Sitting of 4 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

    ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    Bills to be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Liskeard V.C. Junior School
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received from the Parent-Teacher Association and other organisations and individuals with regard to the replacement of the Liskeard V.C. Junior School.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My right hon. Friend has received about 50 letters from parents and others asking for the early replacement of this school.
    Mr. Hicks: Is the Minister aware that this school is one of about 170 primary schools in Cornwall which my right hon. Friend hopes to be able either to improve or to replace by 1978? Is he also aware
    1872
    that the initial allocation for 1972–73 of £230,000 represents a totally inadequate and most depressing start to the Cornish replacement programme, hence the concern of the parents in the Liskeard area?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am aware of the difficulties facing Cornwall in this respect, and I confirm the first figure given by my hon. Friend. I remind him that the £230,000 for primary school improvement projects authorised for 1972–73 is an increase from £85,000 in the previous year. I do not think that this is to be shrugged off as insignificant.

    Automobile and Vehicular Research (Cranfield Institute)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the £145,000 received in research grants and official contracts by the Cranfield Institute of Technology, Bedford, in 1969–70 was expended by the Institute on automobile and vehicular research; and what proportion will be so expended of the £210,000 estimated total in 1970–71.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Expenditure is expected to increase from £20,000 in 1969–70 to about £23,000 in 1970–71, representing nearly 14 per cent. and about 11 per cent. respectively of the sums quoted in the Question.
    Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but the drop in the proportion of funds expended on vehicular and motor research is of concern not merely to the Institute but to the public. The Institute is conducting valuable research for example into vehicle roll. Will the Minister agree that this is vitally important work and urge his colleagues in the Government to give further encouragement to it proportionately in the future budget?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about and interest in the special work at Cranfield and particularly in what is until April a separate entity, the Advanced School of Automobile Engineering. I hope that he will have noted the substantial funds additionally which are available in partnership with industry. I absolutely share his interest and concern in any research which contributes towards road safety.

    Primary Schools (Replacement or Improvement)
    and 4. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) by what date it is hoped to replace, or improve, all 19th century schools in Essex;
    (2) whether she will make a further statement about the improvement of primary schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): My policy is to secure that those 19th century primary schools for which there is a continuing need are replaced or improved as fast as resources allow. The 1972–73 programme already announced for this purpose represents a very good start.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Buckhurst Hill in my constituency is extremely well served in its primary school teachers and exceedingly ill served in its primary school buildings, and that the people of Buckhurst Hill were promised a new primary school before the Second World War? Will she bear these facts in mind as a stimulus to her efforts, which we all applaud, to improve primary schooling in this country?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I will, of course, bear in mind the facts put by my hon. Friend. In the meantime, I point out that we approved the improvement or replacement of all six nineteenth century primary schools proposed by Essex for the 1972–73 programme. If he wishes that school to be replaced, he should ask Essex to give it high priority in its programme.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will the right hon. Lady also look at the situation in Hertfordshire where the need is very great?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, and Cornwall and one or two other counties as well.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers went direct to employment as against full-time, further and higher education at the latest count; and if she will give separate percentages for independent schools, direct-grant schools and maintained schools.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The latest available information is given in Table A of "Statistics of Education, 1969, Volume 2".
    Mr. Armstrong: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures show a criminal waste of talent, in the sense that many children may be leaving school far to early and not going on to higher and further education'? Does it not make nonsense of repeated assertions by the Secretary of State about creating equality of opportunity when privileges are accorded to the favoured sectors of education, namely, the direct-grant and independent schools, and when the Government are giving them further resources at the expense of children who are condemned to spend the whole of their school careers in neighbourhood secondary modern schools?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I have studied the figures closely and have them with me. I know the hon. Gentleman's proper concern in this matter. I do not want to give any impression of complacency, but I am sure he will realise that the definition in the statistics omits anything other than full-time education. I am sure that he would want to join me in recognising the great part played by part-time further education. I have no complacency in my approach to this matter.

    Secondary School Children (Maintenance Grants)
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to ensure that maintenance grants are available for secondary school children to encourage staying on at school beyond the statutory leaving age; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: These grants are already available at the discretion of local education authorities.
    Mr. Armstrong: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that report after report indicates that far too many children are writing themselves off at an early age, and that some of this is due to the fact that parents cannot afford to keep their children at school? In view of the raising of the school-leaving age, would it not be sensible for her to bring the awards

    1875
    more into line with modern expenses and to make it mandatory upon local authorities so that children in every part of the country can have a semblance of equality of opportunity?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Naturally, we wish children who want to stay on at school after compulsory school-leaving age to be enabled to do so. This is the reason for the existence of these grants. We have recently sent round asking for more details of allowances from local education authorities so that we shall have the latest information available from which to fashion future policy.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Lady provide for mandatory grants not only for secondary school children but also for primary school children, to compensate for the vicious increases in school meal charges which, according to the Conservative Chairman of the Manchester Education Committee, will prevent 4,005 Manchester children from having school meals?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Question refers to education maintenance grants after compulsory school-leaving age.

    Student Grants
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on student grants.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Student grants are at present under review to determine the rates payable from 1st September, 1971. I do not expect to be ready to make a statement before April.
    Mr. Clark: Does the right hon. Lady realise that this problem is urgent and that many young people are suffering severely from inflation, which is increasing all the time? Will she issue a statement as soon as possible and stop prevaricating on this issue?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, three stages have to be gone through, as those who have written to hon. Members on this