection to similar saturation on other subjects. First of all, I am sure that, so far as the viewer is concerned, the House will agree, that he should have an alternative at all but the most exceptional times. I should not think there is anybody who would disagree on that matter. Secondly, concerning finance and resources, surely it is a waste of both to have this duplication. I believe that the B.B.C. spent £750,000 on the World Cup series, and I.T.V. spent more than £300,000. I want to suggest detailed consideration of alternating exclusive
1230
coverage of major sporting events. We cannot continue on the basis of past reputations. I could give the House very different figures from those of Mr. Wheldon, but they would have as much, or as little, validity as his. One point to be taken into consideration of course, would be how many viewers could not receive B.B.C.2 or I.T.V. What I am after is alternative viewing for everyone. This is acceptable to the I.T.A. but not to the B.B.C.
Following on from this simultaneous showing of sports events, I want to draw attention to another aspect where I think the viewer comes off pretty badly; and I think that this opinion is shared by many people in this country. For a long time I have wanted a proper co-ordination of the two services so that the whole field of television could be considered. In this way we might arrive at some sensible arrangement whereby clashes between similar categories could, so far as possible, be avoided. Surely planning could be improved from the viewpoint of the consumer.
It is true to say that in this country we have networks planned on a complementary basis, such as I.T.V. or B.B.C.1 and B.B.C.2; and we also have a competitive one with the B.B.C. and I.T.V. in competition. My complaint—it is one that I have voiced for years outside this House, and I think I may be permitted to say that I have voiced it also as a member of the Authority—is that the viewer has a raw deal sometimes. To be honest, I have never made any progress on this, and possibly I should not expect to do so. Because one organisation is financed by public licences and another by advertising, it may be that I am crying for the moon. But that is no reason for not trying.
My Lords, if we take current affairs—we have "Panorama" and "World in Action" on the same evening, at the same time, although they are of varying length. Why are they screened at the same time? Not because of public interest, but in an attempt by both organisations to siphon off from the rival body those viewers interested in current affairs and who (and I would stress this) would wish to see both programmes. Is it impossible, when one organisation has to depend on the ratings and the other should not—and I underline "and the

1231
other should not"—so to arrange these programmes that a clash is avoided? Does the viewer not count at all?—and I am very much hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will "buy that one" when he comes to reply to-night.
It is just the same with old films. Some people like them; some do not. I should think most viewers would consider that we have a surfeit. Perhaps I may leave the point with the simple observation that frequently old films seem to dominate both channels at the same time. I want to know: what about the viewer who does not like old films? This is not one long moan: I get a lot of enjoyment from television, but we do at times have an excessive choice in excellence and an equally excessive one in mediocrity. On some nights there is so much to see on both channels; on other nights there is nothing, on either channel. Sometimes I wonder why on earth I pay my licence, and another time one night's viewing is worth a whole year's licence.
But the question I want to ask—the question that I feel the Government must answer—is: must competition produce this stalemate for the viewer? We all know that if one main channel has a success, then the other one tries to lure away viewers by putting on, at identically the same time, a programme of equal attraction; or the time of, for example, the News is altered so as to detract from the rival showing. I know that this is competition. I know equally that the viewer suffers; and I need not tell the House that I am convinced that the consumer always loses in these battles. Instead of two excellent programmes either at different times or on different nights—after all, "Panorama" and "World in Action" do not have to be on the same night, never mind at the same time—we get duplication of excellence, or of interest, and on other nights duplication of aridity.
I know that what I am asking for is difficult, and I know equally that no arrangement is going to satisfy everyone. But I still believe that a more rational solution could be arrived at, given the will and the machinery. I think also that the will and the machinery could well look at two irritations, irritations to a majority of viewers. First, repeats. I
1232
do not wish to attack repeats as such. Some are necessary; some are recognised as inevitable; some are desirable. I just think that we have too many.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd mentioned interviewers. This is a topic about which most people have strong views, and they are views damaging to the industry; and whichever lunch table I sit at I usually hear people who have something to say about interviewers of the previous night on television. No company and no organisation can do anything about the news interviewer who has lamentable taste and intrudes on grief or notoriety. He can of course be removed, but he has already committed the offence. This is not, I think, the major aspect. We have first-class interviewers. They must regret as much as we viewers those who damage their collective reputation. But what infuriates the public above all else is the interviewer who knows it all and who will not allow his unfortunate subject to get a word in edgeways; or the type, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, who insists on putting words into other people's mouths, when the questions are much longer than the answers ever have any chance of being.
Recently (I do not propose to identify further, but possibly other noble Lords will know to what I am referring) I saw a discussion between three distinguished people and an interviewer of international reputation. These three people had been asked for their opinion on important and related aspects of the matter under discussion. They were world figures. But the interviewer was not happy because he did not get the answers he so obviously wanted. So he kept on. It was not going to be sensational or good television, in his opinion, if things were developing smoothly or better than expected; if the trouble and bickering he had envisaged were not there. He got no change from his experienced visitors. But in the fade-out at the end he gave his version, and I honestly wondered why he had had the three distinguished visitors there at all. I may have been slightly unfair in those remarks, but I am quite sure the House will take the point.
Then there is something which is not the fault of the interviewer. When will T.V. organisations learn that two to three minutes, or even less, is no proper time

1233
for discussion and interview? How many times do we just get going on some topic of importance for which people have been invited when we hear the phrase—and we can all repeat it—from the person conducting the discussion, "I am sorry, we have to leave it there. Over to you XYZ"? I would ask the B.B.C. and the Independent Television companies to look at this area. It is up to them to put that right. It is not a problem for the interviewer.
May I now come very briefly to the ratings? We pay a licence for the B.B.C. programmes. Until we pay a similar one for Independent Television we cannot complain either of advertising breaks or of the ratings. Advertisers pay the I.T.V. licence money instead of we viewers, and advertisers are decided by the ratings. It is as simple as that. On advertising, I should like to pay a compliment to the control exercised by I.T.V. In my view, it is outstanding, and most people would agree that it is infinitely better than the control exercised by the Press. But what disturbs me—I do not know whether other noble Lords feel this—is that the B.B.C. has now been caught up in the ratings race. Why? And another disturbing factor which has emerged out of this ratings race is that this competition has produced, not variety, not alternatives, but similarity. So we get current affairs, old films, musicals, sports, all at the same lime on the main channels.
I am not suggesting that Independent Television pursues numbers to the exclusion of good television: that would be both nonsense and untrue. Obviously, however, I.T.V. must consider that ratings influence advertisers. But what is the B.B.C. after? This is what has been worrying me. Why should numbers be the objective of the B.B.C.? I think the tendency of the B.B.C. has been to try to get more viewers than I.T.V. has, and this tendency has over-reached itself for a public corporation not dependent on advertising. I feel that the more numbers are pursued on both main channels, the more isolated becomes the minority of viewers who want some alternative, rather than similarity. I believe that that minority is growing, and that it is growing because of this obsession with ratings.
Have the Government, or has the Minister responsible (who I appreciate is
1234
not the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham), have the television organisations, any idea of the size of this minority and the way it is developing?—a minority that believes that a public service corporation and a commercial one could work together to produce a balanced, competitive programme with an alternative choice where we have a reasonable share of peak-hour viewing for more serious programmes.
My Lords, I said at the beginning of my speech that I would try not to mention programmes of personal preference; but in conclusion, and in all fairness, I must. For my part, when I think of Lord Clark's "Civilisation", "The Power Game", "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", "Portrait of a Lady", "The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten", "Softly, Softly," "The Forsyte Saga", "The Avengers" in their early series—when I think of what we are offered on opera, and on ballet; when I think of the World Cup, of Wimbledon, the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, then I say, "Thank you" to television. I owe it an immeasurable debt for my pleasure, for my developing frontiers, and my education: and it is because of this debt that I want to see the best use made of what I consider to be the best television service in the world to-day.
5.9 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH: My Lords, in asking for your Lordships' customary indulgence, I should like to say that in my case it is no mere formality as I have little hope of matching the recent maiden speeches that have been made in your Lordships' House, or the quality of some of the speeches made this afternoon. In fact, on seeing the list of speakers I thought that such a wide range of wisdom and experience (and, I would now add, wit) would be most awe-inspiring to a newcomer to your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, the subject under discussion is so important, and one on which I feel so strongly, that I could not let slip this opportunity of saying a few words. For that I am most grateful to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, whose devoted work in the service of international relations I have admired for so long.
The point I should like to make is a simple one and in fact has been touched

1235
on this afternoon by one or two of your Lordships with more eloquence than I can command. The potency of the mass media as an instrument in the hands of Government needs no stressing. We have only to look back to Nazi Germany, when Goebbels' propaganda saturated the air, or to Soviet Russia to-day, where stability depends largely on keeping the populace misinformed, to understand how powerful is the strength of the mass media as a weapon in the hands of a totalitarian Government. Yet in these two instances the mass media are confined to radio and Press alone. How much more powerful is television—television which is far more influential than the Press and so much more burningly significant that there is hardly any comparison. That is the reason why in a television-orientated society such as our own I feel it is of such crucial importance that the principle of impartiality should be maintained.
The Press once had great political influence when it was the only purveyor of news to the public. This influence has now been considerably reduced. The newspapers to-day make no secret of their political bias, and I imagine that most readers can find a newspaper to suit their own particular opinion. In any case, there is a long tradition of correspondence, critical comment, cartoons and so on which make it difficult for the reader to be protected against being exposed to differing points of view. There is also the fact developed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that a newspaper can be kept and referred to later; and this again is a protection against its being able to get away with a totally misleading account of the events of the day.
With television the situation is rather different. With the authorities holding the ring, there are a number of programmes all claiming to be impartial, and I should have said that in the straightforward partisan sense of the word that claim was justified. At the last General Election my impression was that if in one week there was a tough interview with one Party leader combined with a soft one on his opponent, the next week the position would be reversed. The television bias does not lie along these lines. It is a much more subtle and more insidious one, and likely to affect attitudes to political issues in a way that can only be damaging
1236
to the functioning of our democratic system. It is to some extent shown by the issues chosen for discussion. These often seem to be questions over which there is no clear Party political line but rather an ideological division between Left and Right. For example, programmes dealing with the domestic affairs of another nation on which there is no British Party political standpoint are often coloured in this way, as are issues dealing with humanitarian and racial problems.
To give an example, a programme on American politics in 1970 was illustrated by scenes of the killing of four students at Kent State University, followed by an emotive appeal by the father of one of the students. Another programme dealt with Cambodia in a critical manner and was followed by an interview with antiwar activists. This monolithic view of American politics seems to be common among American commentators. It is rare that an administration spokesman is likely to have a chance to defend Mr. Nixon's policies or that there is a hint of a different logical and coherent point of view to which millions of Americans can subscribe.
The essence of democratic politics is dialogue, and those who passionately take sides on a burning issue, such at Vietnam or South Africa, must be given the opportunity—or face the experience—of arguing clearly and fully against an opponent equally free to present his views. In this sense, the bias of television is not so much political, favouring one Party as against another, as sensational or emotional. Clearly, the hitter words of the dead student's father had much more human impact than the reasoned explanation of a public official.
Perhaps South Africa is an even better example, where programmes seem to take for granted the inherent evil of apartheid and little attempt is made to present the South African point of view which, however mistaken it may be, clearly exists. This over-simplification, in the name of humanity—or perhaps of human interest—can only be damaging to the quality of our politics, and is aggravated by the absence of the continuing and critical comment that the Press provides.
Television in this country enjoys, rightly, a very high reputation for freedom

1237
from political control or Party bias, but there is this other bias, that of sensationalism and over-simplification, which could prove destructive precisely because of the high standard of impartiality which television enjoys. It is absolutely vital to make known to the public, through the medium of television, all sides of the complex and sometimes apparently remote problems that face the world—otherwise they will lose their freedom of choice and will see a considerable reserve of power going into the hands of a sincere but non-responsible élite.
My Lords, I realise that in attempting to say a few words on this large and complicated subject I myself am guilty of over-simplification but not, I hope, of sensationalism. I am grateful to your Lordships for your forbearance in allowing me to make a rather unsophisticated point, on which I hope my fears will be set at rest.
5.19 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, it is a great honour to be the speaker following the noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech. Many of your Lordships will remember his father and the very distinguished career that he had in the Foreign Service, and we are delighted to welcome his son here on an occasion when he has made a very wise speech. As I listened to him, my mind went back to the days, twenty or thirty years ago, when dictators were present in Europe and the power of their monopoly of mass media was so great that the countries under them were overwhelmed by it.
It was at that time that the noble Lord's father was in the Foreign Office and, no doubt like many others, was warning the world of this particular danger. Alas! we heard it too late. But to be reminded again to-day by the noble Lord what a weapon the mass media can be in the hands of absolutely ruthless people is valuable: it is something which, in our free society to-day, I think we are apt to forget. We are in the fortunate position of not having to worry about bias or wrong usage of mass media—a battle which, even to-day, has to be fought in other countries where freedom of speech and freedom of the Press is not allowed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, will on many occasions take part in the
1238
discussions in this House. I am quite sure that, if he does, he will be able to make an excellent and wise contribution. I congratulate him very much on his maiden speech.
My Lords, it is not my intention to speak for long—in fact, it will be for only a few minutes. I want to make one or two comments on a subject which has only been touched on, and which I think is of importance. When I was Chairman of the Consumer Council, I remember very vividly the problems which arose quite often over the power of advertising, either in television or the Press. I am a strong supporter of advertising: it is vital to industry; it is vital to our lives, and at no point would I be against advertising. There is both good and bad advertising: some advertising is extremely good and some not so good. It is on this question of advertising that I would like to say a very few words.
When Independent Television started, there were a great many people who were very much afraid of commercial advertising on television. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, that these fears were unnecessary, since the way in which the Independent Television Authority managed its advertising arrangements was so good that it did not at any point worry us. Nevertheless, there have been occasions when the advertising of certain articles has perhaps been not quite as accurate, let us say, as one would like it to be. I remember very well some occasions when, for instance, the advertising of pharmaceutical products, or of cures for this or that complaint, was in question. I also remember occasions when advertising of goods—not any words in advertising in the newspapers—was perhaps not as accurate as one would have liked. That led one to be anxious that the descriptions of goods sold to the public should be extremely accurate.
That anxiety led, as we know, to the Trade Descriptions Act, which went through under the last Government, and has I think been enormously valuable in this field of description, so that the buyer, the consumer of goods, is not misled when buying an article. I wonder whether there is a case for considering whether this influence of the Trade Descriptions Act could be carried through to the advertising on the mass media, on the

1239
television and in other mass media. It has been suggested, and I only put it forward tentatively, that it might be a good idea to have a Council, similar to the Press Council, to which reference could be made of advertisements that were felt to be not up to standard. Just as we know that certain cases are referred to the Press Council, and dealt with by quite independent people on the Council, so it might be a good idea, when there is any question about advertising not being accurate, or of its being exaggerated, or not telling the public exactly the true facts about the goods the advertisers are trying to sell, to refer the matter to some other authority who could be consulted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that this sort of case might arise only very seldom, but there were times in the course of my experience when I was working with the Consumer Council when such a reference would have been rather valuable. So I think it would be a good plan to consider having something in the nature of an Advertising Council, rather on the lines of the Press Council.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness for one moment? There is in existence something called the advertising control of the Independent Television Authority.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; but that is controlled by the television people. The people on such a Council as I propose would not necessarily be in television at all; they would be chosen as simple outsiders with a completely unbiased view. That was the point I wanted to make.
I agree very much with what both the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, and certainly what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, about the great importance of the media we are talking about and about the great importance of ensuring that it reaches as high a standard as possible. There is one other point, not exactly a complaint, but one other comment, that I would make about the way in which certain programmes are presented. In order that people shall look at them and be attracted by them, very often the producers concentrate on the more violent aspects of a programme
1240
rather than on the interests of the programme itself. I am not myself in favour of great demonstrations, but it is a fact that demonstrations about particular subjects are sometimes justified. But when, in these demonstrations, people pick out photographs of people attacking policemen or behaving in a rough manner, and single them out as the events of the afternoon, it may completely obscure the fact that the incident shown was a very small issue; that there was very little violence during the demonstration, and that in fact there may have been a very good reason for the demonstration. I am not saying that I am particularly interested in encouraging demonstrations, but the example I have given is an illustration of the fact that you may lose the point of a thing by concentrating only on the violence.
What the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said on the subject of students is a very good example. I entirely agree with him. I suppose that 95 per cent. of the students in this country are very law-abiding people, working extremely hard and very anxious to get their degrees. But very often the pictures of demonstrations are descriptions of a tiny percentage of violent students, and it is reported as typical of all our students. I am perfectly certain that it is not. I have a number of nephews at university to-day. They do not demonstrate at all. I once asked them why they did not do so and they said they did not get the time, that they were busy doing other things, learning or taking part in sport, and they could not be bothered with demonstrations. I am sure they represent the majority of the students in this country to-day, and that to give another picture concentrating simply on a very small proportion of the students gives a very false impression.
I was interested to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, make the comment about trying to raise, or to keep up, the standard of both theatre and television, and to leave out some of the items on both which can and do shock people very much. I quite agree that this is not exercising any kind of censorship. We do not want any kind of censorship and we do not have any kind of censorship. But if public money is to be spent on things which shock people very much, I think it is quite right that there should be a group of people who

1241
would discourage public money being spent on these things. If people want these things, it is up to the commercial interests. Personally, I do not like it. There are people who want these things put on, and in a free society one must allow them so to do, but I welcome the suggestion that there might be cooperation between the Arts Council and the Government on the question of good taste and responsibility for public taste in productions in this country to-day.
I was interested when the noble Viscount mentioned the development of the small theatre, the small concert hall, the desire of small groups to do things for themselves—to act in or to write plays. I am sure that this arises directly from the interest which mass media brings to people who otherwise would not have opportunities for seeing, hearing and viewing matters which, in the old days, when we were young, would have been beyond our comprehension.
If one thinks of the era before the development of mass media, television and radio, one realises how infinitely restricted it was compared with to-day, and how incredibly fortunate we are to live in a world in which we can see great programmes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has just mentioned, there have been several great programmes on television which we have all been able to see. In this we are immensely fortunate. However, it is most important that our good fortune should not be abused, that we should not see a lowering of standards when the opportunity for raising standards is so great. Therefore, I greatly hope that as a result of this debate new ideas will come into the minds of those in charge of our mass media, and that we shall not see any lowering of the standards or of the freedom which we enjoy now and which I personally think is vital for the country to-day.
5.32 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, this is a very wide subject which we are discussing to-day, and consequently there is the temptation to roam in many fields. This is a sphere in which over the past few years there have been many changes and developments, and had this debate taken place 15 years ago I think it would have been an entirely different debate.
1242
To-day, we have fewer newspapers and there is the greater influence of broadcasting, particularly by way of television. Fewer newspapers means that power is concentrated in a few hands, with less competition. As we all know, there are to-day rumours of more amalgamations and closures. Over the last few years the News Chronicle, the Star, the Sunday Chronicle, the Sunday Dispatch, the Empire News, the Sunday Graphic and the Sunday Citizen have all closed down. Together they had a total readership of 22 million. Even with the newspapers which we have to-day there is a loss of profits. This is not only happening at national level but at provincial and local level; and in areas where we had two or three provincial newspapers some years ago, to-day we have only one, thereby creating a monopoly.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Baroness. Is she suggesting that there are enormous profits forthcoming from the national newspaper? If so—
BARONESS BACON: No, my Lords; I said exactly the opposite. The noble Earl may not have heard me. I said that there was a loss of profits in those newspapers which were still in existence. That is what I actually said.
THE. EARL OF ARRAN: In the national newspapers still in existence?
BARONESS BACON: Yes, my Lords. I was referring to the national newspapers.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Perhaps the noble Baroness made a mistake?
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I said that there had been a loss of profits in some of the national newspapers that are in circulation to-day. That is what I said, and I think that is true.
TEE EARL OF ARRAN: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I thought she was saying that such profits, as it were, were in the pipeline and in the future. If she said that there have been losses, that is quite a different matter.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will read what I said in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT. I think that the sphere of newspapers is one area in our national life where competition is a good thing. It would indeed

1243
be a sad day if we were to end up with two or three newspapers controlled by a handful of individuals.
We have to-day heard many criticisms—I will come to some of my own in a few moments—of some of the programmes on television and on radio, but particularly on television. Up till now in this debate the newspapers seem to have got off "scot free". I should like to remind the House of some things in our national newspapers that I deplore very much indeed. I do not want to talk about political bias or editorials or anything of that kind; but I think there is a tendency in the newspapers to-day, in addition perhaps to television, to publish articles by criminals and, in the publication of their life stories, to give the idea that criminals are heroes. I feel I ought to say that because television seems to have received all the criticism up till now. I do not know the answer to the problem facing our national and our provincial newspapers, but I think it is a serious problem to which we shall have to give a great deal of attention.
Now may I come to the expansion of television in recent years. To-day, television has tremendous audiences. The average amount of viewing by each member of the population is over fourteen hours a week, and the average amount of listening to B.B.C. radio by each member of the population is eight-and-a-half hours a week. Millions listen to some programmes. Even where the viewing interest is not so great, I think there is an instance in the BBC Handbook which illustrates the power of television to-day. The example given in the BBC Handbook is that 1 million people watched the opera Aida when televised from the the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. In terms of viewing audiences, 1 million is not a great number, but 1 million people watched Aida. This figure equals the attendance at 460 actual performances in the theatre. Since the Opera House opened in 1876, there have been 385 performances of Aida. Therefore, in that one programme on television more people saw that opera than in the whole history of the Opera House at Covent Garden. I think this illustrates perhaps better than anything else the tremendous power of television.
1244
I know that some people would argue that television has been a bad influence, that people watch instead of doing things. I believe that the advantages of television far outweigh any of the disadvantages. It brings the world into our own homes. We get the news as it happens. We all remember, a few months ago, sitting in our own homes and watching the destruction of the hijacked aeroplane standing in the desert. Television not only brings the world into our homes; in these days it brings the universe into our homes. A few years ago we should have thought it impossible for man to land on the moon. How much more impossible should we have thought that we could sit in our own homes and actually watch the event as it happened.
Then we have the current affairs programmes, the school programmes, and now the excellent programmes in further education and the Open University. There is a great deal of educational value in many programmes which are devised for entertaining. "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", "The First Churchills" and similar series have made the history books come alive. As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, there has been a great demand for books of the stories that are serialised on television. I know that to-day there are a few inverted snobs who say that they have no television set, because in their homes they want to have intelligent conversation with their families. I must say that those who think in that way are really missing out, and their families are missing out, too.
But we must also admit that there are some undesirable things on television. A newspaper, as has been said in this debate, is a personal thing. One reads the newspaper, but television is for the family. In most homes in this country there is one general living room and, if the television is on, everybody watches. I know that what is acceptable to some families is not acceptable to others, and it is very difficult for the television companies to devise programmes suitable for everybody.
I think that the programmes for the tiny children are really excellent. There is a whole new series of fairy tales and fairy tale characters, and a tremendous amount of work must have gone into producing them. I am not so sure about some of the series for the older children,

1245
and I wonder what has happened to "Dr. Who" recently, because many children must have gone to bed and had nightmares after seeing the recent episodes.
A great deal has been said about violence on television. I suppose there will be violence on television, and not only in the actual programmes, for there is also a good deal of violence in the news these days, which I think is unavoidable. There is violence in the world, and it is inevitable that some of that violence will get on to the television screens. But I deplore sheer brutality on television; the kind of beating up that sometimes comes in some of the plays and serials. It is not necessary for there to be brutality to attract a wide viewing audience. We all know of series that do not depend on that kind of thing at all.
But what I believe is really bad on television—and it does not happen often—is bad taste. I will give three examples of what I consider to be bad taste. I think that these are all worse than sex or violence on television. I have no difficulty at all in recalling what I think was the worst possible interview on the television screen. It took place in the summer of 1969 in Northern Ireland at the height of the trouble in that country. A television interviewer—I forget whether it was B.B.C. or I.T.V.—stood with a microphone and a camera near at hand as children aged 8 to 10 came out of 1he schools, and those children were interviewed. I remember distinctly what was said. The interviewer said to a little boy, aged about 8 or 9, "What do you do when you see Catholic children? Do you throw stones at them? Why do you do that? Do you hate them? Do you not like them?" We then went on to a Catholic school, and the same questions were asked about Protestant children. This was breeding hatred, intolerance and violence in an area where there is already too much. That is worse than any frontal nudity or sex programmes that we have on television.
Then there are interviews with criminals and drug pedlars which make them appear as heroes. I regard this as bad taste. I also regard as bad taste the increase in books about homosexuality. I voted to reform the law on homosexuality. I voted to legalise homosexual
1246
acts in private between adult males, but I want it to remain in private, and it makes me squirm when I see men kissing and embracing on some of the prograrnmes on television in order to get laughs.
Mention has been made to-day about interviewers, particularly in political programmes. When politicians go on television they must, to a certain extent, be able to look after themselves. If I go on television I do not mind what questions are asked of me provided I am given the time and the opportunity to answer them and am not cut off or faded out in the middle. Where I think there is bad taste again is in regard to the interviewing of not well-known people but lesser known and unknown people. It may be that the man or woman who is being interviewed for some reason has never faced a camera or spoken into a microphone before. These very inexperienced people are sometimes made to say things which I am sure they must often regret after the interview is over.
I believe that, on the whole, competition between Independent Television and the B.B.C. has been a good thing, but I entirely agreed with my noble friend Lady Burton when she said that she wished that this competition gave the viewer a choice. She and I must have been thinking on similar lines, because I have written in my notes "'Panorama' and 'World in Action' and old films." It is a fact that there is no choice for the viewer to-day because the programme producers go for the same type of programme at the same time. "Panorama" is at the same time as "World in Action"; "Coronation Street" at the same time as "All Gas and Gaiters". Old films are shown at the same time; hymns on Sunday are at the same time; Sunday discussions are at the same time. I know it is a difficult problem to provide programmes, but this policy is very annoying to the viewer, who wants to have a choice.
Now I come to what I regard as very important at the present time, and that is the future of local radio. My noble friend Lord Shepherd, in opening, said that he would not say much about this to-day because we were awaiting the Government's White Paper. I have a hope—it may be a forlorn hope—that what we say to-clay may still influence

1247
what is in that White Paper. Local radio is comparatively new, and the Labour Government opened several of the 20 stations which have been planned. I know that some of the 20 have been opened since the General Election, but at the present time there is great uncertainty about their future. We are all wondering, and they are wondering, what is going to be in the White Paper. The 1970 Conservative Election Manifesto said:
"We will permit private enterprise radio under the general supervision of an independent broadcasting authority. Local institutions, particularly local newspapers, will have the opportunity of a stake in local radio, which we want to see closely associated with the local community."
What is the present position? The local stations which have been in operation, even though for a very short time, have been tremendously successful—those at Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham in particular. "Participation" is today an "in" word. Local radio is enabling the local community to participate in programmes in a way which is impossible on either a national or a regional basis. Since up to last June I represented Leeds in Parliament, I know a little about the Leeds local radio station. It has a weekly arts programme and a weekly musical programme, run by the arts and musical societies of Leeds. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said to-day that young people were going out of the house, slamming the door and leaving their elders to watch television because the youngsters wanted to participate. In local radio they are participating. There are special programmes for schools with the pupils on the air. In Leeds there was a teenage week, ending with a council elected by the schoolchildren of Leeds holding a meeting in the actual Council Chamber at Leeds. During that week 1,000 teenagers broadcast on Leeds local radio and 20,000 helped behind the scenes. There are special programmes for the blind, for immigrants and for hospitals. There is a Saturday morning children's show, where children walk in and say anything they wish into the microphone. Indeed, the whole aim of Leeds local radio has been to encourage people to walk in and talk, and put their points of view. That is something which is very valuable and ought to be extended to the rest of the country.
1248
At the present time local radio is confined to V.H.F., but it is very popular in those areas where there is a local radio station, and people are coming to think of it as "our station". But what is going to happen? Are we still to have the 20 stations, or are they going to be sold to commercial interests? If they remain in the hands of the B.B.C., what about the other cities and towns? Are they to be allowed to have B.B.C. local radio stations, or are they going to have commercial stations? Commercial local radio is not like commercial television which is on a national and regional basis.
A very interesting booklet on local radio has been published to-day by the 76 Group. All the articles in it are by individuals working in broadcasting. They are not all pro-B.B.C.—indeed, some of the remarks they make will annoy some people in the B.B.C.—but all condemn local commercial radio. A point which is made, and with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that there can be local radio and there can be commercial radio, but there cannot be true local commercial radio. That is for the simple reason that commercial interests will want a market bigger than a single town, and it will be very difficult indeed for any commercial enterprise to run a local radio station in the way the Leeds local radio station is being run to-day.
A true local radio station is not one which operates in a town, playing all "pop" music and occasionally saying, "This is Radio Leeds", or "Radio Sheffield", or "Radio Nottingham". A local radio station must serve the community. There must be participation by the community, not forgetting minority interests, and I have grave doubts whether commercial radio can provide that. A few minutes ago I read an extract from the Manifesto of the Conservative Party, in which it was said that they were going to have commercial radio and give local interests, including local newspapers, an opportunity to buy shares. But we all know that local newspapers to-day have a monopoly in their own local areas and it would be monstrous if, in addition, we allowed them to take over the local radio. This must be watched very carefully.
This is a very useful debate on the use and misuse of the mass media and I

1249
join in the thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for initiating it. I do not want censorship in any way—I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on that—but I believe that this debate will have been useful if it encourages the good and discourages the bad in our mass media of communication.
5.54 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for initiating this debate and for confronting us with what I think I would call the compliment of an impossible challenge. I think all of us who participate, and many of us who do not, have inside us a speech of at least an hour and a half. But we are all exercising a heroic self-restraint which I am sure will result in some suggestions arising from this debate which will be most useful, both to the Government and to the media of information themselves.
Owing to a number of matters arranged a long time ago, one of which was arranged about 60 years ago or more, I shall not be able to stay to the end of this debate and I apologise both to the noble Baroness and to the Minister who will wind up.
I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, on his maiden speech. I do so both for the lucidity and for the courage with which, in talking to us for the first time, he went straight to the point of some problematic and sensitive matters. I also welcome him very warmly, personally, for his close connection with a very distinguished able colleague and a good personal friend. I hope that we shall often hear from him again.
I propose to direct myself mainly to points which concern the media and not very much to items which concern Government. But there were two points made earlier in the debate which concern Government on which I might allow myself a brief remark. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested that it might be expedient if the expense of the B.B.C.'s World Service were to go on a Vote other than that of the Foreign and Commonwealth
1250
Office, because that might emphasise the genuine independence of the B.B.C. service. That is an interesting idea which deserves study. But it occurs to me that if this were made publicly very clear, it might give rise to the feeling that there were two Foreign Offices inside the Government, which might have a slightly equivocal effect.
On the other governmental point, there is the very difficult matter of using taxpayers' money for cultural manifestations which might be felt by a number of people to be objectionable. I assure your Lordships that this is a real question. At the time when I was still in Government there was a proposal to make a special grant to the production by a British company in a foreign city of a play by an author from another foreign country about the wickednesses, generally considered pornographic, of a citizen of a third foreign country. This is a real question over which a Minister must have liberty to have some authority. In case anybody is inquisitive, I may say that in the end the question did not arise because the resulting controversy caused the company to look elsewhere for money. I do not know whether they found it.
If I may now come to the points which I want briefly to discuss, they are in the main, first, the use by the media, or through the media, of information about our external affairs. This is a rather special problem on which a special word may be useful. I should like then to go on to a brief reflection on the matter of bias; and then, finally, to turn myself from a foreign affairs specialist into the ordinary citizen and mention at least two points on which I think there is a relationship between the media and the ordinary citizen which is less good than it ought to be, and which it is in the power of the media to correct.
But first, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, paid her tribute to the standard of our best television programmes, with which I should like to associate myself, I should like to pay my own tribute as a former public relations officer to the great corps of Press and other correspondents. We realise something of their enterprise and we sometimes resent their inquisitiveness, but what we do not always recognise is their extraordinary endurance and the hours and hours of boredom which they

1251
have to endure waiting for a non-story; and the fact that there in that profession is great, quiet heroism, as well as the things we do not like so much. I should also like to say that, during the four years when I was a public relations officer, no member of the Press ever betrayed a confidence which I gave to him or her.
If I may define the basis of external relations, I would say that it is a knowledge of what has happened, an understanding of what is happening and a sound judgment of what may happen. External policy has to be conducted all the time by Ministers and civil servants against a background of an age which is getting very much used to things being instant. There is a demand for instant news, instant action and instant reaction, and then an instant decision on the instant reaction. These two manifestly contradict each other very much. The question is, how to put to the public the essence of the rather slower and more thoughtful process which really is necessary if one is to understand as well as conduct our external affairs.
This situation has a curious effect on one's judgment of the media as they are now, because on the whole it makes radio more relevant than television, and it makes the considered article in the newspaper or the periodical more reliable than the news flash or the television programme. This is because, of course, one is resisting not only the tyranny of the instant but also the tyranny of the visual. The problem is that, as at present understood and practised, television is bound to concentrate on the dramatic and the photogenic, and that is not always the essence of the situation around the world. But the medium is, so to speak, the master of its practitioner in this respect, and I felt very strongly for the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he described his own feelings at the presentation of the crisis in Nigeria at the time when he was a Minister and I was doing my best to assist him.
Like other speakers, I have a wish to avoid quoting favourite or unfavourite programmes, but I am going to make one exception. I should like to award my private Oscar in this respect to the B.B.C. programme, "From our own Correspondent". In that programme an experienced correspondent resident on the spot
1252
—and I include the diplomatic correspondent—is given five minutes in which to develop his thought, his summary of a local situation or a current crisis; in five minutes you really can give people a balanced, a real judgment of what is happening—a judgment in respect of which a person can then go away and say that at least in that small part of our foreign relationship he understands from an expert what is happening, and why. I feel much sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, who objected to this habit of cutting off that kind of thing on television after, say, a couple of minutes of confrontation or interrogation. The kind of programme that I have mentioned is so much superior to that. I think it is going to be the task of those who manage television to see whether they cannot contrive not the same sort of programme as "From our own Correspondent" but something which at least gives people with a respected knowledge of a particular country or of a particular situation a little more time to develop a view before that develops itself into a discussion.
Then, my Lords, that takes one naturally to the great problem of bias. Like other noble Lords, I do not intend to analyse that in great depth, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, said, it is a very subtle and difficult problem. But perhaps it would help if I just quoted an incident on how bias can arise—and it is entirely topical. When the first news came of certain operations which we still do not know about probably in NorthWestern Vietnam and possibly on Laotian territory, the immediate reaction was to call this an invasion of Southern Laos. That territory, which hangs like a sort of Christmas stocking between most of Cambodia and most of South Vietnam, has been under invasion by the North Vietnamese for six years, and the intention of some people with strong views on this subject, of course, would be to conceal those six years within the use of this word in the present context, as though the "invaders" were the people who had been there for two days, if they were there at all, and not the people who had been there for six years. That is a classic analysis of how bias arises; and I am glad to say that, by and large, the media, having begun with the word "invasion", have toned it down to use words like

1253
"offensive" or "operation", or whatever it may be, instead of the word "invasion". I quote that, not as an accusation against anybody but simply as a classic case of a possible bias arising in the whole presentation of a particular incident.
That takes me on to points on which, as an ordinary citizen, I think that the media may do a little more to help us to appreciate them and also to help society. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned, for instance, the common occurrence by which you read a headline and then find the article does not say what the headline says it is going to say. He took, I think, a slightly lighthearted view of this, as indeed one has to, because it happens so often. I have asked editors frequently, "Can you control this? Why does it happen?" It seems to me to be professionally slovenly. I am always told, "No—the headline is put on later by a different person in a hurry, and we cannot help it". I really must insist that if a Government Department were asked that question and came out with an answer of that quality, they would be chased out of their skins in your Lordships' House and in another place, and more especially in the Press. One really must insist that in this day and age there should be a conscious effort to solve this problem which is so widespread in the Press. One knows, of course, that the headline is an eye-catcher; and one knows the difficulties. But standards are standards, and I am sure that something could be done about this if there were real pressure.
The other point is a more serious one, and it refers to the problem of selection, to which many noble Lords have referred this afternoon. I think that many ordinary members of the public get disturbed, if not even further irritated, by what I would call selective indignation. We are all tremendously indignant in the Press, on the radio and on television about snobbery, and I am sure all your Lordships join in this very heartily. There is no harm in this; it is very fashionable: so a great crusade against snobbery goes on all the time. Now this is not a really very serious thing to be indignant about, and I should like to see indignation about some things on which it is not so fashionable to be indignant.
1254
I should like to see a little more indignation about what I would call "thievery", and I would venture to tell your Lordships a little story to explain why. I am not being indignant about this because I happen to have lost by this process a certain number of objects of high sentimental value. I bring it up because I was in a small radio shop about a week ago and a young lady of clearly no particular affluence came in and said: "Do you happen to have a second-hand radio, because our flat was burgled last Friday night?" The man behind the counter said, "Join the club—we were burgled last night". These were two honest people, not privileged at all, and the fact that I happened to hear that conversation must mean that there are thousands of people all round the country who are hearing similar conversations.
This country, my Lords, is getting a really terrible reputation in this respect. This is not Robin Hood stuff: this is skilfully, professionally organised greed, at the expense of people who cannot afford to have greed organised against them. I should like to see a little more indignation about that kind of thing, which perhaps it is not fashionable to be indignant about. I know it is important to try to discover the fundamental causes why diese things happen; but, none the less, they are bad things. So I should like to appeal to the media to make sure that we do not have selective indignation but that an attempt is made to castigate not just some of the things but all of the things which need getting after if society is to improve itself.
That brings me to my last point. Of course the organs of publication, whether they be radio, television or newspapers, are in a state of very considerable competition, and there is therefore no particular inducement for any of them to be modest about its attainments. You cannot expect too much of this, but precisely because these organisations are the only means of publication, naturally if any of them has a weakness there is nobody to announce it or spread it abroad, or even to criticise it, because, clearly each organisation will not criticise itself unduly. I should like to think that, just occasionally, the organs of publicity would feel able not to indulge in the sort of early-Communist-period type of public confession, which is

1255
nauseating, but in a little self-criticism so that the public could feel that that process does, in fact, go on inside them. I have heard that in one famous daily newspaper there is a meeting every morning under the title of "What was 'lousy' about yesterday's edition'?" I hope that this is true; and if so, I think that we should know about it: it would give us a little more feeling that the people who handle these things are human about themselves as well as about us.
My Lords, perhaps I may conclude on this basis. When I was doing a public relations job I used to have a perpetual reminder over my desk in the form of a cartoon which depicted a very fierce senior officer obviously rebuking a very "small-beer" public relations junior officer. Underneath it was written: "There's no reason for it, I tell you. Its just our policy!" That was my warning; and I should like to feel that in these organisations, over the desks of everybody who has any responsibility, there was the Cromwellian saying which we all know well:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, to think it possible that ye may be mistaken."
6.11 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley has given the House the opportunity to debate constructively a matter of vital contemporary importance. It is a subject which is frequently commented upon idealistically, and exaggerated viewpoints are made public particularly with reference to the permissive society. I have a marginal interest to declare in this subject as a director of a very small firm of management consultants specialising in the art of communication with commerce and industry, and also, in another sense, as a trustee of a repertory theatre to which I shall refer in a moment.
The nub of the whole question seems to me to be this. Are the mass communication media responsible for the very small portion of the citizens of this country who indulge in acts of violence, stupidity and crime, or is this due, as I believe it is, to lack of parental and home control? The mass media are blamed for a number of things. We have had examples this afternoon of selective interviewing. I can give one example complementary to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. I was
1256
in Northern Ireland last August and I happened to be in the Falls Road area, with its appalling slums, so often the scene of fighting. What the mass media do not show is the fact that a quarter mile away from the Falls Road some quite considerable housing schemes are being implemented. I concede that these are probably a drop in the ocean in relation to what is needed; but all too often the other side of the coin is only half turned up, if turned up at all. This seems to me to be an example of where the mass media fall down on their job. It was Saint Augustine who said:
"It is better to doubt what we do not know than to insist on facts that are not proven."
There are a number of ways in which the mass media can be the subject of misuse. We have heard of misleading advertising which sometimes leads to what are, technically inaccurate claims; but consumer legislation enacted by both the main political Parties has largely overcome this—and housewives, contrary to what some people think, are not stupid people. As has been pointed out in a number of speeches, one observes the over-publicising of militant students, militant trade unionists and so on; one sees the fighting, the militant and irresponsible side of it; but one sees all too little of the highly-responsible students, the highly-responsible trade unionists, school teachers and others. These are the kind of people who, in any case, would not wish to be highlighted.
Television is to-day the main item of mass media communication and we have had examples of many of the programmes shown: educational programmes, historical programmes, and so on. I would mention also some excellent communication programmes showing how management works, how industry is run, how there are consultative discussions between management and the shop floor. There is one particularly admirable programme on exports—a word of which we hear a great deal. It is shown just after lunch on a Sunday. I refer to the programme "Made in Britain", which shows how a great many firms, in this country, small and large, export their goods. It is shown clinically—shall I say?—and occupies a very brief period of time. That is the kind of programme which the mass media do extremely well.

1257
My Lords, I turn to radio. I am one of those who on many occasions likes to listen to radio; I like to hear the spoken word as well as to look at pictures. I would nominate two broadcasters as outstanding to-day: Alistair Cooke and Andrew Cruickshank, two masters of the Queen's English. I think that the Alistair Cooke broadcasts, in both content and intonation, are an example to all, and certainly a contrast to the rather slovenly speech that one hears too often to-day. Who can fail to be lulled, perhaps into a sense of sublimeness, by the voice of Andrew Cruickshank?—particularly when he is taking part in a religious programme. In these days of progress and technology—to which I subscribe as much as anyone—I believe that there is still time to listen to the quiet, restrained voice of people such as these,
It has been said that the theatre has been overtaken by television as a means of mass media communication. But has it? I believe that a good play can still bring in a large audience; and the repertory theatre at Leatherhead, where I live, is an example. We play to audiences which average a 92 per cent. capacity. And why?—because there is a very wide and discriminating choice of play and a high quality of production. People will leave their television sets to obtain entertainment and instruction from other types of mass media. I do not wish to sound anti-television—far from it. All I wish to stress is that there are other means, and very advantageous means, of mass media, than the television screen. I believe that there is no better means of involvement than the theatre. Take a play like R. C. Sheriff's Journey's End, perhaps one of the finest plays of all dealing with the subject of war. I saw this at the old Leatherhead Theatre and I felt almost personally involved in the play. It was the essence of efficient communication. It will be a sad day if the theatre, and particularly the small repertory theatre, disappears. Not all of us live in London or one of the other big cities and many people go to the small theatres for entertainment and for education.
Finally, my Lords, there is the gramophone, a medium which has not yet been mentioned in this debate. The sale of gramophone records is still on the increase; not only records of popular music,
1258
as it is called, but also of classical music. There are times when we like to shut ourselves off from international affairs, from violence and from all one might call matters of news, and to listen either to a fine speaking voice from the stage, recorded on a gramophone record, or to one of the splendid choral works or a symphony; or, indeed, to what one might call light romantic music. This is still very much in evidence. I hope one thing will emanate from this debate: that while we must progress with technology and the computer age, there will still be time to listen to the great voices of the past, both in music and also in drama.
6.23 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for speaking at a relatively late stage in the debate, and without having attended to hear the earlier speeches, but I was engaged on public duties and had not the opportunity of doing so. In fact, it was not my intention to speak in this debate, except that I received—it was a very courteous gesture—an extract from the speech which the Minister for the Arts proposed to make which made reference to the Arts Council; and this suggested to me that it would be appropriate if I said a few words. I do not intend to make a long speech, and I am sure your Lordships will be heartened to hear that. There are 19 more speakers to come, and I think it will require noble Lords with a very special passion for the subject to assimilate more than 19 speeches on the subject.
Also, if I may say so to the noble Baroness who introduced the debate, and did so most valuably, there is a slight danger in its very wide character as a Motion; because we are likely to receive generalisations, and on a topic such as this there is nothing more dangerous than generalisations. It is the detail that matters, not generalisations, and that is really what I want to talk about.
Perhaps, my Lords, I ought to declare an interest, but if I started to declare all the interests I might have relating to this particular theme, you would indeed be in fear of a speech lasting for some hours. All I will say is that at the moment I speak as Chairman of the Arts Council: I have other incidental interests which would be relevant to this debate. As Chairman of the Arts Council I should

1259
like to touch on one particular theme; but first I would say that I understand there was an objection that an observation made by the noble Viscount, the Minister for the Arts, the Paymaster General, in his speech was in some sense politically inspired. It is not necessary for me to pay tribute to the Minister for the Arts. I, of course, have had a very special, almost a unique, opportunity of observing his activities, and it would be wrong if I did not say this. He has now been controlling our activities for some months, and I have never detected in what he has done anything remotely related to the faintest tincture of political animation. I think it would be absolutely wrong if I did not start by making that observation, as one who is uniquely placed to make it.
The second remark I should like to make is this. We have had certain discussions on a theme which I think legitimately exercises the Minister's mind. It would be wrong to say that we have seen totally eye to eye on this exceptionally difficult matter; but I believe that it would be a very sad day if the Minister for the Arts and the Chairman of the Arts Council saw eye to eye on every particular subject. The point of having a Minister is that he can invest us with a new direction and bring to our notice matters which we may have omitted to notice when we are operating so close to the ground. But there is no doubt that the question of the control, the purported control, of artistic and creative activities is one of such exceptional difficulty that it should be approached with the greatest reserve and caution.
I think it right to see the area in which we are involved because I believe that one may exaggerate the extent of this problem. At the Arts Council I receive, I should think, not more than six letters a year from people complaining that one or other of our activities is, in their view, obscene, or indecent, or pornographic. It is very rarely, I may say, that there is not some basis for what is written in the letter. Nearly always, when I receive a letter, my intention is to write a fighting reply. When I send for the file on the matter almost invariably it becomes extremely difficult to provide a fighting reply. I should like to give one instance which I was proposing to submit to some magazine that has literary competitions
1260
inviting the readers to suggest the sort of reply which might be furnished in the circumstances, because I could not think of one.
This was the case of an extremely progressive and most valuable theatre which had decided to put on, for the attendance of children, a play which hitherto had been presented for adults—a perfectly proper and highly appropriate activity. But for the purpose of the children's production they had decided to salt the play with a number of obscenities that did not appear in the adult version. I should like to invite the readers of the New Statesman, or some other literary magazine, to supply the Chairman of the Arts Council with a defensive reply that he could send in respect of that particular operation.
The other side of that coin is that when I dipped my pen in vitriol in order to write a letter to the organisation concerned—and indeed we wrote a very forthright and fighting letter—the reply came that there had been no complaint from any parent of any child who attended.—This I think is a highly relevant consideration. We have to remember the audiences with which we are dealing and the circumstances in which these productions are presented. We have to remember that, whatever our views may be on this matter (my views are very simple: my favourite author is Jane Austen, and undoubtedly my favourite dramatist is the late William Shakespeare), the fact that we may have rather simple tastes does not mean that they are universally shared.
Invariably, my Lords, when I go to the theatre to-day to what may be called an avant garde play, I observe a very startling phenomenon. I am invariably shocked—my hair stands on end more than it normally does—but I observe that while what is being said is, to me, highly shocking, no such reaction is produced on any other member of the audience. I look to the left and to the right, and I see that they accept with absolute composure what are, to me, highly disagreeable utterances. I was brought up in a household where it was absolutely wrong to use even such a mild word as, "bloody". I never heard that word used within the confines of my home. Yet I find myself sitting through plays in which the most vigorous physiological

1261
obscenities are uttered, minute by minute, by every character, and I find that I am completely attuned to them. They no longer strike me as being in any way startling or unusual, or as having some special feature.
It is clear that, with habit, practices can change. But is it necessarily the case that in more repressive societies one necessarily has the better morality? I have a recollection that in the home town of the Mahdi, the gentleman who got involved with General Gordon, there was the agreeable position that any kind of marital infidelity was punished by death. Yet I do not think that people searching for the most moral community in the world would have chosen that particular one. It has always been presented to the world as an instance of hideous immorality. So it is necessary for us to reflect very carefully before we embark on changes in areas which are extraordinarily delicate and difficult. It would be absolutely wrong, as the Paymaster General said, to use public money for public corruption. As a simple axiom, this cannot be the subject of dispute. But how can one operate this? The circumstances in which one decides that activities are corrupt present problems of great difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, made reference to a situation which apparently in his professional diplomatic life he found difficult. A play was to be presented which might be an affront to some other Power. My feeling about this is that the best way to avoid these difficulties is to disentangle the Government totally from any such activities. The Government should never have to feel that they have a responsibility for a play that is being presented. They should feel that if it does not infringe the law of the land, if it does not come within the Official Secrets Act or the Obscenity Act, its presentation is not a Governmental responsibility.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I think the difficulty was the additional one that, as the play was becoming published, the particular presentation might be considered in the country where it was going to be presented as a specimen representative of British culture, and many people felt that in that respect it would be unfortunate. That was an additional complication.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I would not dispute that there may be exceptional circumstances. Obviously, people should be discouraged from presenting particular plays in particular places. I should not myself regard a presentation of The Merchant of Venice as the wisest play for the National Theatre to take to Tel Aviv. But this is clearly a matter of individual choice. The principle I am trying to establish is that the more remote the Government get from these activities; the more they proclaim their determination not to become involved, the less likely they are to be subject to embarrassment on that score.
It is a problem of great difficulty. I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but this is an important topic which we debate rarely, and there are one or two things that I should like to say. In the Arts Council we set up a working party to investigate the obscenity laws, and I may say that it was a salutary experience to see how it developed. We called together a conference of many people concerned with writing, publishing and literary matters, and I presided. I recommended strongly that the one thing the working party should not do was to recommend the total abolition of the obscenity laws, on the practical ground that nobody was going to abolish them. Nothing could have acted as a greater encouragement to the working party than that admonition, for their report emerged as a forthright recommendation that all the obscenity laws should be abolished. We received a very cogent and splendidly written report, demonstrating that, in the view of the working party which prepared it, the obscenity laws were inappropriate, served no useful purpose and in fact were positively vicious. We read the report and it is fair to say that we did not go all the way with it. Obviously it made a prima facie case, but we felt that this was a matter which needed a good deal more evidence to be adduced.
Much importance was attached to the fact that in Denmark the abolition of the obscenity laws was alleged to coincide with a material decline in convictions for sexual offences. I must confess that I found this a little difficult to credit. It may be the case in Denmark, but I find it difficult to square this with the fact that in many grave cases of sexual

1263
offences in this country part of the evidence adduced is that the man convicted was in possession of a considerable quantity of obscene literature. It is difficult to square that fact with the belief that the abolition of the obscenity laws and more easy provision of obscene literature would produce fewer sexual offences. In any event, my Lords, the report was a serious and mature contribution to the discussion. The Council decided that we would not adopt the report but would send it to the Home Secretary and ask him to have a look at it, to see whether it was appropriate to set up a fuller investigation to take wider evidence on a wider front. Nothing has happened in the matter.
It is my view that the premature abolition of the obscenity laws would cause difficulties not envisaged by the working party. Their thoughts naturally turned to what one might call serious literature. I do not believe that if the obscenity laws were abolished in respect of the publications of serious and responsible publishers, anyone would come to any harm. But what they had forgotten was that there are large areas of potential danger elsewhere—even, for instance, in the newspapers, of which I can speak with a little authority.
My Lords, I do not think that anyone seeing the newspapers of to-day would say that it was wise to abolish the obscenity laws and leave everyone the right to publish what he liked in newspapers which appear on everyone's table without any thought of control or any sort of regulation. Certainly it could not be wise to do it without grave and mature thought, and with rather more deliberate calculation than our Committee had been able to give. I mention this as the sort of difficulty to which this problem gives rise, and I again emphasise the desirability of making sure that the problem is not accentuated by premature action. It is a small problem. The Arts Council subsidises some 70 repertory theatres. The complaints received amount to about six letters a year, and no more. It is evident that the problem is not merely trifling but almost insignificant as a serious aspect of the work we have to do. That is not to say that it ought to be ignored, but it certainly should not be exaggerated.
1264
I should like to say a word on one other topic with which we are enormously concerned in connection with broadcasting in general. There is, I think, a much more important matter to be considered than the question of pornography and obscenity. There is, I believe, a view spreading that programmes should be presented according to the whim and desire of the producer, without any serious or special regard to the truth of the matters that are being presented. These are not being presented to the public as something which is casual or haphazard or accidental. It is a deliberate trend of opinion to-day, quite deliberate and honourable, which says that the presentation of a matter according to the viewpoint of a particular individual is defensible and should be permitted, provided that an opportunity is given for an alternative point of view to be presented at some other time. I regard this as both nonsensical and dangerous. I do not think that we can abrogate truth because later someone may be given an opportunity to nail the lie. As I say, I regard this doctrine as both nonsensical and dangerous; I think it is a preposterous doctrine to enunciate. I have had an opportunity of expressing my views in correspondence on the subject. But it is a fact that this view is widely spread, and it is a growing point of view.
This same view is associated with another point of view which is equally dangerous, and that is a spurious claim for liberty. There is of course a claim for liberty to express a man's view on a particular subject, but that claim becomes something else if it becomes a claim for the liberty to express views presented in whatever form he chooses to present it, so that, however vulgar, however cheap, however gross or however stupid the presentation may be, the author of this presentation argues that it should not be stopped and he should not be controlled because that would be an interference with his personal liberty. My Lords, there is no liberty of any kind to violate the public screen with presentations of a vulgar, gross, coarse, and repulsive character. This is an unknown liberty, and the claim that is now being made for it is an unknown claim that should not be encouraged.
To conclude, I believe that the value of this debate is that the views of wise

1265
and informed people will go out to tell those who are responsible for presenting their productions on these media in what fashion and to what extent we think they should have better programmes and better presentations to conduce to a better world. I believe that if we realise that the effective way of achieving what we want is by persuasion, and not coercion, we shall have achieved something of great value.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, deserves our gratitude for initiating this important debate. First of all, I must declare an interest, in that I am a member of the board of Yorkshire Television. Then I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harvey, on his maiden speech: I hope that we shall hear him often in the future.
This is a vast subject, and despite the admonitions of my noble friend Lord Goodman I am afraid I shall be a little general and not always speak in detail. I will limit myself, however, to challenging some of the myths that the mass media during this technological explosion have incurred or created for themselves, and if I appear didactic or dogmatic it will be in the interests of brevity. I believe that a healthy democracy is insatiable for diverse means of communication, constantly seeking information and enlarging our experience.
It is not surprising that television, the most recent medium, should inspire a certain wonder and reverence in us. The very fact that kings and "pop" stars, Prime Ministers and actors are scrambled together on the screen, really shakes up our social values. I believe that the influence of television has been much exaggerated. This is not to denigrate its power: I do not wish to do that. The most exciting thing about television is that it has made life much more interesting and entertaining, extending our vision in the most marvellous way.
I am concerned here to touch on the presentation of news, where television competes with the Press—that is, television journalism. The television medium deals in crude visual headlines, thriving on action pictures. Ideas and
1266
intellectual arguments are better tackled in newspapers, despite such programmes as "Panorama" and "World in Action", good as they often are. The B.B.C. are expected to be neutral; but to be neutral does not always add up to being objective. Here I should like to quote a sentence or two from the speech of Sir Hugh Greene, when he said:
"In talking about the B.B.C.'s obligation to be impartial I ought to make it clear that we are not impartial about everything. There are, for instance, two very important exceptions. We are not impartial about crime … nor are we impartial about race hatred."
Seeing is believing, my Lords, but seeing is not always understanding. It is not surprising that in South Africa there is no television.
Television has not supplanted books, newspapers, et cetera, but has stimulated a greater interest in all other media, including the theatre, music and the arts generally, particularly in the expansion of new plays by young playwrights, because it costs a great deal of money to put on a play on the stage and it does not cost quite so much to put it on television. Television produces instant feeling and emotion, and, no matter how ephemeral this may be, it demands from those who work in it a great responsibility, integrity and fairness. Personally, I have found a great awareness of this sense of responsibility towards the public among many of those who work in television, and this in spite of some of the abuses in the medium which have already been mentioned, such as the seeking out of violent action and excitement and the exaggeration of it. I feel that television will eventually free itself from the traditions of the less reputable Press reporting. After all, television has not succumbed to the gossip writing of certain newspapers.
I should like to mention two fields in which television has not succeeded in influencing opinions. I am told that there is a great deal of religious broadcasting on television and radio, but it does not seem to have increased church attendance. Both the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority have, to their credit, taken a liberal attitude on race relations and problems connected with this subject. Yet they have not had any great effect on the prejudice which exists in this country or on changing the attitudes of people

1267
to race. Television, for all its power, does not seem capable of doing this. As my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry suggested, there seems to be no reason why in the future this should not be done.
So far the advent of television, though it has injured the circulation of some newspapers, has not been able to do what newspapers do. The fact that the competition of television has made the position of some newspapers extremely bad is due to what is known as the lunatic economics of the Press, with its subservience to advertising and its monopoly structure. We get our newspapers too cheaply in this country, though even a rise in price for some newspapers would not save them. There is much talk these days about the vulnerability of the Guardian and the Daily Mail. I should be extremely sorry to see either of those newspapers go out of circulation.
Ideas for saving the Press have been advanced, including Government action or taxes on advertising. Government action is always interpreted as Government control. I personally do not see that these two are the same thing. Something needs to be done, because a further dose of monopoly in newspapers is not healthy for democracy: and it is not individuals who decide which newspapers shall survive but the big advertisers. We cannot disinfect our mass media and make them bias-free. One of the good developments of reflective journalism is the spread of the investigation in depth into society's problems, started, I believe, by the present Editor of the Sunday Times and now spreading through all the other Sunday and daily papers. This lifts journalism on to a better and more serious plane.
I should now like to say a word or two about the fears on the permissive society that have been quite genuinely expressed. Both the B.B.C. and Independent Television have reasonable and strong codes on violence, sex and morality generally. They are well aware of the objections expressed on the subject, because, after all, the public are their clients, so to speak. They would, however, as I should myself, like some definite proof of the effect of showing these things on television. Scientific proof seems either lacking or disputed. I have heard audiences, when questioned on the evil
1268
effects of scenes with violence, put the effects of violence third place after sex and bad language. I am very much opposed, for several reasons, to the kind of propaganda promoted by Mrs. Whitehouse. She assumes that the public is more vulnerable and can more easily be corrupted by scenes of this kind than she herself is. It is a condescending attitude to morality and shows that she has not caught up with the electronic environment. She claims a consensus for her views which I do not believe exists—though I must say, my Lords, I found distinct echoes of it in the debate to-day from noble Lords on the other side. Goodness knows!, there was enough hypocrisy and corruption in the previous industrial environment. To-day we have much freer speech about morality. Television reflects this freedom. When we examine the social effects of all the uses of literacy, we need to examine our own opinions at the same time.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that I am in favour of more newspapers and more television. May I end also, on a slightly frivolous note. I read in the Advertising Quarterly that the average male can identify a shapely nude in a hundredth of a second, though it may take him one-tenth of a second to recognise his favourite brand of cigarettes. When we speak of democracy, taste and pleasure, we have to take note of that bit of research. Mr. Rupert Murdoch has taken note. I do not read the Sun, but he has put in a blow for democracy, which is not the genteel, cloistered mass of human beings that noble Lords opposite have painted but a much more robust and even dangerous body of people.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her a question? Did I understand her to say that Mrs. Whitehouses's morals have net caught up with the electronic environment? I cannot attach any meaning to that, but perhaps the noble Baroness will say what she means.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Well, my Lords, a lot of us have not really caught up with the facts of electronic environment. Although I do not pretend to understand Marshall McLuhan when he says that the medium is the message, that actual phrase, if one really reflects on

1269
it, is true. It is a different society to-day from what it was 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago. We have much freer speech; we discuss things much more openly. All the things that we discuss happened in the Victorian age, but nobody spoke about them and a lot of people pretended that they did not exist.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I also ask the noble Baroness a question before she sits down? She spoke enthusiastically about the Sunday Times.
LORD SHEPHERD: Order, order!
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Could the noble Baroness explain exactly what she meant?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I think I can explain, but perhaps it would be wiser for me to explain it privately to the noble Earl.
6.56 p.m.
LORD FULTON: My Lords, in rising to speak on what has been described as both an interesting and a vast subject, I should explain that for five years, which ended last September, I was a Governor and, for most of that period, Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. As such, I have been, since joining your Lordships' House, precluded because of the Addison Rules from speaking on debates in this place about the Corporation's affairs. My period of office is so recently over that I think I should best conform to the spirit of the rules by refraining from commenting in detail, even if there was time, on the many points raised in the debate which have touched on the responsibilities of the B.B.C.
There have been a number of criticisms and many words of praise. I feel sure that the Corporation will take due note of the former and will be encouraged by the latter. The B.B.C., under its Charter, has as its object to provide a public service of broadcasting for general reception at home and overseas—I repeat, general reception at home and overseas. A term so wide in its reference as, "a public service of broadcasting" has inevitably been developed and interpreted over the period of nearly 50 years since the B.B.C. received its first Charter. That development has taken place under the
1270
influence of the great figures who have moulded its history. We would wish to mention, in particular, the Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to whom the Corporation and the nation owe a debt which should never be forgotten.
Before and after the arrival of television, the work of the Corporation as a public service has had three chief components: information, education, and entertainment. No doubt the 1970s will have their own debate upon the meaning of "public service broadcasting", but it can be fairly safely predicted that the concept of public service broadcasting will continue to include the vital constituent of independence; and, equally certainly, another essential component, the mix between information, education and entertainment, will be debated again and again in the years ahead.
The fortunes, financial and otherwise, of the Corporation have their ebbs and flows. But in relation to to-day's debate, for which we have to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, on the use and misuse of the mass media, what the Corporation has to show is that, as a result of its work over a period of time, the people of this country—and not only some part or element among them—are better informed, better entertained, and more generally enriched in their individual and social lives than they would otherwise have been. No doubt we all have our favourites and anti-favourites who appear for a season on the air, or on the screens in our homes. But who can doubt that in the lifetime of most present Members of your Lordships' House radio and television have opened up possibilities of new and richer experience which only the visionary of 1927 could have foreseen.
It would be possible no doubt to defend this statement at length, and in doing so to pay tribute to other forces which have been at work in their own provinces. All I will say now is that in the period of my working life among young people there has been a revolutionary change (if I may employ that over-used term) in the spread throughout our society of the appreciation of music. The evidence is there to see in the concert halls of our great cities, and in the widening opportunities, which radio, in particular, has developed, of listening, even in the heart

1271
of the country, to performances by leading world artists of the great works of music.
I would argue, too, that we as a people have opportunities to be vastly better informed to-day about our world and domestic affairs than our predecessors had in their time, and that broadcasting deserves a large share of the credit for that. We buy and read more books, even if they are paper backs, and it would be unfair to deny that the broadcasters have to take a great deal of the credit for that, also. Each mode of broadcasting—educational, entertainment, information—has its own problems of observing the primary rules of such a public enterprise, to keep due balance between the often conflicting claims of its different groups of listeners and viewers, regional against metropolitan; in the Arts, between the old and the new; between the tastes of the more and of the less sophisticated audiences; in public affairs, between the viewpoints of the major Parties; in the treatment of minorities and emerging groups; in the important and very tricky area touched upon so interestingly by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the projections of images or stereotypes. But these fields are not for me to-night.
In some ways—and I think this is the lesson from a great deal that has been said in this debate during this afternoon—entertainment is the area of the greatest difficulty and possible conflict for the broadcasting authorities to come to terms with. There is without doubt a very broad spectrum of tastes to be satisfied and a great complexity of levels on which to operate. If one thinks of opera, ballet, literature, music, the visual arts, the drama, one sees there is a range of material to be offered which is so bound up with the outstanding achievements of the human spirit that there is little risk of trouble—except possibly the financial trouble of the swiftly rising costs of producing the great things. Nor is there objection to catering for plainer and more homely tastes. Good music hall is good entertainment. The difficulties, as I see them, chiefly come about when what is offered in the field of entertainment appears to challenge existing ways of thought, currently accepted norms of behaviour. There is some contemporary drama, for instance, which seems to challenge the viewer to a course of action.
1272
Aida, Hamlet, or Lord Clark on "Civilisation", for all their memorable and delectable qualities, make few of those who have watched them rush out and embark on a controversial crusade. "Cathy Come Home" might do just that.
However that may be, the drama of ideas carrying social or ethical overtones provides most of the criticism that the media encounter. I suspect that Bernard Shaw, Ibsen, and for that matter Aristophanes, would have made a lot of trouble for the B.B.C. if they had been born a good deal later. Granted that there is conflict in this area of broadcasting, granted that people are entitled not to be offended gratuitously or without warning, what measures are taken? There are mainly three safeguards. First, there are clearly distinguishable programmes of contemporary drama each bearing its own hallmark. I do not know of many complaints, indeed if there have been any at all, about "Dr. Finlay's Casebook". The situations, the kind of problems, are well recognised in advance. But the controversial drama programmes of the last few years have been concentrated in "The Play for Today" and its forerunner "The Wednesday Play", and in regard to only a quite small proportion of them. These reflect the work of contemporary playwrights. They have drawn on the talents of writers acknowledged to be among the best of their generation. They have always been placed late in the evening, and their particular concern with contemporary writers and themes has always been made clear in the published programmes. These plays represent some 6 per cent. of television drama, which itself represents 8 per cent. of the total television output.
Beyond these signposts of identification are two main instruments of control which should be mentioned. First, there are for both radio and television specific pointers to action which are not confined to drama alone. Among these are a code on violence, directives on the handling of sexual themes, the use of language on specific subjects, directions about treating the theme of drugs or the degree of violence permissible In children's programmes. I could, of course, elaborate on these and similar measures of control, but I think I have said enough. Second, there is an obligation, understood and accepted

1273
throughout the Corporation, to refer up in cases of doubt, so that either the level at which the decision is taken is appropriate to the seriousness of the issue involved, or, if that turns out to be not the case, the question becomes: Why did the proper reference up not in fact take place?
I do not believe that it ought to be claimed—and I am sure the Corporation would not claim—that this is a Copper-bottomed guarantee that something will not go wrong or that it will always go right. But it is a sensible way of going about things in a situation which depends upon drawing from creative people who are the authors of what reaches us in our homes a high and improving standard of achievement. Broadcasting is a highly professional job. It must be done, if it is to be done well, by gifted, creative people; and one cannot put such people into straitjackets. That would lead only to a collapse of standards and a flood of mediocrity and triviality. That is why the two devices for control, as I have said, are the well understood and widely accepted principles to be applied in the areas of sensitivity and the obligation to refer upwards in case of doubt.
I hope I may be allowed to offer, very briefly, one or two further observations. I need hardly remind this House that this country since the war has been of immense interest to the rest of the world. We have, rather as the United States did in the past when it was the melting pot, thrown up, with a kind of volcanic energy, new social forces, new expressions of our human resources. It would be vastly surprising if the resulting rich diversification of our national life had not thrown up conflicts of taste, of mores, of standards, and even of values. Many of these are reflected, inevitably, in the output of the broadcasters. Your Lordships have shown yourselves well aware of these upheavals by the time you have given in recent years to the problems of the young. There is no doubt that there is estrangement, beyond the usual divergencies which occur between generations, between the young and their elders, and a dangerous loss of the power to communicate between them. This is, of course, a world problem. Perhaps it is not overdrawing the seriousness of it to remind ourselves that it was one of the symptoms of collapse in Weimar in the 1930s that
1274
young and old could no longer have a community of discussion. The tragic sequel was recourse to dreadful, hysterical, nationalistic emotions.
I have no doubt that we shall find our way ahead without such consequences, but it will not be done by excluding from the television screen, the radio or elsewhere items which offer the possibilities of renewed dialogue between the generations, even if hackles should rise in the course of it. If modern plays help to keep communications open between the generations, they are just as important, though for different reasons, as the revivals of great classics whose subject matter no longer, as it once did, kindles the flame of controversy. I have made a plea for reliance on the responsibility of the professional men and women who are the irreplaceable elements in the overall scheme of broadcasting if we are to keep, and even to improve on the tremendous national achievements of the past fifty years.
I should like to add, as I conclude, that what seems to me an essential condition of health is that the Corporation and its professional members should keep themselves informed about what is happening in society at large; what effects on different elements among us (for example, the very young) their programmes are having, and to feed that knowledge back throughout the Corporation. If the medium is to have as big a part in shaping the future as the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, believes, and as I believe it has had over the past fifty years, it must be not only responsible but as well informed as it can be. Its great machinery of consultation is a healthy indication that it realises this, but there are still areas of ignorance which have to be wrestled with.
It is sometimes said that television has too much power in modern democratic States. What sort of power has it? The only study I know is of the effect of television on the 1954 and 1964 elections, carried out by the University of Leeds. These showed, perhaps surprisingly, that it did not swing opinion from one side to the other but rather that people knew better at the end of the campaign, from the part played in it by television, why they stood where they did than they had known before.

1275
I know of one piece of work done on the vexed question of whether the television camera creates violence or merely reflects it. This problem needs a great deal more study, and much more study has to be carried out on many fronts. What is violence?—the Kent shootings in America or the bloodless shooting on the Western? What do these programmes do to the young at different stages of their development? And, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has just explained, what has the religious programme on television done for the work and aims of organised religion? What has the B.B.C.'s positive policy on racialism done to the viewers' tolerance or intolerance? These and many other questions need to be pursued if the responsibility of the professional is to be kept informed, as it needs to be, in the environment of growing complexity in which it has to operate.
7.14 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, after listening in particular to the concluding passages of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, to the extremely tactful and sensitive contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to other speakers in this debate, I feel less alarmed than I confess I was when the Paymaster General, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, finished his contribution.
I had to take notice of the fact that when the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, opened this debate—and we are all in her debt—it was very wideranging: we were dealing with radio, with television, with newspapers and the rest. But the Minister speaking from the Front Bench was the Minister with special responsibility for the Arts, and I think that when we read in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow what he said to us this afternoon it will be seen that obviously he was greatly preoccupied with a small part of the territory for which he is responsible; that is to say, plays, in particular, which projected ideas and scenes that he found deeply distasteful. Of course we should all like to remake the world in our own image, and we all have our likes and our dislikes. But I hope that the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman (whose responsible and generous leadership as Chairman of the Arts Council we all recognise), that this field which has been a particular concern
1276
this afternoon of the Paymaster General is trivial indeed, and is insignificant as part of the whole, will be accepted by all of us.
There was one thing I missed in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He is invariably courteous and generous, but I wish that in talking about the theatre he had said a little more in thanks for the wonderful work that is being done by our playwrights, by our managers, by our actors, great and small. I do not know any field of activity which is adding more to the lustre of this country than the work that is being done by our playwrights and by our gifted actors. Therefore I hope we shall not have a mild "smear" campaign over the type of plays that have been graced by Sir Laurence Olivier, Sir John Gielgud, by Sir Ralph Richardson or younger artistes, and that we are not going to set up as superior judges of what is to be shown in our subsidised theatres and then of the terrific ability of the Peter Halls, the John Nevills, the Lindsay Andersons and others. One field we have not talked about much is the cinema, and that comes in directly with the theatre. That, too, is one of the mass media and appeals very much to the young. But the cinema, like radio and television, is one remove.
From this debate it has been apparent that there is an overriding concern with the quality of life in our country. We all feel that we want this country to be proud and great; we want it to be a pace setter, in matters of quality and matters of taste, to the entire world; and if we are to do that then of course the basis of the whole thing is education. At one point I was in total accord with the Paymaster General, and I very much appreciated his enthusiasm when, for a short time, he started talking about what was happening in some of our schools.
My Lords, have we not been rather too negative in this debate? Instead of talking about the little things that are wrong, we should pay more attention to what is right; and we should realise that a revolution is taking place in the field of the arts in our schools. I know the Paymaster General will now know the limited studies in the Arts, the drama, music and art that have been carried out. But we should recognise, when we are talking about what is and what is not

1277
permitted, that this is a different generation. I happen to believe that the younger generation is a puritan generation. I say that quite seriously. They want to bring everything to the surface and examine it. They want to bring all the dirt from under the carpet. Most of the really sophisticated people who have seen the really dirty shows in all the capitals and the seaports of the world w ill call them spoilsports.
This younger generation is above all a questioning generation. This younger generation is not concerned solely with the problems of one country or of one class. The effect of mass communication, of transport, of radio, television and the rest, is that the intelligent, sensitive youngster knows about the two-thirds of the world—more than half the world—that is starving; and many of them are concerned. They know that there is not much more sign of wisdom in those who are ruling the world to-day than there was in the days which preceded the first and second wars.
They have an enormous burden on their minds, and imagination and nerves; they see magic in the world, but they see also a great deal of menace. They want to know what is the meaning of cruelty, and therefore it would be a miracle if in our theatre we were still entirely in the age of Glamorous Night and Cavalcade. Indeed, we are still in that age. The commercial West End theatre is doing very well indeed. There is a time for everything. There is a time for spit and sawdust—,a time for other things. But the commercial theatre in the West End, with all its revivals of Noel Coward and the rest, is playing to packed houses. The commercial theatre has all kinds of opportunities, and I hope that nothing that has been said by the Paymaster General would for one moment suggest one standard of censorship for the subsidised theatre and another for the commercial theatre or commercial films or newspapers and magazines.
If you want dirty shows, you do not go to a repertory theatre but to Soho or Leicester Square, or a few other places. So far as I can gather, nothing has been said this afternoon that would in any way inhibit that under-the-counter type of activity. But there is only one way of dealing with it, and that is by a rising standard of education and opportunity.
1278
When you go into a classroom now, in the best schools the children are no longer sitting behind desks in rows; there is free movement, and a sense of colour and design; in their ideas, in their conversation, they are equally uninhibited.
As to radio and television, I am not entitled to talk as an expert. I have probably seen and heard less television and radio in the last six or seven years than almost anyone in your Lordships' House. Therefore I shall not presume to talk too much about what I do not know a great deal about. But surely the possibilities of radio and television are infinite. We are only on the verge of knowing what they can do, not only in themselves but in stimulating all kinds of activities in our art world, among poets, painters, musicians, theatre and the rest. In particular, I have a debt of gratitude towards Sir Hugh Greene, Mr. Huw Wheldon and others who, at the time when the Open University was being contemplated, gave most wonderful co-operation. They need not have done that. It was not the sort of thing they got praise for, or the sort of thing that brought money to them. If you really want to embarrass radio or television you have to ask them to give a greater amount of time and space to the type of programmes we have been talking about this afternoon. But I hope we are going to embarrass them in the right way and see that they get the necessary money so that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, suggested, if there is a great play, a great opera or a ballet in Covent Garden, it will be possible for people even in the remotest parts of the country to share in those great productions.
I hope, above all, that we shall get positive participation. If we are concerned about the quality of life we do not want to have all the people sitting in their separate little boxes, fixated on the radio or television. That may appeal to the old; that may appeal to people who for various family reasons are not mobile. But certainly more and more the young, stimulated by radio and television, want to get out and do things, as was said in a speech from the opposite side. The young ones want the small cinema, the small theatre, to be involved, and to do things on their own, not to be passively

1279
sitting and listening. Therefore I hope that in considering what is good and bad in the mass media we remember not only the passive media, where we sit and look or listen, but also the active media. If we want our younger generation to fulfil their highest potential they must become involved. They must do things, they must experiment. Above all, just because there is a bit of roughage in the rich diet our artists have given us in recent years, do not let us meanly cavil.
7.25 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, as the last speaker before "half-time", I too would join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley for initiating this debate. I feel it is a subject which obviously will attract the interest of all the media, and I think they will welcome the airing of the views they will hear, as will their critics and promoters. But before giving my own view, I feel I should declare an interest, since the organisation with which I work is closely connected with the media industry and derives a large part of its revenue from media owners, and it is also located in Soho. It is, I believe, extraordinarily difficult to assess, even in general terms, the overall contribution which the mass media make to the quality of our life. That they have made a very substantial contribution, there can be no doubt. Our main concern must surely be to make certain that this contribution becomes more and more and not less and less beneficial.
If one uses purely personal judgment, it is extremely easy to criticise or praise any section of the media, but it is extremely difficult to determine, as the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, said, the good or harm which may result from a particular editorial or programme or advertising policy. It is almost impossible to determine the effect of the different pressures of the media upon the individual. In considering these pressures I should like, very briefly, to look at the vast areas concerned—in Press, television, radio and cinema. In the Press field, we are talking of something like 4,500 different publications each year. In television, apart from some 6,700 hours a year from the two B.B.C. channels, the independent companies have up to ten hours a day. In radio we have up to 23,000 hours a year, plus the local radio stations. In the cinema we have some
1280
1,500-odd cinemas, showing 450 new feature films a year. If we add to that the advertising, with over 8,000-odd new television commercials a year, of up to six minutes in every hour of television time, 225,000 poster sites, and the numerous tens of thousands of display and classified advertisements, the word "mass" becomes particularly appropriate and also somewhat horrifying. What we hope is that the individual sectors of the media, and the users of them, are behaving and will continue to behave in a responsible manner. It is very difficult to draw conclusions based on anything other than personal judgment. I should like to look briefly at some of the areas and make a few points.
Starting with the cinema, the film industry, as we know, is having a very rough ride, and if the rate of decline continues I think it may well lose the right to be classified as one of the mass media. It has suffered from rising costs and increased competition, particularly from television, and falling profits. I cannot help feeling that it may have been this plight, this squeeze, which set the industry on the course of greater permissiveness and the nudity explosion. All this, my Lords, in order to try to recapture a declining audience! I have no wish to criticise this valuable industry, but I cannot help feeling that it may have come very near to cutting its own throat. It certainly has the talent and the ability, and one hopes that it will be able to employ its resources better in the future. In particular I am thinking of developments in the videotape field. Proper use of videotape can drastically cut costs and increase output. But problems in the industrial relations field have prevented optimum use being made of videotape for feature and documentary films and television commercials.
We have great artistic and creative talent in this country, and we are good film-makers, whose films are widely respected around the world. But our industry needs to cut its costs and improve its industrial relations, and to make better use of the opportunities for production of low-budget films. I hope, too, that it will not be long before we see a swing away from permissive attitudes and nudity and violence. It is somewhat disturbing that, of the 450 new feature films every year, there is a continual rise in the number of "X" films; in the last year

1281
I think there were 212 "X" films out of a total of 289 "AA" or "X", and only 140 "U" films. This makes it very difficult for families with children.
I move to the Press. They, as we know, are having a very hard time. Readership of many newspapers has fallen quite dramatically. Costs are going up, and again industrial relations may hinder production and output. They face increased competition, in particular the growth of news and current affairs programmes on television; and the squeeze here may well have encouraged the change of attitude on the part of the media owners. I had always believed that newspapers and magazine proprietors and their editors held strongly that their first responsibility was to their readers. I believe, too, that they were often prepared to sacrifice the extra financial gain in order to produce publications of a high standard of which they and their readers could be proud. I believe that they had great loyalty of readers. Unfortunately, I think that the squeeze on them has meant that their attitude may in some cases have changed, and financial situations have understandably tended to encourage some companies to place their shareholders perhaps a little more in advance of their readers than they did before.
I do not suggest that that is wrong, for every proprietor and editor must naturally seek to boost circulation and increase advertising revenue. What I would hope, however, is that in attempting to do this the newspaper proprietor would not be encouraged to lower standards in any respect. Perhaps the disease (if I may call it that) of Wardour Street is spreading to Fleet Street, which a few years ago was certainly following the trend of universal education and raising the standard of the printed word. "Grub Street", as I believe it was called, was rapidly disappearing, but lately one wonders—and I have no reason to doubt this—whether the trend has not been slightly in reverse and one only hopes that Gresham's Law will not prevail and that standards will not be depressed still further.
I think that the Press in this country have always shown very great responsibility indeed—much higher than the Press in, I would say, any other country in the world. I hope that they will be allowed to operate with the freedom
1282
which they have had in the past. The current financial climate certainly makes it difficult for them to maintain the high standards which they had before, but I hope they will continue to have accuracy and honesty of reporting. Certainly at one end of the scale, if one looks at the international basis, The Times, the Financial Times and the Economist, are extremely well thought of abroad as highly responsible, informed and authoritative publications. In particular, I understand that the Financial Times now holds pride of place among businessmen and opinion leaders throughout Europe. This is just not as a British national newspaper, but rather as Europe's leading business journal.
I think there is no reason to assume that large circulation figures will necessarily be the thing of the future. I think we shall see a swing towards more specialised journals catering for individual tastes, such as the theatre and the cinema. I hope that this trend will continue. I think that possibly the Press will suffer from competition with television as a news journal, and there will always be the national newspapers who may wish to cash in on a particular mood which will lift their national circulation, perhaps even dramatically. But I think, even then, it will settle down to a decline.
From a production point of view, I understand that because of such problems as redundancy the Press proprietors are often unable to make full use of technological developments in the electronic area, such as computerised setting and additionalising. Better use of these developments would certainly cut costs, save money and time, and would increase output. I hope that in this area we shall see some improved industrial relations.
From the television point of view, I do not think they are having quite such a rough time. I have a high regard for almost all the television programmes put out in this country. I think they are absolutely excellent. I have been a regular television viewer in some 10 or 15 countries throughout the world during the past four years and our standards are remarkably high. My colleagues and friends who have come from abroad to this country and have spent time over here have also been impressed. There is a small point I would make. I should like to see more of our London hotels

1283
with television in their rooms so that when businessmen are over here and have no one to entertain them in the evening they can go into their room to watch television. There is nothing nicer.
In particular, I should like to praise the current affairs and news in depth programmes put out by both the B.B.C. and the Independent networks. These are excellent. Naturally, they tend to concentrate on the more exciting news and events, and those which tend to be associated with war, riot, violence and unrest in other parts of the world. If these are brought very close to home and added to our own problems and pressures, it tends to make our world seem a much more insecure place than it actually is. I have always welcomed these international programmes, but I would prefer to see a little more attention given to success and solution in other countries rather than problems and disasters. I think it was Milton who said:
"Good the more communicated the more abundant grows."
There is one further point connected with the use of television. Although I feel that television interviewers behave in a very responsible manner, there is one point which raises a difficulty. In the Press you can always read what is being said, but if an individual or an organisation is criticised on television and they do not see the programme but wish to see it later, it is extremely difficult to get a re-showing of the programme privately. This makes it very difficult for anyone to assess whether they have been unfairly or fairly treated before considering whether to go to law.
Turning to another point, I support my noble friend Lady Elliot in regard to advertising. I do not think the industry has been particularly responsible for what has happened; it tends to follow consumers' behaviour and moods rather than to lead them. So far as the Trade Descriptions Act is concerned, there have been few prosecutions for display advertising. I believe that the industry, in a free and voluntary manner, has tried to raise its standards all the time. Obviously it cannot do it in every area. In connection with Press advertising, I should mention the work of the Advertising Standards authority supported by the British Code of Advertising
1284
Practice. This is a voluntary body which has been very successful in maintaining fairly high standards. Certainly there are occasionally advertisements which may cause offence, but these are few and far between; and our standards in this country are much higher than those in other countries. It is interesting to hear that a delegation from the United States industry will be here shortly to look into the free way in which we control things here with a view to adopting our system in the United States.
As to television advertising, I disagree with my noble friend, Lady Burton, in that the controls at the moment with the I.T.C.A. and the industry's voluntary body working closely together are very good. Of the 25,000 commercials in the period of a year, about 8,000 of which are long ones, only 15 per cent. ever need any alteration or adjustment at an early stage; and there are few complaints. I had a word with them the other day and they pointed out that they get only about 50 or 60 letters a year, which are mainly concerned with the medical area. I do not think that the advertising industry can be accused of lowering the standards of morality or taste, and I hope it will continue to weed out all the advertisements or advertising practices which cause offence.
Finally, I should like to touch on future developments in the media field. These are likely to change so dramatically over the next twenty years or so that the structure of mass media in this country will change with them. The main development area will certainly be in the technological field, with increased speed of communication and miniaturisation, greater efficiency in production, a greater use of all the audio-visual techniques that are coming up, and in particular video tapes, and video-tape cassettes which shortly may be available in the High Street, like any record, or newspaper delivered through the letter box.
I think that instead of the four or five separate mass media areas we shall tend to see a growth in overlapping interests, with more media owners entering into their competitors' field. Sometimes they cannot compete, in which event I suggest they should join each other. I do not think this will cause any undue unrest in the country or that people will be any more irresponsible than they have been

1285
in the past. Already Wardour Street and Fleet Street are getting closer together, and television is joining in with them. The groups of media owners will probably in due course cover all the audiovisual fields. The function of newspapers will change and the media owners will recognise that the most cost-effective method of passing news information and opinion to the public is the best medium. I hope, in particular, that the media industry in this country will solve its industrial relations problems and will put its vast know-how, experience and resources to optimum use. I hope too that it will not ignore the great international opportunities which are likely to arise in the coming years.
7.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, we should all be grateful for the remarkable opportunities afforded through mass media, even though we may sometimes he critical of them, and those opportunities are open to us in this debate upon its use and misuse. The many words of wisdom being uttered here will be duly recorded, and some of them reported through the mass media of Press and radio. I personally, with many of your Lordships, have a great admiration for our friends in the Press Gallery for their ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in speeches that are made, and to present what is usually a fair résumé of noteworthy speeches made in your Lordships' House. They are highly trained—and I hope well paid—and I am immensely impressed by the code of professional conduct of the National Union of Journalists, which is accepted and normally practised by them.
Recently I came across a delightful jingle, the authorship of which I do not know. It runs thus:
"One cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do,
Unbribed, there's no occasion to."
The second part of that jingle is no doubt unfair to the majority of journalists, but there are occasions when one is bound to deplore the brash publicity that is given in some sections of the Press to what can only be described as salacious news. This adds fuel to the fire of moral permissiveness which is sweeping through the country and which needs to be damped down. We have
1286
entered upon an age when, by and large, any form of censorship is being frowned upon, and for the most part rightly so. But there is another side to this coin, in that some of those who are loudest in their demands for the lifting of censorship in moral issues are those who are imposing a censorship on good news, as opposed to what can only be described as bad news—which ironically, of course, is good news to them.
We are all aware of the situation of the varying ways in which news is presentecl in different papers—banner headlines, the pictures, the captions and sub-headings. I had intended to spare your Lordships any quotations, but I was very disturbed by what was shown to me to-day, and that was a four full-page advertisement by the Health Education Council in the Daily Mirror on December 29 advocating nine methods of birth control. I am not for a moment opposed to family planning. I believe it is wise, and I believe it is necessary. But to put an advertisement of this kind in the Daily Mirror, with its enormous circulation, to be read by children and young people, is, I believe, irresponsible in promotion of birth control outside marriage. I should like to know whether this advertisement was placed through funds specially raised for the purpose, or through the grants that are made through the taxpayers and ratepayers; because I, for one, would not wish the money to be spent in this way.
To return to this subject in general, we are told again and again that, "This is what the readers want." In a fiercely competitive situation, I can understand the point of view of the papers that they have to make their way, and that they have, with the competition of others, to be able to pay their way. In effect then—and let us carry this a little further to its logical conclusion—the populace is largely to blame, in that there are too many who take so great a delight in what is sexy, disreputable, and sometimes sordid. It is not for us only to condemn—I am very much against people who go about condemning and protesting the whole time. It is our place to promote, and I want to ask: are we paying enough attention to the development of what is good, honest, beautiful, and of real worth—the things of which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was talking: the moral consensus? There are some papers, such

1287
as The Times, the Telegraph, and the Guardian, which devote space for this purpose. Could not every paper give at least one column to present regularly some positive and worthwhile article or report? People say, "moral uplift". Yes; and why not?
What additional financial assistance can be given to the Arts Council, and to the many agencies that exist for the improvement of society? Are the Churches—and I deliberately ask this question—doing all they can not merely to promote themselves (we are not concerned really with promoting ourselves, or in condemnation of others) but to use their resources in building a healthier order of society? It is my belief that there are many who are disillusioned by the present state of affairs, and who are looking and waiting for the right kind of moral leadership before we are forced into some kind of dictatorship. It is here that the mass media can help. There is news value in the great stories to be found in such agencies as the Samaritans, Community Service Volunteers, Outward Bound, Shelter. They are stories that are but rarely heard, but they could, and would, inspire others to come forward to give of their time, effort, and money. The Press and the radio should be as concerned to educate public opinion as to satisfy the whims of the populace. It may profess to be neutral but in point of fact there is no such position, and I quote the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said:
"He that is not for me is against me."
He that is not against us is for us: there is no neutral position.
Much has already been said about the influence of the radio and television—and here, compared with what your Lordships and I myself have heard and seen in other countries—is something for which we should be very grateful—and not least the Churches, for the generous amount of time which is given, day by day, to religious broadcasting. Your Lordships may like to know that the Church of England has just set up a Commission on Broadcasting to consider its structure, acceptable programme standards, religious broadcasting, religious advisory systems, and training for religious programmes, and we await with
1288
hope and interest this report that the Commission will make to our General Synod.
Personally, I find sound radio of a higher quality than television, which is obviously more limited. Reference has already been made to the developments in local radio stations, and I wish we had had a fuller emphasis on this, for they can exercise a very great influence on the life of the community which they serve, and can benefit by having the advice of the community given to them. The various advisory committees in each region can provide additional safeguards and guidelines, and I would lend my support to the proposal for the setting up of a Council in the field of broadcasting similar to the Press Council. There is no doubt that the impact and influence of television is very far-reaching, and a heavy responsibility rests upon those who produce and control its programmes.
Television is a miracle of this modern age. We hope that at about this time tomorrow we shall be viewing the landing on the moon, which will have world coverage on radio and in the Press. The world will marvel at the heroism and at the groping steps of two men on barren territory. But shall we go on to reflect that there are more important issues in man's life than that, and that the incredible technical skill, the fabulous sums of money and the utter devotion of dedicated men might better be devoted to the solution of the problems of world hunger, poverty, sickness and distress? It is the mass media which can help us all to realise this on a world scale, which might mean that something will be achieved. We all hope that this interesting debate will produce positive and constructive ideas, ideas that will make a real contribution to the better use of our mass media. Let the voice of this House and the voice of men of good will be heard; but for that to be done depends upon the Press and the radio.
7.52 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for initiating this debate? May I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, who made such a very able maiden speech? I must confess that I came here as a journalist, ready, like Joan of Arc, to defend the Press,

1289
the freedom of the Press, and to reply to criticisms of the Press. But your Lordships have been so very much more tolerant than many people outside that until the last speaker, the right reverend Prelate, rose I had very little to put my teeth into and would myself have had to make criticisms and then answer them. An interesting point which has come out of the debate so far is the agreement between my noble friend Lady Bacon and the Paymaster General, on the question of full frontal exposure. They may be odd bedfellows, but I am delighted that they agree with me that it will not really lead to serious moral decline.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the Health Education Council's advertisement in the Daily Mirror. Here I am afraid that I have to change hats again, as I am also Chairman of that Council. The right reverend Prelate referred to that advertisement as irresponsible, but I would ask him as a man of the Church: does he not think it far more irresponsible for young people, both married and single, to have unwanted children and for abortions to be necessary? If the right reverend Prelate will look at the Report for last year by the Chief Medical Officer he will see that a great many abortions had to be done on girls of under 16. What we were doing was to give information.
The right reverend Prelate may not have liked the package in which it was wrapped—the Casanova motif—and many other people did not. But that was tried out on people of a young age group, both married and unmarried, and it was found that it was something to which they responded. In fact, it encouraged them to read the middle spread, which was the information on contraception that we felt—and I still feel this—was absolutely essential, if we were to prevent far greater tragedies in this country of unwanted children and abortions on young girls. If the right reverend Prelate had had the opportunity, which I have had in the last few days, of reading a great many letters sent to one of the magazines for young people, he would realise—and perhaps begin to change his view—that the amount of ignorance and anxiety is still very great. I am grateful that the Mirror took the advertisement, which it did after considerable thought and after deciding that it was right socially. It was paid for by Government
1290
sponsored funds, but it was inserted not by the Minister but by the Council of which I am Chairman.
A great many of the criticisms of the mass media—and this covers films, television, newspapers, magazines and theatre (which I should not have called quite as "mass" as the others, but it has been brought into the debate)—relate more to taste than to objective judgment. There is also the matter of age. The difference of view between the age groups is tremendously wide; in fact, it is wider to-day than it has ever been. I feel that if, under the Constitution of this House, there were any teenage Peers here they would make a useful contribution. Some of it would be puritanical, in the words of my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge, and they would be rather surprised about everybody else's excitement.
My noble friend Lady Gaitskell asked whether there had been any scientific evidence on the effect of the mass media. There has been a great deal of research, and some examples are the work of Halloran, head of the Communications Research Centre at Leicester, Joseph Klapper—who has done a long study of mass media in America—and also work done here by Hilda Himmelweit on the effect of television on children. The sum total of this work is that there is very little effect at all. In other words, when we are blaming the mass media we are often looking at the wrong ingredients in our society. I understand that the maximum deleterious effect of television is between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent., and that is on people who need medical treatment, anyhow. It is true (and I think that the Paymaster General also made this point) that the mass media do not create contemporary morality or moral problems. They very often get the blame for it, but they are in fact only reflecting what is going on in society. People read, see and hear what fits into the totality of their own lives.
I do not think this means—and I am now speaking as a journalist—that one is completely passive, certainly so far as the Press is concerned. Television has much more stringent controls on the expression of strong editorial views, but many of us who write—and certainly many editors—have strong views which are reflected in

1291
our newspapers and, to a lesser extent, in some magazines. There are to-day a great many problems for the Press and, without going into financial and economic details, one can say that one has to find a very delicate balance between laying down standards which one thinks are right, and selling the product. It is no good being left with the product on your hands, when all the words of wisdom which you feel should be conveyed to your readers just never reach them because they do not buy the paper or the magazine. This is bad social as well as bad financial accounting.
Neither can you improve standards at the expense of communication—and this I learnt very early on as a journalist. It is a great regret to me that Lord Francis-Williams (who died some months ago) is not with us to-night, because he taught me first as a journalist and I had my first job with him. I wrote a column called, "Here's Alma". It has been shown that some popular papers can improve standards, and the Daily Mirror (I hope the right reverend Prelate will forgive me if I refer to the paper he has just criticised) has been very successful at getting close to people and in establishing a communication link by speaking in a language that is understood and, in fact, raising the sights of its readers and educating them without being patronising or too obvious about it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I should like to point out that I was not criticising the Daily Mirror. I merely stated that it produced this advertisement.
BARONESS BIRK: I thank the right reverend Prelate. Anyhow, this is one of the things which the Daily Mirror has done, and this cannot be done in a patronising manner. It needs great skill; and I think this was expressed by some of the evidence given by Granada Television to the Pilkington Committee when they said:
"Never underestimate the public's intelligence, but always underestimate their knowledge."
It is the giving of information with which I think the mass media, certainly the Press, are concerned, and, I feel, the opening up of vistas for people. The way I see a great deal of television, the more positive side of it, is that it encourages people to read further. People who
1292
have enjoyed the various series that have been mentioned many times this afternoon and this evening will very likely go to their libraries or buy the books, and then get down to reading the original version.
I think it also only fair to point out some of the positive things that newspapers have done and are doing. One of the most important things is the pointing out of injustices, and pursuing them until something is done about them. Here, the newspapers' freedom from Government control, or from any sort of control, is absolutely essential. Many instances have been given to-day, but a very recent one is the case that is being heard at the moment concerning the policeman, where it was through a reporter on The Times that the investigation began. In the Official Secrets case, which ended to-day with all the defendants freed with full costs against the State, the judge, Mr. Justice Caulfield, said yesterday:
"If the press is the watchdog of freedom, and if the fangs of the watchdog are drawn, all that will ensue is a whimpering, possibly a whine, but no bite".
My Lords, it is very important to remember this side when people are getting rather excited because they feel that what is called the "permissive society" has gone too far. I think we ought also to be very careful when we talk about permissiveness, for what we may mean is simply a more liberal attitude. The noble Viscount the Paymaster General said that we cannot say we cannot recognise pornography when we see it. I must say that, as I see it, it is partly a subject-tive matter, and it also varies tremendously, as I am sure he would agree, with the particular time. Some years ago, Mrs. Warren's Profession was considered very highly pornographic: to-day it is not. Indeed, I would say that even to-day one man's literary eroticism is another man's pornographic poison. Therefore, I think we have to beware of confusing matters of taste and personal feelings, also combined with a particular age group, when making decisions that affect a great number of other people.
One part of the media which has not been mentioned to-day is that of consumer magazines. I think they play a very important part, because the four main weekly women's magazines have a combined circulation of 6½ million. My Lords,

1293
90 per cent. of women read one magazine a week, and 95 per cent. of young women—that is, women between 16 and 24—see or read, on average, three magazines a week. It is also becoming more and more common for men to have a peep at them, although they will not always admit to it. What is very interesting and important in the context of what has been said on the social, moral or ethical sides to-day is the number of letters received by these magazines. The four leading women's weekly magazines receive an average of 3 million letters a year. A great many of those seek practical advice, but a great many concern personal problems. I have read a great many of these letters, and the anguish, the lack of knowledge, the ignorance and the confusion of people which they disclose make it quite clear—and I hope the right reverend Prelate will take note of this—that there is a great deal wrong with parts of our society which the mass media, the Press, is doing what it can to remedy.
I feel that one of the reasons why some people get hot under the collar about some of the subjects dealt with in the magazines, particularly some of the magazines aimed at young people, is that until fairly recently magazines were several years behind their readers' interests; they were all slightly dated. Now we have the situation where there are a number of young magazines with titles such as Fabulous, Rave and Loving. They are not the most graceful or felicitous titles, perhaps, of which noble Lords would approve, but 1·6 million young people read these nine leading magazines. Here again, the question column (and I think this is the sort of thing which should be of great interest to the Church, among other institutions) shows the confusion, the lack of knowledge, the ignorance of many of these youngsters—and many of the letters are written in an extremely intelligent, articulate way. They are asking for advice. They are not all showing promiscuity; they want to do the right thing. They do not know how to deal with the choices before them as young adults, or even, some of them, as schoolchildren. They do not discuss these questions with their parents; they do not discuss them with the Church; they do not get the kind of sex education they should be having in the schools; and, therefore, the mass media, in this case the magazines and the newspapers, have
1294
to take over, if you like, as parent, priest, teacher substitutes.
That, I think, is something which we might look at; and when the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, said that she thought this concentration on sex was a reproach to education, I hope that is what she was talking about. If we had the right sort of sex education in a context of healthy living, then I should like to tell the right reverend Prelate that there possibly would not be any need for the sort of advertisement we had to put in the Daily Mirror, because young people would be informed. They would know what to do, and they could make their choices both rationally and securely. The right reverend Prelate might not like some of the choices they would make, but at least it would be the right choice for them and they would not get into the terrible difficulties they do now.
I have heard complaints about some of the titles of these articles—and these are not magazines with which I have any connection—such as "Of course, you have not got V.D., have you?" I do not find it a very attractive title, but (here again I speak not only as a journalist but as chairman of the Health Education Council) if this means that many young people read this article and find out the facts about V.D., their chances of transmitting it and doing away with much of the myth and ignorance which they have, then all I would say to the magazines is, "Good luck! Thank goodness that we may have got somewhere with the campaign we are running against V.D." Other titles which have appeared in the last year in some of these magazines are: "Who killed God?" and "Is the Church keeping God off the streets?". I hope that the right reverend Prelate will agree that if this is a way of opening discussion on religion it is better than leaving it out of the magazine altogether.
We have this tremendous problem with—I hate to use the phrase, but it is there all the time—the generation gap. Young people are not as easily shocked, nor as sensitive as the older generation. My children—and I am sure that this applies to many children—discuss things with me and use the sort of language that I never used. And they seem no worse off for it. They seem to be aware of what is going on and are quite sure

1295
of themselves. Then there is the other side of the picture: there are the many youngsters who live in this sort of society and yet are ignorant and unsure and have no one to go to. This is where, in the ways I have been describing, the mass media does a tremendously reassuring and constructive job. Perhaps some of the horrified arrows which are flying around, not just in this House but outside, should really be aimed at our educational system, and at our means of helping people to form human and social relationships.
My Lords, finally I should like to say this. When talking about the future of the Press, there are some people who feel that there should be perhaps more control. I would say that it would be a great mistake to do anything to jeopardise the freedom of the Press in this country. Anything that even faintly smells of censorship we should try to avoid, except on the strictest security or obscenity grounds. Voluntary self-control in the form of a Press Council (which applies equally to newspapers and magazines) seems to me to be the right approach. Personally, I should like to see a television council on the same lines. But although I know that some of my friends would like to see this happen, I certainly should not like to see any part of the Press nationalised. While regretting very much any diminution in the number of newspapers I should not like to see a newspaper supported by Exchequer funds. I think that the danger to freedom of the Press is far too great if this sort of process once begins.
Finally, I believe that anything we can do for the freedom of expression of individual opinion must be preserved even if that means that those of us who are not in our teens or early twenties find sonic of the reading matter hard to take, some of the television difficult to view, or some of the films unbearable. All I suggest is that perhaps we should switch off and find alternatives. We should let the young get on with building their own lives.
8.14 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for having invited us to take part in this debate. Over the years I seem to have had my share of encounters with the
1296
Press, television and radio. I hope that this has been considered a use, and not misuse, of mass media communication. Years ago when I was point-to-pointing, I rode a horse called "Underneath the Arches". Next day it was reported in the local Press that I had got "Overneath the Arches" under the last fence for third place. I am pleased to say that if any of your Lordships wanted to find out my correct age from my Press cuttings it would be a difficult job: one popular newspaper has always quoted me as two years younger than I really am. Therefore, from my experience I cannot always praise the accuracy of what is termed the "popular Press". I realise that these people who work in this competitive field are trying to bring news to the public, and very often take great risks while doing so. This was brought home to me when a great friend of mine who was a freelance journalist was shot in the back and killed in Cyprus some years ago.
My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking all those who are concerned with mass media communication for the many benefits they have helped to bring to disabled people throughout the country. Some of your Lordships may remember that I once spoke of two paraplegic men who were not receiving treatment in the correct place. It was due to the Press and television that they were transferred and are now progressing satisfactorily. To many people who have to struggle against discrimination and insurmountable problems the Press seems to be their last resort and safeguard. Many of us who are associated with social aspects wish that The Times newspaper, which is held throughout the world in high esteem, would report as fully on these subjects as does the Guardian.
The local Press, I think, on the whole is excellent, and I have always found this particularly so with the Yorkshire Post and the Yorkshire Evening Post. On January 21, the Yorkshire Evening Post started a campaign to persuade Leeds Corporation to reconsider their decision to close the shopping precinct to invalid carriages. By January 23 it was made clear that this has been done. On January 26 a letter to the paper was printed which ended:

1297
"I am glad the Evening Post barked. It is comforting to know that our local newspaper is on guard."
Then at Scarborough, a few months ago, the mother of a nine-year-old spastic child whom she took to the cinema was told, "You cannot have that thing in here". The Press were on to this at once: they helped to educate the ignorant.
Disabled people will make use of the Open University. Many people who are house-bound and have no transport, but are intelligent and want education, find this service invaluable. The field of the disabled is wide. To get the information of the facilities available to them is difficult, but could be made easier if there were a regular programme on television. Lack of communication so often seems to be the cause of misunderstanding and lack of progress. The most useful programmes to the disabled seem to be those dealing with positive cases, showing how people manage to cope and to overcome their problems. The mass media communication can be so important in helping people to help themselves.
There exists, for old persons' residential homes, the old persons' home licence, which covers the use of television and radio sets by residents in their own rooms, and the fee is 1s. a year for each person. This licence does not cover sets in communal rooms or sets owned by the warden and the staff. These still need to be covered by licences issued at the standard fee. I cannot understand why badly disabled persons resident in residential homes, such as Cheshire Homes, cannot be given the same concession: at present they are not. Their situation is almost identical to that of those old persons, except that I feel that the disabled person is worse off. After all, retired people of pensionable age have lived their lives; they have many memories to look back on and reminisce over. A disabled person suffering from such a cruel disease as disseminated sclerosis has probably been struck down in the prime of his life. He may have had to leave his home and family. He has been cut off from the world. His television set brings the world to him. It may be the only pleasure left to him.
These disabled residents generally have only their sickness benefit of £5 a week, out of which £4 goes towards their keep
1298
in the home. They are left with £1 to buy all the things they need, such as stamps, soap and other essentials. Many are so badly disabled that they spend a great deal of time in their beds; and often the communal sitting room is not big enough to accommodate all the residents, if they use wheelchairs. Therefore it is beneficial to the home if they possess their own television sets.
If the Government will study and compare retirement pensioners, and the disabled pensioners who live in homes such as I have mentioned, perhaps they will reconsider extending this special licence, which the Minister now says is contrary to their policy. This is a very deprived group. If the Government did as I suggest, it would be greatly appreciated by those who, unfortunately, are unable to help themselves, however much they want to. This, I feel, would be making good use of the mass media.
8.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to tell you, in case you do not know, of a foreign nobleman who was introduced to an English lady, to whom he disclosed that he had a wife and six children. These children he enumerated in the following terms. "First," he said, "ve haf tvin boys. Then ye haf two girls, they also vos tvins. Then ve haf von of each, von girl and von boy, They are tvins again." "Really, dear Baron," said the English woman, "what an interesting and well-balanced family. But how unusual always to have twins!" "No, dear lady; ve do not always haf tvins. T'ousands and t'ousands of times ye haf nozzings at all!".
Some noble Lords may smile, but that story illustrates the difficulty of communication, even between two people talking directly face-to-face in simple words that they both understand. When one talks to many, the chances of misunderstanding are greatly multiplied. When I try to make audible the thoughts I wish to communicate, they become coloured and distorted by my own lack of skill in the precise manipulation of language. And at the receiving end, the listener's end, more distortion occurs, since his own thoughts, emotions and modes of understanding are there to

1299
colour and condition the ideas that he receives.
All this is true, even of direct communication between people who know each other and who may be supposed to understand each other pretty well. How, then, do you communicate with a mass of people whom you have never even seen? If you put your thoughts into writing, it becomes a great deal easier. The reader has time to ponder what he has read, and, if he chooses, to go back and read again. Therefore the successive inventions of writing, books, printing and newspapers were all steps in the evolution of communication. But then the process was interrupted by the phenomenon known to biology as "jump mutation"; unpredictable from heredity but none the less permanent—in this case the discovery of radio-magnetic waves. The evolutionary line continued, but a powerful offshoot from it was generated, manifested first as wireless telegraphy and finally as the two-headed monster known as radio and television.
With the coming of television, mass communication embarked upon a kind of apotheosis. Not only does it appeal simultaneously to the ear and eye; it also transmits anything that can be set down on the printed page—not always so well, of course. But the fact remains that television is the super medium of mass communication. Yet see what has happened, my Lords. With broadcasting there came an explosive expansion in the size of the audience and a wiping out of time needed to get the message to that audience. These were two mighty steps forward, yes; but they were accompanied by a long stride backwards, since to the viewer and listener were lost those advantages of being able to ponder what they read and, if necessary, to go back and read again.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor wit"—
shall enable you to say, "Just a minute; I didn't quite get that,"
What it comes to is this: that what mass media communication gained in mass it has largely lost in communication; which makes it potentially the greatest and most dangerous chaos producer that man has yet devised. That, I think, may be said without prejudice
1300
to the equally cogent statement made by my noble friend Lady Emmet to the effect that television is the greatest influence for good in human hands. Here we have the great paradox. I refer particularly, but in no way exclusively, to television, and the argument I am trying to sketch out I put forward for this reason. I believe that if we are to decide how the super mass media ought, and ought not, to be used, we should first try to understand just what it is and what it can and cannot do. I have touched on the ordinary chances of misunderstanding in simple speech, and it would be almost insulting to point out how infinitely they are multiplied when the audience is a heterogeneous and polygot one of millions.
But now there comes another difficulty. Television may claim, with far more justification than the old newsreels, the function of presenting the world to the world. But what world does it so present, the real one or a phony one of its own inventing? I am not thinking of entertainment, or any kind of fiction, or slanted documentary, or even propaganda; but of news. Without considering the question whether it is right or wrong to present pictures of violence or horror, I ask whether what we see is the same as what we should have seen had we been there. The answer is, "No".
May I take an imaginary example? We are sitting comfortably with friends in a house in the United States watching colour television. What we see—this is quite possible—is this. The scene is Vietnam; American soldiers the characters. At a particular moment two of them are visible when a mortar bomb falls and explodes. One of the soldiers is unhurt, the other is killed. In both space and time the episode is neat and compact, and we have seen and heard it all; we have even seen it in colour. Do we, then, know what the experience is like for that surviving soldier left alone in front of the camera? The answer is, "No". Even if we have personal experience of the battlefield the answer is still, "No". All we have seen is a tiny fraction presented to us by the selective eye of the camera, and both our emotions and also our understanding are totally different from those of the man on the spot.

1301
I could draw many detailed comparisons and contrasts from that one example. Perhaps I have said enough to make the point that what took place on that distant battlefield and what we saw upon the screen are two different things. The world we see on our screens is not the world that the camera man sees. In transmission it has also been transmuted. Which, then, is the real world; the world out there, or the one which is brought to us at home? There is no easy answer to that question. Who saw most of the race, the jockey who rode in it or the viewer who saw far more of it than the jockey did—and heard a detailed commentary? To that question there is no answer at all; it is not even a very sensible question. So it comes to this: that the world that sits goggle-eyed before the box is all the time learning more and more about the world beyond its aerials; but the picture it is building up in its brain will never correspond more than roughly to the world that is experienced by the people who are actually living in it.
This, my Lords, I submit is true, even when the qualification has been added to it by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, to the effect that television is under the tyranny of the dramatic and the photogenic; which only goes to make the difficulty even more acute. Whether the world that is presented is real and the world that is received is imaginary, or vice versa, or whether they are equally real, though different—these are questions of philosophy. But I repeat the two points: that the messages that are coming in have already been transmuted, and are now also to be coloured and conditioned by the thoughts, emotions and modes of understanding of the individual viewer.
And what of the world at the receiving end of all this broadcasting? That also has passed through something that looks to me remarkably like a mutation, though it may be simply accelerated evolution. I venture to repeat something that I said three years ago, speaking on secondary schoolchildren in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Aberdare on religious education in schools. I then said:
"The children have changed, and changed in a way and to an extent that we have not fully understood, perhaps not even noticed. For by 'change' in the case of the children, I do not mean simply modification, so that
1302
what we have now is a more up-to-date model, so to speak, of what we had before. I mean that what we had before has disappeared, vanished, never to return, and in its place we have something quite different and altogether new. I believe that we have actually witnessed the end of an epoch of human evolution and the beginning of a new one … The … child of to-day is not merely his immediate ancestors brought up to date. He is a stage farther along the evolutionary path, and his mind works in a different way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15/11/67; Vol. 286, c. 803.]
If this view is sound (and it has been supported, but not, to my knowledge, disputed) we are faced with the suspicion that television is not only presenting a world that we do not know, but presenting it to a world that we do not know either. If that is so, then it behoves us to be a little wary in criticising the way the job is done. For all but the youngest among us must admit that we do not belong to either of these two new worlds. Front the second of them—the world of the new young audience—we are excluded for ever by our age. That is obvious. What is less obvious is that we are also excluded from the other; the world that comes through the air and crystallises in the mind, and which, though synthetic and second-hand maybe, none the less is one that is real to most of those who sit at the receiving end. Of course we have come to terms with television, but that is not quite the same thing; it is not truly a part of our world as it is to those who have found broadcasting already an apparently natural phenomenon of the life into which they were born. To us it is something that has been added on afterwards, never to be by most of us, I think, fully absorbed and understood. For, after all, television broadcasting is barely 34 years old.
Now a characteristic of the broadcasting media is that in broadcasting publicists they expose the counterfeit, the insincere, more pitilessly even than does that other microphonic mask-remover the telephone. I take some comfort from this, for I believe that one of the characteristics of the new young is that they are far more critical than their predecessors, less likely to be hoodwinked by the shoddy and the false. Moreover, they have been born into a world of search. We may look upon them sadly sometimes and wish that we could win them back to some of the old values from which they have turned aside; but if we cannot do that, at least

1303
we ought not to hamper them in their search, which we should almost certainly do if we were to lay down the law too firmly about what they should be allowed to see or listen to. For it is they—and also, for that matter, we—who are the users of the media, just as much as the editors at the transmitting end.
I hope that I have communicated with your Lordships with tolerable success. I should be distressed if your Lordships thought I meant only that we do not know what we are talking about, and had much better keep our mouths shut. I think nothing so negative and unhelpful. I see no reason why we should put up meekly with what we find objectionable, and every complaint on that score that is put forward in this debate has my enthusiastic support.
I believe not only with St. Paul that "evil communications corrupt good manners", but also the converse: evil manners corrupt communications—an offence of which all the mass media tend to be guilty from time to time. But noble Lords would perhaps prefer that I should take my scriptural quotation from Ecclesiasticus:
"Let thy speech be short, comprehending much in a few words."
So I would end by saying just this. What I have tried to do is to show why I believe the subject of this debate is one that invites profounder exploration, and is at once more difficult and far more important than the bare words of the Motion might seem to suggest. It is no superficial or transient phenomenon that we are discussing, but a part of the very stuff of an emerging and (to me, at least) exciting world. If this debate can shed even a little light among the shadows from which that world must emerge, then indeed my noble friend who initiated it will have earned much gratitude.
8.35 p.m.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for introducing this debate, which has been most interesting and has gone on for a long time. I shall not detain your Lordships for very long, probably not more than ten minutes, because I only speak for more than ten minutes at this time of night if I have nothing whatever to say. I wish to follow directly on the speech of the noble Earl,
1304
Lord Cork and Orrery, for I, too, wish to concentrate entirely on television. I wish to concentrate on television because it is probably the technological innovation which has altered our lives more than anything since the introduction of printing: more than the internal combustion engine even; more than the telephone certainly; more than any method of communication which we have so far invented. It is one of the deep changes in human life. Here I am completely at one with the noble Earl, Lord Cork—in fact, I agree with very much of what he said, though not all of it.
People obviously react to a major technological change in various different ways. Many people feel that we have lost Eden, an Eden which never existed. They react to that in two completely different fashions. One is the Marshal McLuhan fashion, which suggests that owing to television we shall get back to this Eden which never existed—that is, the concept of the global village. There is something in all that fantastic verbiage, but not very much. The other reaction is one of sheer hatred: that we have lost Eden totally, and television is responsible for it. Neither of those attitudes is at all reasonable. It is a major change, and one, as the noble Earl said, that we do not fully understand. It is a change which has, like all great changes, positive and negative factors, which has brought considerable gains and, I think, considerable losses and dangers also.
The gains are obvious. They have been mentioned in this debate several times, largely I think by noble Ladies on both sides of the House. Television has unquestionably, for the mass of humanity in the developed countries, added considerably to the quality of life. It really has given interest to people whose lives were boring. The very moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, shows what it means to the disabled. But it means that to a great many people: to people whose lives are devoid of content; to whom hooks mean nothing; to whom newspapers mean very little. This has produced a range of interest which, so far, the large majority of human kind has never known. That is the positive side of television.
I want to say at once that I believe that the positive side on the whole outweighs the negative, and for me considerably so. But there are negative

1305
sides, and I want to devote the few minutes that I am going to take of your Lordships' time to dealing with one or two of them.
Television is a peculiar medium. It has very strange effects. The first is that one totally believes it. It is the most credible of all the media that have ever existed. It is much more credible than print. Obviously, if one is critically minded, as the noble Earl said, you can, after you have ceased looking at the box, say: "That is not true". But it takes some doing. Nothing that we have yet invented so immediately affects you with the idea that it is true. There is one minor artistic consequence of this: that television is far better dealing with realistic artistic material than it is with anything else. Fantasy on television fades off completely into nonsense; no one is interested or trusts it at all. Its great successes have always been in the things like the police series, "Softly, Softly", and so on, where you are dealing with what in normal art is called "somewhere between naturalism and realism". That is its strength. That has certain very strange and often very undesirable consequences. We obviously believe it too much, and we believe it in a rather singular way. We believe that these characters, known as television celebrities, are something like domestic pets. This induces in us a strange acceptance of the "domestic pet", and, unfortunately, I think, an aversion from the more difficult sides of life which do not lead you to become a domestic pet.
I fancy that one result of television is a curious passivity. I shall come back to that subject in two or three minutes. This is a passivity which means that people are not quite so willing to do the difficult things of life, to become public servants, politicians, even creative writers, when celebrity is so easily attained in this instantaneous medium. The domestic pets that we are presented with are very different from the persons who previously have been held up for admiration. What we normally see are "pop" singers, association footballers, and similar T.V. celebrities, coming on and talking to us, and saying, "Yer know", three times in each sentence. I do not know when "Yer know" came into the English language. This has now become an obsession of mine; I shrink every time I
1306
hear it, and somehow we have to try to drive it out.
This attitude of acquiescence before this intimate domesticity is probably dangerous. I think this is one of the real dangers to the young. It is relatively easy for a young man of some presence, and a little luck, to get a kind of notoriety which even thirty years ago took a lifetime of endeavour. I remember Marghanita Laski saying, after appearing on the television programme called "What's my Line?", that after about eight appearances she received far more notoriety and recognition than if she had devoted her life to an honourable career of writing books. Being a very strong-minded woman, she immediately retired from "What's my Line?" and unfortunately has not written many books since, because it appears to have been a traumatic experience. This attitude is one of the dangers, and something which we shall have to watch; something which we hope is probably within human control, but it may be something with which we have to live.
Attitude is an impalpable thing, difficult to define, but I am sure more conditioned by television than we are at present willing to accept. I should like to turn from attitude to behaviour, and mention one of the most peculiar of all modern liberal superstitions; that is, that nothing which is said, written or shown in any form of dramatic presentation—including television—can possibly affect in any way human behaviour. This is held with the force of a religious belief, and it is total nonsense. If that were true then all the books that have ever been written have never affected anybody; all the plays that have ever been produced have had no significance. All that has happened on television is just like going through a warm South-West wind, utterly forgotten as soon as you have experienced it. I cannot believe how sane people of good will can possibly believe this, yet they do so with the utmost enthusiasm, and with the certainty that this is part of the liberal creed. It is most important that we should hang on to the civilised liberal decencies. We shall find it harder to hang on to those decencies if we clutter them up in a kind of package deal with manifest nonsense.

1307
If your Lordships want proof of whether television affects human behaviour I might draw your attention to the fact that many millions of dollars and many millions of pounds are spent by advertisers every month of the year. They presumably do not do this out of disinterested philanthropy. They probably hope to affect human behaviour in some way or other, owing to this expenditure. If television advertising affects human behaviour, it seems to me utterly absurd to think that the rest of television is completely devoid of effective meaning. Here I quarrel completely with my noble friend Lady Gaiteskell. I am sorry that she is not in her place; I wish I had been able to draw her attention to what I was going to say.
This insistence that nothing can possibly be proved about the effect of television is one of the things that makes my mind boggle. There is a very good Eisenhower Report—Milton Eisenhower, not Dwight—which was published in 1970 that gives as near proof as a sceptic might want. You have to be a great sceptic to need such proof. It is perfectly demonstrable. The medium is pervasive, is so powerful, is so manifest in everyone's home, that it is likely to have at least a trivial effect on how you tend to behave.
What is to be done? Here we have the greatest mass medium that the world has yet seen with its positive sides outweighing its negative sides, but its negative sides are important. It is not easy; it will take a generation to work our way through it. I agree with most of what has been said, that here we cannot very actively intervene. Obviously censorship is not "on". That is not a tolerable concept. What is on is a certain absence of passivity on the part of people of sense and good will. We have to get out of the idea that we must always accept what is happening as though what is happening is inevitable. We have to make our voices heard when—and it happens—the intolerable is produced.
People are not completely without voices in this matter. We have only to say things and they will listen. The people who run television are not monsters; they are somewhat lost at the power of the machine they are controlling. They are at least as willing to listen to criticism
1308
as most other people in responsible positions, but it must be criticism which is not afraid. What strikes me about most of these discussions is how remarkably supine we tend to become in the face of a queer kind of fashion; the particular fashion here being that nothing does good or harm, and the whole thing is pointless anyway. That is not true. This is determining a lot of human life for a long time to come. Unless we show some mild moral courage, and a little insight, then we shall do harm when we ought to be able to do good.
8.48 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, lest any noble Lord wonders why I am on my feet, the reason is that my noble friend Lord Teviot did not put down his name to speak, and I did. A small error in transcription has made the list at fault. I imagine that other noble Lords, like myself, have been deeply impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snow, who has just sat down, following my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. What he has said has saved me from speaking on a lot of what I was going to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, said, "What's on?" Well, I believe that we may err in being a little complacent about this television age, because we are only on the threshold of its development. The noble Lord spoke of the effect of the television in the advanced countries and I, and everybody else, agree with him. But what is going to happen? Enormous good will come from the spread of television in the more backward countries, and this still has to be calculated. If one thinks along those lines, as I do, this country has set a tremendous example in broadcasting, whether on "steam" radio or in vision. Therefore, this debate is an important one in considering the matter, and in looking ahead.
I am now going to descend to rather lower considerations and refer to the question of money. It seems to me, based on an experience I have just had in Cambridge, that we in this debate are not really grasping the fact. Having accepted that broadcasting and television are of enormous importance to our very way of life—and, as I have said, perhaps the way of life of many other millions—are we doing enough to see that it is properly furnished with resources? It would

1309
be fair at this stage to say that we must do something about getting in the licence fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, asked why the mass media do not concentrate more on matters such as theft. The fact is, my Lords, that millions of people are thieving from you, and from me, and from the B.B.C. and from the world, by failing to buy their licences. I wonder whether something cannot be done by the Government to tighten up on wireless suppliers and suppliers of apparatus and repairers of apparatus to insist that they will not sell or repair instruments unless the individual owner, or prospective owner, produces a licence. The same applies to I.T.A. and the other organisations. They are in real trouble over shortage of money; and I believe it is important that they should be furnished with the sinews of this war—this war against poverty, this war against ignorance.
The shortage of money in the B.B.C. goes clown to all sorts of corners. The provision of adequate finance is essential to the success of the B.B.C.'s great overall task. One can take, for instance, the situation in Cambridge, where the Arts and Leisure Association have been unable to obtain a "Yea" or a "Nay" from the B.B.C., who are anxious to assist in the preparations for the Cambridge Festival in July. Progress has been held up for some months now, apparently through the inability of the B.B.C.'s finance side to permit the visual effects side to render the assistance which they are apparently anxious to give to this valuable cultural development. That is only one small facet, but I have come across it within the last few days.
I am one of those who feel that too much violence is shown in television, because of the showing of trailers, the programme news with which they keep wasting our time. Often one will find that for a Western, or, say, Tin Last of the Mohicans or some such programme, the trailer shown is one of what the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, described as some bloodless shooting, or an arrow which goes right through somebody—it does not seem to do him much harm, though he falls to the ground. It seems to me that the inclination of the broadcasting media to concentrate on violence is shown up in their selection of these
1310
items in the trailers. They should not do it. As my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery said, these scenes of violence are very far from the real thing. A young 13-year-old boy, with a difficult background—and such a nice young fellow—said to a friend of mine the other day, quite uninvited (lie is always gazing at the box), "To look at this stuff, you would think no one ever did anything but bash each other about." That was what he said, and I rather agree with him. There is too much knocking about in a great many films.
As to the permissive society, we have spoken about drug-taking, the worship of sex and that sort of dirt. And they are, I think, dealt with in far too facile a way. I myself was greatly cheered by what my noble friend Lord Eccles and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, to give heart to those who, like myself, feel that we must speak out about dirt. The attitude of the broadcasting media towards drugs seems to me to be that it is something we must learn to live with. I would much rather that the attitude was that it was something we should be able to live without. However, it is not my intention to go on with this matter in general terms because I want to turn to problems of reporting Parliament, and reporting generally in Scotland.
I agree with several noble Lords who have spoken with dissatisfaction of what I call the "processing" of news. It is a great pity. "The World at One", "The World This Weekend", and even the new form which "Today" takes in the morning amount to some measure of processing of news; and processing, as the noble Lord, Lord Davidson, said in his excellent maiden speech, by people who—I will not say they are irresponsible, but they are not responsible. There is too much tendency to present us with what they think we should hear. I would use the words of my noble friend Lord Eccles who pointed out the power of selection to distort the truth.
I, too, should like to see some of what I regard as rather cocky, "silly-clever" interviewers rapped over the knuckles. The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, said that the people who are experienced politicians are able to fend for themselves. Good! I should like to see them fend a little more and in that way save the less experienced from having, as another

1311
noble Lord said, words put into their mouth by these very able and experienced interviewers. It is a pity that they cannot be infected with the matter-of-fact but mannerly attitude of the news readers. Need the tribe of interviewers be so importunate? All of them—news readers and all—as the noble Lord, Lord Davidson, pointed out, wield power: they wield power without responsibility; and it is a very great power.
To turn to my criticism of the reporting of Parliament, my mind goes back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who said, "Do we know enough about the Common Market? Do we know enough about the Industrial Relations Bill?" No, we do not. I believe that much of the blame rests with the reporting of Parliament. The Press, forced by economic circumstances, are not very generous in the space they give to-day compared to what they gave twenty years ago. And in Scotland, of course, they hardly report Parliament unless they are challenged, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, challenged them the other day by saying, "This debate has as much chance of being reported in Pravda tomorrow morning as it has in the papers in Scotland". However, that got around; that debate was very well reported.
But let us leave that and return to Parliament. As your Lordships know, this is a matter which I have mentioned off and on during years gone by. I am one of those who are really loud in my praise of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I must concentrate, though, on the B.B.C.'s "steam" programme—Radio 4 on sound—and congratulate them on the programmes, "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament", while emphasising that it is far too often very metropolitan. I personally feel that it is the greatest pity that the regions, such as Wales, Scotland and the West, and perhaps the North-East, do not have their own "Yesterday in Parliament" report in order that items can be picked out which concern the people of the particular region and link the interest of the people in the region with Parliament. I think this is very important, though I realise the difficulties. I congratulate the programme producers on the facility with which they produce this material but I
1312
should like them carefully to consider my remarks.
And whereas I am full of praise for that programme, I am equally full of criticism of the programme "The Week in Westminster". I listened to "The Week in Westminster" on Saturday morning. In the first place, I think it comes at the wrong time. I believe it used to come at five minutes past nine, but now they put on that excellent programme which has also been referred to in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord GoreBooth, namely "From Our Own Correspondent". That comes straight after the News, which I think is a pity because one gets almost tired of the News. Quite often the correspondent is referring to something one has just heard in the News bulletin, and I think "The Week in Westminster" should come in between the News and "From Our Own Correspondent".
But if it is to be called "The Week in Westminster", then its material must be altered: on the other hand, if its material is going to remain the same, then the title of the programme should be altered. On Saturday I listened to it on my car radio as I was coming down the A.1. They gave about five minutes to the House of Lords—great fun they had with sturgeon and swan-upping and all sorts of cracks about the amusing debate on Monday, which had lasted for one hour and two minutes. But there was no reference whatever to the fact that your Lordships discussed caravans and the problems of caravanning for three hours on Tuesday and a large number of Scottish Peers attended. I think I am right in saying that 16 of them spoke. Then there was a debate which lasted for five hours on the Wednesday, on the Highlands and Islands Development Board and its work. But that did not concern only Scotland, because a great deal of what was said, including references to the Forestry Commission and the like, referred to a number of other remote areas.
That seems to me to be quite fantastic, speaking as one who believes that the interest in Parliamentary programmes is much greater the further you are from London than it is in London itself. So I consider that that programme is the greatest possible disappointment, and I should like to suggest that if, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, we are going

1313
to get more knowledge of our problems, then this valuable medium—indeed, I would say these media, because it is not only the "steam" radio but television as well—should be used more, and used more judiciously. My Lords, I hope I have made that point about the regions without being too emphatic that I speak of Scotland alone.
That brings me to my final point, which is very much concerned with Scotland, and that is the schools programmes. I do not know how many of your Lordships, like myself, are fascinated by the schools programmes. I keep thinking, "If only I could have listened to stuff like this when I was a kid!". Yet I listened to one on the Assize Court last week. It was excellent, and it went out in Scotland. Whether it was actually played by the schools I do not know, but it had no reference whatever to the judicial system in Scotland. I consider that the programme put out in England should have contained a reference to the fact that in Scotland the system is different, if we are all to be one nation. This sort of thing is handing propaganda to the Scottish Nationalists.
The same applies to a programme I heard the other day on prisons. It was excellent, and it ran for about half an hour. It talked about Rampton and Broadmoor, which deal with the criminally insane, but it made no reference at all to the Carstairs experiment in Scotland which those of you who study these things will know is a most important experiment and a great advance on experience in England to-day. I make the point only in order to ask the B.B.C. if they will please try to get it clear that there are two systems, and explain to the English, and not only to the Scots, that there are two systems.
In closing, I think I am being fair in saying that the replacement of Lady May Baird, who retired from being chairman of B.B.C. Scotland in November, is long overdue. Which brings me back to what I began with, namely, the question of money. Is it possible that it is difficult to find a replacement for her because there is not enough money to pay the right man?
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am not sure whether I am in order in saying this, but while thanking
1314
him for his very kind remarks about my speech I think it would be unfair to allow the rather bumbling remarks I made earlier to be linked with the name of Lord Davidson. I know it was only a slip of the tongue.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg your pardon. I thank the noble Lord for correcting me.
9.7 p.m.
LORD PEARCE: My Lords, at this hour I will not detain you by adding any detail to a debate that was beautifully opened and has been interestingly supported. Until a year or so ago I had nothing to do with the Press. Then I became Chairman of the Press Council. At the time I had, it is true, an inborn conviction that the freedom of the Press was of the utmost importance. I have always thought that of all the valuables that we hand from one generation to another the torch of freedom is perhaps the most important; and it is so easily dropped and extinguished, as we can see if we look at the world around us.
However, in the last year I have been enormously impressed by the amount of careful, competent—one might almost say dedicated—work that is performed by a very large section of the Press. Of course, when there is bad performance, as there always is in any human affair, the thing is highlighted and it is there for all to see. But I am sure that the Press as a whole are determined to maintain and improve, if possible, their standards. Seventeen years ago they took what was a rather courageous experiment for a profession of independent minded individualists when they formed the Press Council; and seven years ago they asked laymen of some standing in their profession and other professions to help them in their deliberations and had an independent chairman drawn from the ranks of laymen.
The function of the Press Council—and I will not detain your Lordships with detail—is really that of a fairminded sensible jury that invites complaints from the public about the Press and then adjudicates on them. There is no coercion, so there is no danger really to freedom, but the offending paper is in honour bound—and it does so—to print in its own columns the adjudication criticising the behaviour on the particular

1315
event. I am quite certain that for the majority that is of very great weight indeed, because nobody likes putting in their own columns an account of something which obviously was not one of their better moments and one of their better performances, and which, in the view of a fairminded sensible jury, really was not good enough. I should like to pay tribute to the vast majority of the Press for the careful work they do (which is not often particularly noticed and which is rather taken as a matter of account) and to the efforts they make and are making to keep up their standards. In my view there is no real danger that those standards will deteriorate.
9.11 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I should like to follow my noble friend Lady Birk in lamenting that Francis Williams is no longer with us to take part in this debate to-night. He was a foremost critic, historian, and practitioner, both in journalism and in radio and television, and he made some notable contributions to your Lordships' debates on this kind of subject. Had he been here with me to-night he would have been rejoicing with me, as all Fleet Street is rejoicing to-night, that all the defendants in the official secrets case have been cleared, and that the Government are to make an official review of the Official Secrets Act. We hope that in doing so they will take notice of the remarks of Mr. Justice Caulfield about the iniquitous and ridiculous Section 2 (these are my words, not his), and that it is time for this section to be pensioned off. This is a vague section under which anybody who communicates information from official sources, even if it is no threat at all to national security, may find himself liable to prosecution.
Next, I must confess an interest in this debate. I work for a newspaper which has an interest in commercial television, and I earn a few hundred pounds a year from the B.B.C. Next I must express apologies for missing the opening of this debate. I was giving a lecture on one of the infrequently acknowledged virtues of the mass media. I was describing how some popular newspapers, including my own, have become an arm of the social services, a kind of invisible ombudsman. There is a staff
1316
of expert advisers to deal with a range of problems identical to those covered by the Citizens Advice Bureau. Some are problems of poverty—for instance, pension rights, and the mysterious ways of the supplementary benefits man. Some of them are problems of affluence; how to get compensation for the holiday tour which provided less than the multicoloured brochure promised, or how to get compensation for the shopping bargain which proved to be a waste of money.
Then there is another kind of letter, of which my noble friend Lady Birk spoke, which comes from people in difficult emotional situations, and is addressed to the woman columnist. This kind of inquiry is the subject of many bad jokes, but I may say that many of the people who write do so in desperation, as a last resort, some of them in a state of almost suicidal despair. The work of these advisers covers the ground of the Marriage Guidance Council, the Council for the Unmarried Mother, the Family Planning Association and the Samaritans. Very little is known outside about this work, and many of the writers get into touch with the women columnists because they cannot bring themselves to confess their troubles face to face with a counsellor in one of the orthodox services. Having read the columnist over the years, they feel they know and like and trust her, and very often the best thing the columnist can do is to refer the distressed reader to an orthodox agency and pave the way for her to do so. I think I should also mention that over 30 per cent. of the people making these inquiries are men—because men have their emotional problems, too. And many of the women who write in are educated professional women, who always write and say that they never imagined that they would be seeking advice from such a source.
Your Lordships may ask in the first case—the kind of practical question which the CAB covers—why the people who write letters do not go to the orthodox agencies. It is simply because some people, wrongly of course, identify them with the very public authority which is troubling them. They are looking for a powerful champion, and the popular newspaper which represents itself to be

1317
the critic of the Establishment and the scourge of bureaucracy is the one that is handiest for them.
I think I must resist the temptation to deliver my lecture a second time. What I am concerned about in this debate is to show how well served we are in Britain by the mass media. I may say, in passing, that I have never heard a debate in which there has been less criticism of the newspapers. It seems that television not only has taken a great deal of our revenue, but has also taken our sins on its shoulders.
What I really want to say is that no other country in the world has Press and broadcasting services which compare with those that we have, not just in London but in every city in the United Kingdom. Of course it is possible, and with justice, to criticise our newspapers and our broadcasting agencies. All our democratic institutions—our trade unions, our local councils, our system of justice and our Houses of Parliament—are easy to deride. They are just as desirable as are the mass media; and just as essential and just as unique.
It is possible to argue, as many people are arguing in the controversy about newspapers to-day, that The Times is inferior in some respects to the New York Times, or the Guardian to Le Monde, or the Daily Telegraph to Neuer Zürcher Zeitung. But we in this country have an unbeatable combination of three quality dailies, plus the Financial Times, on sale everywhere in Britain at breakfast time: and often they are supported by regional newspapers, such as the Yorkshire Post, the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald. In addition, there is the range of popular newspapers; there are the three tabloids and the three popular text papers. Not only do they cover a wide political range, from the extreme Left of the Morning Star, to the Daily Mail, but they cater for a wider variety of tastes and of intellectual ability than any Press in the world can do.
The British are the greatest newspaper readers in the world, simply because their Press caters for such a wide range of readers and because of our unique distribution system. The last and most important link in the chain is formed by the little shops, which exist because of our unique devotion in this country to
1318
random purchases of sweets, tobacco and magazines. On these dark mornings they perform a daily miracle in delivering our newspapers, usually before breakfast and through our own front doors. If you were to live in some countries you would be lucky to get your morning paper by second post.
All this printed journalism is supported by a most remarkable public and commercial broadcasting service. With all our criticism, with all the criticisms that we have heard to-day, we must recognise that it is easier and cheaper to be well informed in Britain than in any other country in the world. But I must give warning that this may be, at this moment, the peak of the achievements in quality journalism pioneered by Barnes of The Times, in popular journalism pioneered by Northcliffe and in public service broadcasting by the noble Lord, Lord Reith. To-day, there is great anxiety in all the mass media from the boardroom to the production floor. Part of our troubles are temporary—the dearth of advertising caused by a virtual stagnation in consumption over a number of years; part of it is due to rising costs which cannot with any certainty be recouped by higher prices; and part of it may be structural. We may have more newspapers than can be supported in an age when television takes such a large slice of advertising.
At the risk of bringing the noble Earl, Lord Arran, to his feet, I may say that it is a subject for public speculation whether the Daily Mail and the Daily Sketch can continue as independent titles. I was not present myself, but I understand that the noble Earl, in an intervention earlier on, did give some assurance on this point. If he could expand upon it in his speech, which follows mine, it would be very good news for Fleet Street. Then we have the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, who, with stubborn courage, is using all his managerial skills, and some of his millions, to make The Times viable. The Guardian is being sustained only because it has a splendid moneymaker in the Manchester Evening News. It is not even certain (again I risk an intervention from the noble Earl) that we can continue for long to have two vigorously competing evening papers even in London.
In all other newspaper towns except Glasgow there is to-day no face-to-face

1319
competition among the evening papers. They have solved their commercial problems in the least desirable way, and yet in the only way open to them; that is, by getting out of the competitive situation and creating a monopoly. They face a dilemma well known to American newspapers, almost all of which, in that country of intense competition, have no competitors at all. The problem, once you get a monopoly, is no longer how to stay in business, it is how to stay in journalism; how to go on putting the reader first, when all the temptations are to put the advertiser first.
Your Lordships may have noticed that journalists, once the most feeble of trade unionists, have now, like other middle-class workers, become militant. It is not greed that is pushing them. Journalists have a kind of holy innocence when it comes to monetary questions. It is true that there is a certain legitimate envy of the gains made by the mechanical staffs of newspapers, but what is moving them to-day is frustration and fear. Frustration because slim newspapers limit their professional opportunities, and fear because slim newspapers create redundancies. A number of people, including one or two people who have spoken to-day, who are anxious to preserve the excellent variety we enjoy in our newspapers, are looking around for some way of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. But every scheme that I have seen to help newspapers, whether it is by providing cheap newsprint or tax concessions, involves Government beneficence, Government favours, and these we must do without. A Government which can give, can also threaten to take away—which a failing Government might be tempted to do if it found the Press behaving in such an irresponsible way as to suggest that Government's own immediate demise.
We do not have a Party Press in this country, but our newspapers have political philosophies. However, this never deters them from attacking a failing Government, although that Government may share their philosophy. Two Prime Ministers in recent years have known what it is to face a whole newspaper Press with hardly one friendly face among the editors. That is why the Press must
1320
remain free of Government favours in order to remain free of Government pressures, even if it means that some newspapers must disappear, that some newspaper readers must lose their favourite newspaper, and some newspaper workers must lose their jobs. It is a "Give me liberty or give me death" situation. The possibility of a Government acting with political prejudice towards a newspaper is seen even in ordinary commercial transactions. Neither this Government nor the previous Government would place any advertising with the Morning Star, and you do not have to be a sympathiser with that newspaper to see the danger inherent in the principle.
When we come to broadcasting, which has been so much talked about to-night, the difficulties there are not only commercial; they are political, too. The commercial television companies are groaning under a Government levy fixed in the days when the profits were big and easy, but continued long after that situation had changed, and changed for all time. A mass medium short of money cannot give the viewer the quality of programme he would wish to have. As for the B.B.C., it cannot now clearly see its future. There is a feeling about in the political world that it should be cut down to size, that it should cease to cater for all the people all the time—I think my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry was suggesting that earlier on—and should leave really popular entertainment to commercial interests in both sound and television. I believe that that would be a very dangerous course.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I really suggested nothing of the sort and I hope that to morrow when he reads the Report he will see that that was so.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I am sorry if I misinterpreted my noble friend. The freedom of the B.B.C. depends upon the licence system, and that system could not be maintained if the B.B.C. were catering for only some of the people. This is the point about numbers, the point about ratings. The B.B.C. dare not neglect the ratings. The ratings are the choice that the licence payer makes in his programmes, and I do not believe that the B.B.C. could maintain the quality

1321
of its organisation or of its programmes if it were forced to live in an ivory tower.
I suspect that a good deal of the general criticism of the mass media to-day comes from two sources. The first is that in the world as it is to-day we move from one complex crisis to another. It is impossible to keep up with events, even if one is a professional student of politics, and we sometimes resent our inability to live up to our concept of being firstclass participants in our democracy. It is not the dearth of information that we resent; it is its impossible plenitude.
The other source of discontent is that the mass media reflect a world that we do not like, and so we feel an instinct always to slay the bearer of bad news. I was appalled at the idea, which I heard earlier, that the Arts Council should subsidise only respectable plays which the mass of taxpayers would want it to support. It is the play that shocks, perhaps even the play that outrages, which really needs a subsidy. Art is not respectable, democracy is not respectable, Her Majesty's Oppositions are not respectable and newspapers are not respectable. Nobody to-day can like the world of 1971, and many people pine for the never-never world of P. G. Wodehouse, the Happy Mag, dear old Dodie Smith and Shirley Temple singing "The Good Ship Lollipop".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke earlier of the moral consensus. I wonder what moral consensus he meant, because I do not see one. I see only moral chaos and moral conflict. Perhaps what irks us about the mass media is that they are dealing with that conflict, but I do not believe that we are going to work through the terrible spiritual problems of to-day if we turn our back on them and pretend that they do not exist. We are living through a period of crises just as agonising to the young as they are to our generation but, as my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge said, the young are prepared to face them and to search for a resolution.
The mass media did not invent these crises. I think it is possible to argue, as my noble friend Lord Snow argued, that they fortify the current trend; they have an effect upon values and upon opinion. But it remains true that by their nature
1322
as mass media they must be slow to deal with a trend until it has become firmly established. I believe that we are fortunate, in a time like this, to have mass media of such quality and variety, so alert to the modern world, and we should be more concerned about their ability to survive and succeed than about their shortcomings.
9.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, it had been my intention to thank the noble Baroness for giving us an opportunity to "blow our tops", and I was willing to grasp it with both hands, but in the last speech I have been put on the spot. I want to make it clear to your Lordships that I will not "carry the can" for the British Press. I represent only one section of it. I am a director of the Daily Mail and General Trust. I cannot answer for Mr. Murdoch, for Lord Thomson or for Sir Max Aitken, none of whom is here, and I do not propose to do anything of the sort. Such is not my duty or my responsibility. I repeat: I am a director of the finance company of the Daily Mail. I am not a director of Associated Newspapers.
It would be easy for me to take the line, "Baby does not know". Baby does not know, but baby knows this much: what he has already said—and he is going to say no further than this—is that there is no intention of closing down the Daily Mail. That is as far as my brief goes. Ministers at the Despatch Box will realise that when they have a brief they cannot go beyond it. I repeat what I have said, and I say it with emphasis—and, honestly, the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that he took a grave view, was, if I may say so, slightly mischievous because the lives and the livelihoods of thousands of people are involved. I repeat for the third time categorically—it is almost like a parrot cry—there is no intention of closing down the Daily Mail. As for the other, I just do not know; I am not on their financial board. Have I cleared my name? Have I said what I honestly can? I hope I have. It is the truth.
My Lords, after that, may I get down to what I wanted to talk about, which is something quite different? It is about television programmes, on which as a compulsive viewer since 1937 I am an

1323
expert, and commercial television advertisements. Let me say straight away that, like the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, I regard television as the greatest instrument for adult education since Caxton's printing press. I myself had a splendid education, the best that money could buy, plus a natural ghastly precocity, but I would say, after watching television at intervals for over thirty years, that I regard myself as twice as well informed as I was when I left Balliol in 1933. True, my knowledge is not so specialised as at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, sought to instruct me daily. My classics are rusty, my knowledge of Locke, Berkley and Hulme is sketchy, to say the least. But because of television my spectrum of general knowledge has greatly broadened itself.
I have seen many beautiful places—I am not talking about country houses, but about places at home and abroad. I have learnt to love football. I can tell you why the Indians of South America are in danger of extinction. I can tell you what the moon looks like—it is very dull, incidentally. I can cook an omelette. I can tell you about the life cycle of the eel and the salmon. I have seen dramatic versions of the English classics which I have not read. I am not intimately acquainted with the Treaty of Rome (how many of your Lordships are?) but at least television has done its best to teach me what it is all about. Quite seriously, I say that the information I have received from television has enriched my life.
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Snow, I speak with sincerity, indeed with gratitude, about these good things. On the other side of the road, while I am not shocked by four-letter words (and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, the frequency with which they are used takes the very obscenity out of them) I am from time to time subjected to a piece of exhibitionistic obscenity, mostly on the B.B.C., which causes me to feel the utmost distaste. A few weeks ago I watched a play on B.B.C. Television called, The Circle Line. I do not know whether any other noble Lords watched it. It was a play about boredom; and I was electrified to see in it a young man and a 14-year-old boy
1324
naked in bed together. "Did you enjoy it?" asked the boy. "Not much", said the young fellow in a voice of ineffable gloom. The young man, who could have done with a "short back and sides" anyway, proceeded to tell the boy's sister that he had seduced her brother. While this news was sinking in, they mournfully chewed an omelette which the sister paid for. Her husband was a brisk, wicked businessman who "beefed" a bit, not so much because his brother-in-law had been seduced and introduced to "pot"; but because this layabout was living off the taxpayers' money without working. I need hardly say, my Lords, that the Guardian gave the play a "rave" notice.
Was it for this that your Lordships passed the Sexual Offences Bill, carefully keeping the age of consent to 21 and insisting on privacy? Was it your Lordships' wish that perhaps one million, or even 2 million, people should witness such a scene on their television screens? Is this sort of play not guaranteed to deprave and corrupt? What would the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, say about this? What would Lord Reith say about this? Sadly, and in reactionary fashion, one longs again for the Lord Chamberlain. Since then the author, in a pitying letter, writes to me to say that one cannot teach an old dog new tricks. He is probably right. By heaven!, he is right. I may be a mangy old dog, but such tricks I will not learn. Five years ago I was regarded as being of the avant garde. To-day I am a "square". Such is the speed of enlightenment.
Now, my Lords, from morals to good taste. If I.T.V. sets a higher moral standard than the B.B.C.—as it does—some of their advertising, approved apparently by what is known as the Advertising Control of the Independent Television Authority, makes me want to vomit. I am tired of looking down lavatory pans, plumbing the twists and turns of "S" bends. It is a short step from this until we actually see people sitting on the lavatory seat. But what I take particular exception to is the advertisement for what are called the under-stains. This I regard as the most disgusting advertisement that I have ever seen. It is forced on us night after night, on the Goebbels principle that if you want to get a theme across you must make your point over and over again.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, has the noble Earl ever thought of switching it off?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: If it comes in the middle of a play I prefer to ignore it. My Lords, let us kill this damned advertisement to-day. Let us; kill it absolutely. It offends all the women I know and a lot of men, too.
Lastly, my Lords—and this is an anticlimax—I do not like to see a vicar advertising a commercial product. He dragged in God. The fee presumably went to the church funds, but I do not like it. It seems all wrong. I do not know what the Lords Spiritual would have to say about it.
Now for the Press—but I think we will leave that for the moment. I have introduced two debates on this subject in ten years. I am not going to declare my interest again—your Lordships all know it. I asked to speak late in the debate lest there should have been a general onslaught. I faced some awkward questions from the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. There is one thing on the Press about which I feel strongly. The noble Lord, Lord Pearce, made a very spirited defence of the Press Council. I should like to agree with him; and as your Lordships may perhaps know, I was myself formally rebuked by the Press Council last summer for espousing Israel's cause overvehemently. But because the General Secretary of my Union, the I.O.J., sprang to my rescue in The Times, saying that to forbid comment on an international dispute would be to destroy the freedom of speech, I did not feel too guilty. Indeed, I felt proud. That, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, is where I feel that the Council falls down; it is not sufficiently respected. I should feel that I am "in the dog house"; I do not feel that.
My Lords, I have done; the mangy old dog has had his say. I have not had to defend the Press, although ii have had very awkward questions asked me. My theme has been morals and good taste which I think are in real danger of degradation at the moment. May I say these few things? Shall we now truly liberate ourselves? Shall we take off our clothes? Shall we have sexual intercourse in public? Shall we defecate in the street? What is holding us back? Why should we not
1326
throw overboard our bourgeois conventions? Life should be lived and lived to the full—to hell with good taste and common decency! And if, my Lords, there are a few other mangy old dogs like me, let us point to the things that cry aloud, and see if we cannot stop the rot.
9.41 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I was depressed and gloomy at the beginning of this debate because, if I understand him aright, the noble Viscount, the Paymaster General, believes that the only good and saleable news is bad news. Since we are taught that we are a consumer society, and that appetite grows by what it feeds on, it occurred to me that the first months of 1971 seem to support this; and that we arc, perhaps, the first society no longer capable of doing anything but cause bad news, because that is all that is required for the Press and television, and that the possibility of creating acts of good news is now beyond us for ever.
However, the subsequent course of the debate quite encouraged me, because I could see some of the good news within it. For example, my noble friend Lord Goodman hinted of some slight disagreements between himself, as Chairman of the Arts Council, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Yet I listened to both their speeches; I thought they were both excellent; I admired them enormously. I agreed with every word that both noble Lords said. It seems to me that in the circumstances the disagreements must be extraordinarily well hidden, or very small; and my hope and belief is that they are very small and will not cause much alarm to those who believe that the work of the Arts Council is supporting the Arts.
When it comes to the question of morality, obscenity and all the related factors, I believe that I cannot add anything in your Lordships' debate to-night, except to say that, however disturbing things may be occasionally, I cannot believe that the general tenor of this country is in much danger. I cannot believe that the Arts Council is in much danger. I really do not see my noble friend Lord Goodman moving in what might be termed vicious circles. It seems to me that emphasis must be placed on these things; that they should be guarded against. But that anything active should be done, that the noble Earl, Lord Arran

1327
should invoke the name of the Lord Chamberlain again, seems to me to be a retrogressive thought; and I am very happy to think that your Lordships' House would never for a moment take such a retrogressive step.
It is notable how quickly one seizes upon the misuses of the mass media when one reads the subject of the debate. The noble Baroness, to whom we are all grateful for introducing the debate, phrased it very carefully to include the use and misuse, but there is a great instinct to seize on the misuse. So much more attractive it is to describe; so much more exciting to speak about. Yet, in fact, it is the uses that I have been very pleased to see emphasised by so many noble Lords. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, in his maiden speech, which I admired so much and with which I agreed so strongly, brought out, I thought, something quite new by saying that the dangers that face television are much more the insidious dangers of sensationalism than of political bias, much less of political domination.
I have listened, not merely in your Lordships' debate this afternoon but in many controversies, to the subject of political bias in television, and particularly after the last Election. The Society of Film and Television Artistes held an evening, an open forum, for this to be discussed, and accusations were levelled, I am happy to say, at all three Parties. For the life of me, I could not see this when I watched it. I watched the Election right through from beginning to end, and it seemed to me that the only bias I could detect was one in favour of common sense. Yet these accusations flew about very thickly.
I take comfort from that, because so long as accusations of bias can be levelled it is a pretty sure sign that the unbiased norm must still be there. I would so much rather have a biased commentator just once in a while than a situation where television was so controlled and so overwhelmed by an organisation, even a Government, that it was not able to produce bias. You do not find biased speeches on the radio or on television behind the Iron Curtain. That is not bias; that is the one-Party line, and the distinction, I think, should be drawn.
1328
So, for me, the question of bias is not particularly dangerous or important. So long as people are always recognising it, diagnosing it and complaining of it, I shall remain quite happy. Much more dangerous, I think, are the insidious things, such as the danger of sensationalism. And perhaps almost more subtle than that are the dangers to which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, referred—the dangers of the personality cult.
But I think that, before one elaborates on those things, one should recognise one fact about television, as opposed to newspapers. It is ten times more difficult to be impartial on the television. The camera may not lie, but it simply cannot avoid commenting. I speak as a practitioner, not of television but of film, and I know something of what a camera can and cannot do. Where you place it has a gigantic effect on what it says. I am speaking now as a man who is trying to be unbiased, as a man who is trying to present as impartial an account as he can. Even if he puts it a long way away, the event seems distant and not particularly important. If he mixes his camera into the midst of an event, it seems suddenly immensely dramatic. He already has his choice, he is already halfway directing the scene, even though it is a live happening, by where he puts the camera. This is so if a lot of film is assembled together. One is always seeing "clips" of film coining in from the Middle East in crisis and the Far East in crisis. These things must be joined together. The rhythm at which they are joined together is itself a comment. If you join them together phrenetically, then the event becomes phrenetic. If you join them together in long single shots, then the event takes on a different rhythm.
This is something which is not, I believe, played upon cynically by television people: it is simply an inherent difficulty which they face. Even the background against which they place a man can have an effect. How often has one seen a Minister of the Crown returning from some complicated negotiation abroad, able to say nothing at all, but prepared to make a statement saying something like: "Our discussions were of the greatest interest", and put a full stop after it! That simple and rather uninteresting statement, if it is taken on the airfield, with the clamorous silver shape

1329
of an airliner behind it, and with the wind blowing, somehow seems to have hope within it.
The same statement delivered in the glum little television room, with the little velvet curtain and the little wooden chair, gives the impression that somehow the news is so much worse, and the hope seems also unforeseeable. Yet it is the same statement. That statement written in The Times or in the Daily Express will look the same. One may bring with it a fancy for a certain newspaper, a prejudice against another. But it will remain the same and, as so many noble Lords have said, you can read it over; you can work on it yourself; you can read it to yourself. On television, even the news reader who reads the report of the statement gives it an emphasis of some sort. So I beg your Lordships to recognise that people working in television, by its very nature, find it more difficult to be impartial than those working on the newspapers.
The insidious dangers that the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, and the noble Lord, Lord Snow, mentioned, are in a way the most subtle. The most subtle and insidious thing for me in television—and I do not wish to be glum, because in a moment I will draw what I regard as a crumb of comfort from that as well—is that every personality and person on television is expected to be a first-class entertainer. Because this is so, only those who are first-class entertainers become regarded by the public as experts in their own field. You cannot be an expert on antiques now, you cannot be an archæologist, you certainly cannot be a politician, unless you are a television entertainer.
This element of entertainment which television imposes on us all is something which is dangerous because it upsets standards. The standards get confused. Yet I said that I could see a crumb of comfort in that, which is this: that just as it may distort standards, this habit of entertainment will raise immeasurably the level of education, because that is where the future of television can really open up. We have television to give us current affairs. That could be better. It could be wider, but we have it. Education is only beginning to open up, and I believe that the secret of education lies in
1330
entertainment. Everybody who suffered at school from subjects he could not learn looks back on a teacher who could not teach the subject to him. I define entertainment as the ability to draw an audience into another world, simply to make them forget the moment, and take part in what the entertainer presents to them, be it education, or the lightest and frothiest entertainment. If television teaches us that, then for all its drawbacks I think that the future of education, with the aid of television in this country, is one of the brightest things we can look forward to.
9.53 p.m.
LORD GRAY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selsdon, when he rose to speak, said that he was the last speaker before halfway. It seems that perhaps I am the last speaker before the commercial break. Two months ago this House discussed our physical environment. Perhaps the speech of my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley on that occasion was in part a trailer for this debate. In any event, our thanks are certainly due to her for to-day's opportunity to examine the other side of the environment coin.
I have listened to all but three and a half of the speeches that have been made to-day. Since my remarks are primarily directed towards radio and television, I could not help wondering why the debate did not range as far and wide over the possible field that it might have done.
Perhaps it has concentrated on radio and television not only because those two media in themselves in fact serve virtually all the others of significance, but because it marks a recognition of the extent to which in recent years they have achieved an immense degree of dominance in the media field and the power for good and, for that matter, the power for evil that they to-day represent.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley, I am a radio, as opposed to television, fan. Like her, I am particularly fond of Radio 4. But I am not this evening going to attempt to criticise or talk about any particular programme, and I will forgo the chance to throw the odd bouquet in the direction of my favourite commentators, announcers and comperes. Several noble

1331
Lords have touched on the question of bias. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, warned or urged us not to be too worried about this, but said there was no harm in speaking out on occasion. Perhaps he was thinking particularly of political bias. But during the debate to-day several noble Lords have touched upon the many ways in which bias of any sort can make itself shown other than in any overt form: through inflection, insinuation, choice of words, synonyms, adjectives and interview techniques.
There is no doubt that since "Auntie" raised her hemline a little, and let those who work for her have more freedom on the air, the opportunity for bias to intrude has increased. It is easy to overstate the case and, let us face it, there are few of us who would complain of a biased commentator at a football match or cricket match when he spoke in favour of our favourite team. But any bias that intrudes must be watched most carefully if the B.B.C., in particular, and Independent Television as well, are to continue to be in a real sense a trustee for the national interest—the words which I think first appeared in the Crawford Committee Report of 1926. Perhaps on occasion the B.B.C. in particular has been over-sensitive to criticism. I do not think they should mind when we hold up a mirror to their efforts to see how well they reflect our national life and what is happening around us.
The noble Lord, Lord Fulton, and the noble Lord, Lord Snow, in particular, went quite fully into the question of the effect of television on behaviour. After
1332
their contributions it would be impertinent of me to offer more than a very brief comment. To my mind it is not so much a question of good and bad presented to undiscerning viewers, and the consequent inability on their part to distinguish between the two. Much more real is the danger, especially among the young, of a conflict in their minds between fact and fiction. On this point I think that often the juxtaposition of a real event on the news and a similar fictitious event in the preceding or following programme not only trivialises the news itself but adds to the possibility of blurring the outlines between entertainment and news.
I should like to make just one other point, as briefly as I can. At a time when the speed of private communications, as opposed to the public and mass media communications about which we are speaking to-day, places a greater strain on the men in charge of national affairs and concerned with international affairs, one is only too often aware of how this is at times aggravated by what is said to and, in turn, put out by the media, and by television and radio in particular. Obviously, we cannot have censorship, but this afternoon noble Lords have spoken about the responsibility for sensible selection, and I think it is as well that those who have the management and particularly the production of our programmes should bear in mind the difficulties that can arise and can arise, too, from constantly pursuing persons engaged in negotiations—national, international, industrial, or whatever they are—for further comment, and perhaps only with the result of putting them into a more entrenched position and further away from the negotiating table.
10.3 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that a debate with 26 such varied and excellent speeches is not an easy one to reply to from either side, but the subject which has been opened for our discussion by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, demonstrates that within your Lordships' House there are those who have expertise in almost every field of public communications. It is indeed a subject on which I think most people feel that they have something to say, but the quality and range of the speeches to which we have listened really shows how much material there is which is of the greatest possible consequence for our public wellbeing. I apologise most sincerely to the very few speakers that I was not able to hear.
I am sure it is a great pleasure to all of us to have added to our counsels the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, whose maiden speech we listened to with great pleasure. It was a most thoughtful speech and I am sure that I speak for everyone on these Benches when I say that we hope very much to have many opportunities of hearing him again. Also, as someone who was for a brief time a member of the Foreign Office may I say how glad we are that someone who had so distinguished a father is here in this House.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, who said that we have all too little study and research on some of these subjects, and I think the debate we have had today, which has ranged so widely and has touched on so many topics, perhaps indicates that one should consider more carefully whether one ought to have, not—with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce—a Press Council for the other media, because I think one wants not something dealing with complaints, but possibly some better arrangements for the continuous study of the impact of the communications media on our public and intellectual life. I can see the difficulties of organising it, but I am sure we shall agree that whereas critics of music or drama in the newspapers have a reasonable scope—we have normally one or two, or at the most three, new plays in the theatre, and a limited number of concerts—with the great output of television and radio it is quite
1334
impossible for the newspaper critics to keep up. It seems to me that here we have a gap which somehow should be filled. That was one of the considerations which passed through my mind in listening to the speeches today.
I hope to deal with what seems to me to be the nub of the problems which face us in the field of mass media, but before doing so I should perhaps refer to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He has explained to me that a public engagement prevents his being here. I am sorry for that, because I should have liked to engage in face to face discussion with him on some of the things he said. I should have liked to discuss, among other things, his view of history, because in my opinion the great majority of people in this country, the working people at any rate, enjoy far greater freedom now than they did in the days to which he referred as the days of freedom. But I am afraid that the reports of this debate in the Press tomorrow will be largely concerned with Lord Eccles's comments on the undesirability of using public funds for certain types of entertainment of which, he said, a large number of people would disapprove.
I felt that in subsequent speeches my noble friend, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, and in particularly the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as Chairman of the Arts Council, put the matter in perhaps rather better perspective. I myself, at any rate, should be very sad indeed if the Government became directly involved in anything which one might call moral censorship in individual cases, provided, of course, that they are within the law. When I questioned him, Lord Eccles said that he would cross the bridge of possible Ministerial intervention only when he came to it. I hope that he will take Lord Goodman's excellent advice and beware of starting out on a road which might lead to that bridge; and after the speech that we heard from Lord Goodman I think that we can have every confidence that the Arts Council will be able to deal with the few instances in which this difficulty might arise.
I hope that the Arts Council, in reaching their judgments, will use esthetic standards, because, after all, sensation

1335
for the sake of sensation has no artistic value, any more than titillation for its own sake, or violence for its own sake, or sadism for its own sake has any artistic value. These do indeed corrupt. But I think one can apply proper ésthetic standards of judgment without involving anything which could be regarded as governmental, still less Ministerial, censorship. I was particularly glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, drew attention to other things which can in the minds of many of us be much more depraving: incitement to cruelty or prejudice is surely far more corrupting than occasional nudity. I hope that we shall get this matter in proportion.
Lord Eccles went on, very rightly, to stress that what we hope from all the media is that they should provide material of the highest standards for the public's enjoyment and consideration. He then spoke of this as an act of faith. But in my theology faith without works is not enough—I speak with due deference to the right reverend Prelate. What underlines a great deal of this debate, which has rightly been concerned mainly with quality, with moral values and with content, is, after all, questions of policy, organisation and finance. If we are concerned about quality and content, surely we should also ask ourselves: are the present arrangements conducive to quality, or do they tend to frustrate its attainment? If so, why? One would like very much to discuss the whole range. We have had references to-night, for example, to the theatre, by Lord Auckland and others who have shown their interest in and knowledge of this matter. I have some little knowledge of the cinematograph industry and should greatly like to say something about that, but I will resist the temptation to do so because I think that the real nub of the problem and of our debate has been television, radio and the Press.
One of the main suggestions that I wish to make to your Lordships is that one cannot isolate television and radio from one's concern for a healthy and independent newspaper Press. They are now quite inextricably mixed. There is an infinity of complexity in the financial interests and the ramifications, in the interlocking directorships, in the diversification of investments and so on. The
1336
fortune of the Press and of the printed word for the future seems to me to rest largely with the policy which we pursue in relation to the other two media. The fourth estate now covers the entire communications industry. Perhaps not sufficient attention has been paid to this aspect. I was, once upon a time, a journalist. In fact my Parliamentary career commenced in the corner of the Gallery above, when this Chamber was occupied by the Commons House of Parliament. It is partly for that reason that I was glad that several noble Lords, while expressing their interest and concern for television and radio, nevertheless insisted, as did my noble friend Lord Shepherd in the opening speech from these Benches, on the importance and the enduring value of the printed word. As the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, so rightly said, it helps us to resist the tyranny of the instant and of the visual.
It seems to me that one of the most important bastions of a healthy democracy is surely a flourishing Press, and that therefore one should look at all three of these main communications media together. I therefore hope that when the time comes for the kind of review which surely must be undertaken before the great watershed date of 1976, when the new franchises both for the B.B.C. and for commercial television have to come into effect, any such review will include the Press as well as radio and television. In saying this, I am well aware that the Government which preceded the present Administration and which set up the Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Annan, which Commission has now been abandoned, did not take this view. But it seems to me that it would be very wise to look at it most carefully.
It is unrealistic to consider only radio and television and not to look, at the same time, at the reactions on the Press, because all three rely very largely on advertising revenue. There is, after all, only a limited sum which is likely to be devoted to this purpose in the future. Commercial television takes roughly one-third of the amount spent on display advertising in this country. When it came about, the national Press felt a very cold draught, and if we are to have commercial sound radio there is every reason to sup-

1337
pose that the local Press will also feel the draught.
It is not enough to say, "Well, newspapers can invest in local sound radio, as many newspapers have invested in the I.T.V. programme companies," because that is simply on the principle of "To him that hath." A newspaper without vast resources—in other words, the one which needs resources most—is precisely the one which does not have capital to spare to lock up in other enterprises on any scale which will make a life or death difference to its own survival.
Therefore, if we believe that a flourishing and independent Press matters in our democratic society, we must turn our attention in a realistic way to this problem. As we all know, the television programme companies have not had life so easy in their second phase, but it is calculated that in the lush first phase, when they were "printing money," some £200 million was salted away in various diversifications. One cannot entirely blame them for that, because the period of franchise has been so short in relation to the expenditure which they have to undertake that one can perfectly understand their trying to insure themselves against future eventualities. But since then, as we also know, the Treasury has milked off considerable sums in the levy, which is, on revenue and not on profits and which, incidentally, has therefore been especially harsh on struggling new companies. I am thinking especially of Harlech Television, with which, as a Welsh person, I am concerned and which I think had a raw deal.
It has meant that because of the money going to the programme companies, the newspapers have been left to flounder. I am delighted to know that the Daily Mail continues to function, but one has only to look at the leading article in the Guardian this morning to see that optimism is not widespread. May I just quote:
"Half the national newspapers, as is well known, depend on support from their sister papers within their groups."
It then goes on to indicate some of those dependencies.
"Everyone is looking anxiously at his profit margins and survival capability, and the threat of commercial radio which Mr. Chataway is about to cast among us."
Even The Times is, so to speak, on supplementary benefit.
1338
If we try to face this problem radically and intelligently, I believe that we should consider the three media as really one, as one communication industry. I make a suggestion; and it is a personal suggestion, not a matter of official Party policy or anything of that kind. At one time I had considerable experience in the film industry, and there one has a most ingenious device whereby money is siphoned from one end of the industry to the other—from the exhibitor to the producer of films. This scheme, which was worked out by that most ingenious of Treasury officials, the late Sir Wilfrid Eady, for the application of what became known as the Eady levy, seems to me to offer a possible means of assisting newspapers.
Admittedly, the Treasury would have to forgo most of its remaining levy on the advertising revenue, but that could be siphoned into newspaper finances to replace some of the revenue which they have lost to commercial television. I entirely agree, as I am sure we all must, with my noble friend Lord Ardwick, that one must not have Government patronage of newspapers, which would obviously affect their independence. But the beauty of this type of levy, if one could work out a suitable scheme, is that there need be no Government intervention whatsoever. It could be done by an arrangement similar to, but obviously not identical with, the film levy. I believe that if it can be done for feature films, it is not beyond the wit of man to work out some such scheme to assist newspapers.
I believe that unless an attempt is made to work out some remedy of this kind we shall reach the position in this country where we are reduced to three or four very powerful men controlling all our major outlets of opinion with their various interlocking investments, and doing so not because they have anything to say, but simply as a commercial exercise. Therefore I implore the Government to look at this whole field as one, and to bring in the Press as well as the other two main media, television and radio. I beg them at least to consider whether there may be some method of sustaining the printed word and making it possible for the relatively few remaining newspapers which do not have vast capital resources from other fields of activity to subsist.

1339
Having said that, my Lords, I should like to refer in a few words to some of the underlying matters which are at the root of some of the criticisms that have been raised this evening. We have been told on all sides that the media are short of money. At the present moment that is certainly true, and it puts a very great strain on those who are trying to produce the best programmes. I do not mean to say that quality depends entirely on expenditure; this is not so. But it is very difficult for someone who is trying over a period to produce good and satisfying programmes if there are not sufficient resources, and if (this is particularly true of commercial television where, one of the objects of the exercise is to make a profit) the position is reached where one has the sort of comment that one had from Michael Peacock when he was still with London Television. He said:
We have got to a point where no one can take risks. Why should we spend half-a-million on a serial which may fail, when for peanuts we can buy a quiz from another company? A programme which gives you money in the bank is better than one which gives you a headache."
I do not think any of us can be happy if the various programme companies are in a situation where that is their guiding philosophy. Nor, I think, can we be entirely happy with the way in which programmes are networked, or with the way in which so many of them are slanted to the United States market rather than to the home market.
I do not have the experience of the I.T.A. which my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has, but it seemed to me that she was perhaps a little complacent, because I must say that I have read other accounts of the activity, or inactivity, of the Authority as it has been conducted in the past years. I know that we have a new man in charge there, in Brian Young, who has taken Sir Robert Fraser's place, but one used to hear the quip, "Is the I.T.A. a watchdog or a lapdog?" It has been suggested that such sanctions as it has had—I am not speaking of advertising but of the general programmes—are so extreme that, like the ultimate deterrent, they can hardly be used. I can only bow to those who have had greater experience than I have had in this field, but I know that among those who work in Independent
1340
Television there was a very considerable degree of dissatisfaction with the way in which the I.T.A. functioned. The converse, of course, was true of the B.B.C., where one used to have complaints of over-centralisation. One has heard a little less of that perhaps, in recent years, but I believe that we are still groping towards the ideal organisation in both these fields.
What has impressed me most, however, in looking into this matter in the last few days since I too was conscripted to speak in this debate, has been to find the acute anxiety and concern among so many of those working in the different media—and ultimately, after all, everything depends on the men and women with the creative ideas, and with the professional skill and talent to write, direct, produce and perform so as to convey the ideas to us, the public. My noble friend Lady Bacon referred to the group which calls itself the 76 Group. This is a group of men and women who are professionally employed creatively in the making of television programmes and who are united in their concern with the state of broadcasting and television in this country. Then we have another very interesting group, the Free Communications Group. These are people, mostly young people, who are also very much concerned with the health of the communications media in this country, and who feel strongly that they should have a greater say in the industry in which they not only make their livelihood but are trying to make their contribution to the intellectual resources of their generation.
On the trade union side, another very interesting phenomenon is that the A.C.T.T. (the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians) is itself undertaking and paying for a professional investigation into television and the quality of television, and into such matters as we have heard aired tonight in this House—suggestions of bias in presentation, and so on, both in the political and in the industrial fields. This investigation has not yet been concluded, but the fact that it has been undertaken shows that throughout the communications industry there is a surge of awareness and of concern about the quality, the future and the development of the media. This

1341
is something that I think we should welcome, and I hope very much that this debate tonight will be of some encouragement to these groups and to others in showing them that we take a very sincere interest, and an informed interest, in what they are trying to do.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to say that I have been surprised that only the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, I think, mentioned the tremendous technical developments which are at any rate within sight, in the whole field of videotape cassettes and the like. I know that there are technical problems which have yet to be solved and that the United States is further ahead than we are in the "hardware", to use the jargon. It is not yet known which particular type of equipment will prove to be the most satisfactory and economical. But when the technical problems have been solved we shall be faced with another revolution; because just as we now put records on a radiogram to have sound programmes of our choice, we shall in the future be able to plug in to the television set for the picture of our choice at any time we wish. There are plans for hiring these videotape cassettes. They will be much more expensive than a long-playing record, so far as we can tell; but this development means that there will be a vast new industry of home entertainment, education and so on of which as yet we have only the smallest conception.
I am specially encouraged in that this will lead not only to increased entertainment but also to a tremendous increase in educational possibilities of every kind. I am second to none in my enthusiasm for the Open University, but I do not delude myself into supposing that everyone in the country will be able to follow a full degree course. On the other hand, I am sure that with the extension of education and the raising of the schoolleaving age, when it comes, we shall have a tremendous public of men and women wanting additional education (and I use that term in its widest sense), men and women who want to increase their knowledge for a particular interest or hobby as well as for formal education. This is going to be a tremendous experience, and we are now only on the edge of it. We do not quite know when it will become a reality, but I hope very much that in any investigation which the Government
1342
propose we shall be able to take this into account. I believe that certainly well before 1976 this development will have become a reality. Therefore I repeat my plea to the Government that we must have some public investigation, but adding my hope that it will be a more broadly based one than we have had hitherto.
10.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this has been a very long and useful debate, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, will feel satisfied with the result of her initiative in putting down this Motion. We have heard from Bishops, from broadcasters, from novelists, from journalists, and from a film director and in almost all speeches there has been rather a philosophical outlook, a standing-back a little, thinking over and discussing the implications of what constitutes the most widespread and pervasive phenomenon of our times. As my noble friend the Paymaster General said in his thoughtful and significant opening speech, it is a difficult debate to conduct in any circumstances, but particularly, I am inclined to think that in a Parliamentary Assembly, because the pressure of events normally occupies so much of our time and attention, it is only too easy to get out of the habit of contemplation. But I believe strongly that your Lordships' House would be a poorer place if we did not always insist on making time for debates of this sort.
In opening the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, described how the mass media had developed. Other noble Lords taking part in the debate also described how they came to take on some of the characteristics that they now have. I was pleased that the noble Baroness and other speakers did not overlook the benefits that the mass media have brought with them. Because in our concern to draw attention to, and try to remedy, what we may dislike or consider to be bad it is understandable that we tend to overlook what is good and what is taken for granted.
Television in this country is a medium that provides a fairly cheap, very convenient and widely appreciated form of entertainment in millions of households.

1343
One of the most significant social statistics of the time must be that over 90 per cent. of households in Britain have a television set and that in these homes the set is switched on for more than four hours on average every day. Viewing television has become the most timeconsuming pastime, after work and sleep. As a source of information, broadcasting media and the Press must be somewhere near to a state of technical perfection. A bomb goes off late at night on a Minister's doorstep; every newspaper reader may read an account of it at breakfast the following day. A revolution takes place in Uganda; within hours there are profiles of leading personalities, there is interpretation, analysis and comment. Most remarkable of all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, reminded us, who could have foreseen even in his dreams, during all the thousands of years that man has gazed up at the night sky, wondering whether one day man might reach the moon that as it happened in 1969 an audience of 600 million people in 40 different countries throughout the world would be watching the first steps taken by man on the moon—live, with pictures and sound, by means of television.
My Lords, I must come back to earth and address myself to some more prosaic considerations. Like the noble Baroness, Lady White, I cannot hope to summarise all the points raised in this debate; still less to provide a whole list of definitive answers on behalf of the Government. There have been 27 speakers, in a debate lasting over seven hours. They included one maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, to whom I should like to pay tribute on his maiden speech. What I shall try to do is develop and give further information on one or two of the most significant themes that have emerged.
Let me first refer to what has been said by many noble Lords who spoke about violent scenes on television and the effects that these may have on those who watch them. In doing so, may I say that we might bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who drew attention to the need to avoid generalisations. Broadcasting attracts discussion in terms of generalities, and where there is information it is useful to bring it forward, discuss it and to
1344
keep it in our minds. Violence in society is commonly assumed to be growing, and a study of the criminal statistics gives little ground for optimism. The question, therefore, that naturally arises is whether the portrayal of violent scenes on television is, or could be, one of the causative factors. Those who fear that it is would point to three aspects. First, the violent programme as a pace-setter of standards of conduct—if it is all right on television, is it not also permissible in real life? Second, as a stimulant of violent emotions lying dormant; and third, as a kind of desensitising influence. Repeated exposure, so this line of argument runs, blunts awareness of the traumatic consequences of violent behaviour and so makes it more acceptable.
The Government recognise that the responsibility for maintaining a proper balance in this as in every other aspect of programme content rests with the governing boards of the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority appointed by the Government, and acting as trustees for the public. We must remember that if the broadcasting organisations are to be free from political control over programme content, there cannot be any exceptions, however well-intentioned. Yet the Government are very much concerned, as they must be, with deliquency and disorder, so clearly they must also concern themselves with their causes. For this reason, the Home Secretary, and his predecessor in the previous Administration, have met the Chairmen of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to discuss the subject. Three meetings have been held which provided a useful opportunity for Ministers to stress their concern at the possible adverse effects if there were excessive depiction of violence on television, and to discuss with the broadcasting organisations the steps that were being taken to guard against the dangers.
I shall refer in a moment to some research into the relationship between television viewing and delinquent behaviour, but despite the inconclusive nature of the findings so far, both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. consider that it would be irresponsible to assume that there are no dangers here. They accept that there is a responsibility, particularly to young viewers, to ensure that the people behind the programmes are and remain aware of and sensitive to the risks involved. Broadcasters agree that violence on television

1345
can be disturbing to children, and accept that it may in the short term provoke direct behavioural effects on maladjusted individuals. There are also a number of tragic instances—fortunately very few in number—where children have met disaster by imitating scenes on television, and where criminals have employed methods learned from watching television. In the longer term there is likely to be a cumulative effect, for good or ill, on the sort of society that evolves.
To safeguard the interests of children, both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. have specified viewing time up to 9 p.m. at night as family viewing time. After that they assume, not that children will not be watching, but that parents should take responsibility for what they watch. Yet, because of the world in which we live, there is no possibility, alas! of excluding violence from the screens altogether. Any television service which in its news reporting overlooked the wars, the riots, the crimes and the failures of mankind would do its viewers a great disservice. Moreover, it would not be believed: throughout the world newspaper readers and television viewers know that Vietnam, race riots and student unrest are part of reality.
At the same time there is a risk that the presence of television cameras may encourage disturbances on the spot, and that live coverage of demonstrations may encourage people to go out and join in. The broadcasting organisations are aware of these risks, as well as the difficulties inherent in news filming of situations of the kind described on the basis of his own experience by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. From my own knowledge in a previous capacity, I have great confidence in those on whose judgment the presentation of national and international news depends. In the field of news gathering and reportage there is little that can be done by way of formal rules and consultation. The ultimate safeguards lie in the quality of the men who exercise editorial control.
Where fictional broadcasts and drama programmes are concerned, there is more time and more formal procedures apply. Conflict, the clash of purposes and personalities, is and always has been a major element in drama. Sometimes it will take the form of physical violence—that is, conflict at the point when blows
1346
are exchanged or weapons used. Here the context in which violent scenes occur is all important, and the integrity of the writer and the artist must be balanced against the effect on the audience. This is recognised in the codes of practice that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have used for some years as guidance for producers on the portrayal of violence. The two codes are broadly similar, but there are certain conceptual differences between the two organisations in their methods of control. B.B.C. producers, as the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, a former Deputy Chairman of the B.B.C., reminded us in his speech, are members of a single hierarchy. They can be given direct instructions and can, and are, required to refer upwards in cases of doubt. Every individual is answerable to another, up to and including the Director-General, who is answerable to the Board of Governors.
In contrast, the I.T.A.'s control is based on its statutory obligation under the Television Act 1964 and is brought to bear on the programme companies who themselves are engaged in producing the programmes. The I.T.A., as has been brought out in the debate, can reject programmes, or accept them only subject to modification; but they cannot and do not give orders to the producers. The relationship in this field can never be an easy one, and the companies themselves have evolved varying forms of creative control.
This short description outlines the system adopted by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to ensure that certain standards are laid down and observed where violent scenes are planned as part of a programme or series. But it would be quite wrong to leave your Lordships with the impression that this is anything but a very difficult problem. As in all matters of censorship, a balance has to be struck between the desire of the artist (and I use the word to cover writers, producers and directors) to say what he wants to say and to present it to the public in the manner he wants to present it, with the obligation of the controlling organisation to interpret and apply what they take to be their responsibility to the public. In this connection, I am sure that there is a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said on the relative positions of the producer and the controller regarding what is and what is not broadcast, and I have no doubt that his remarks will be noted.

1347
I said earlier that we needed to know more about the relationship between television viewing and delinquent behaviour, and this is a subject that the Home Office has been interested in for some time. Various attempts have been made to test by research methods assertions that portrayals of violence on television, whether of reality or in fictional programmes, can contribute to violence in real life. Our conclusion is that clear evidence which would show whether or not concern on this score is justified is exceptionally hard to come by. Few would dispute that the content of television programmes may have different effects on different people, but if one wishes to test the hypothesis that television programmes contribute to delinquency, there are great problems in identifying and separating out the influence of television viewing from the many other factors that precede delinquent acts and may be relevant in explaining them.
Nevertheless, some worthwhile steps have been taken to explore this subject in a dispassionate and systematic way. When he was Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, established the Television Research Committee, a body appointed by the Home Secretary but financed largely by the I.T.A., which gave the Committee a grant of £250,000 spread over five years. The Committee were invited to initiate and coordinate research into the part which television plays, or could play, in influencing attitudes, and particularly the development of young people's moral concepts and attitudes. These broad terms of reference, taking the Committee well beyond the specific issue of delinquency, reflected the view of many social scientists that in order to shed light on the effects of television it would be necessary to study also wider questions about the impact of mass media in general. The most important of these was how fur the influence of the media depended on the content of what was broadcast or published, and how far on social or personal factors affecting the individual in his home or his environment who was exposed as part of that environment to television programmes.
The Committee reviewed the general state of research, initiated or supported a number of projects, and established a
1348
Centre for Mass Communication Research at Leicester University. Noble Lords who are interested in this subject will find a detailed list of the research in this field contained in the Committee's Second Progress Report and Recommendations, published in 1969. Some of the projects inspired by the Committee will not be completed for some time yet, and on some of these both the B.B.C. and a number of I.T.V. programme companies have co-operated with the director of the Centre, Professor Halloran, and his staff.
I want to refer, however, to one particular survey which is of a special relevance to issues concerning delinquency. This was contained in the Third Working Paper of the Committee which has been published under the title Television and Delinquency. This compared the use made of television by delinquents and non-delinquents and showed that both groups spent a similar amount of time watching television, but differed in their preferences for programmes and for media personalities. There was a greater tendency for delinquent boys to be attracted by the hero figures in television serials, and for delinquent girls to be attracted to personalities in the "pop" world. Delinquents differed from non-delinquents in talking less to friends and family about the content of the mass media. This may suggest a different response to television, and a different way of relating it to other experience. These results are no more than pointers to further research, rather than conclusions on which policies can be based but they illustrate the kind of basic information which needs to be obtained as a preliminary to understanding more about the effects of television. In their Second Progress Report the Committee made some detailed recommendations about the future management of research which will have been noted by, and I am sure will be very useful to, those who are concerned in this field.
The Report also called for finance to be made available for future research, both from Government and from other sources. As regards finance from public sources, I can say that the Social Science Research Council, with whom this and other recommendations in the Report have been discussed, have indicated that they accept the importance of mass communication research and will consider it

1349
on the same footing as other proposals for research in the social sciences subject to the demands on their budgetary resources.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred very briefly to some of the arguments which have been put forward in favour of a Broadcasting Council, perhaps something on the lines of the Press Council. I do not want to delay your Lordships now. It is an interesting suggestion; it is one that can certainly be debated. But I can tell her that my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, in line with decisions taken by previous Administrations, does not feel that a Council on these lines, which would tend to get in between broadcasting organisations and the public, would have a fruitful role to play in present conditions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, paid a tribute to the Chairman of the B.B.C. and to the Chairman of the I.T.A., both Members of your Lordships' House, and that is one we should all like to endorse. The noble Baroness asked me a whole list of questions about repeats of programmes, interviews, length of interviews in magazine programmes, the coverage of sport, possible alternation of coverage of major sporting events, network programme planning, ratings—all in a brisk, very competent and wellinformed round-up of the broadcast industry. It so happens that these are matters with which I have been personally very familiar in the past, but I will spare noble Lords from a further discussion of them this evening. Most are in any event outside the Ministerial responsibility of my right honourable friend. Nearly all of them are matters which he would regard as for the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to handle for themselves.
Nor do I want to say any more tonight about obscenity or pornography, or the exploitation of sex by the mass media, because these aspects of the debate were thoroughly dealt with by my noble friend Lord Eccles in his admirable opening speech. Both he and I have spoken about these profound social influences as members of the Government, but from the basis of our individual standpoints. From my own experience, working in television for 13 years, I know that
1350
Governments cannot wave a wand and say, "Let there be no more sex and violence on television." What matters most is the mood of the times, the tone and the extent to which it permeates the broadcasting organisations. The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will be the interpreters of that mood. But the Government, through their interplay with public opinion, can have a more direct impact. They can hold out a picture—an ideal, if you like—of the sort of society that can be developed in this country, coming to terms with technology, more certain in our relationships with others, more confident in our own self-justification as human beings. We intend to do so.
10.57 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, the hour is late, I have a duty to perform, and I will do so briefly but nevertheless sincerely. First, I should like to say how glad I am that the noble Lord. Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, chose this debate to make his maiden speech. I am glad, too, that we share our interest in foreign affairs, which we have both inherited from our fathers. Then I should like to say how much I appreciate the interest of the Front Bench in this debate. They have summed up so well that it has saved me any further trouble. I was especially interested in the Minister's reference to the research that is being made at the moment into delinquency.
May I thank all those who have taken part in this debate? I have learned a tremendous amount, and I hope that in the Press tomorrow we shall have some interesting comments en the very valuable contributions that have been made here today. I only wish sometimes that we had means of feeding not only the minds of the representatives of the Press in the Gallery but also their bodies on late nights like this. May I, therefore, with your permission, my Lords, withdraw my Motion for Papers, and wish you a very goodnight.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Second Report from the Select Committee: made, and to be printed.
  IMMIGRANTS: ADMISSION FOR SETTLEMENT
  IMMIGRANTS: ADMISSION FOR SETTLEMENT
  COMMONWEALTH SUBJECTS AND U.K. CITIZENSHIP
  COMMONWEALTH SUBJECTS AND U.K. CITIZENSHIP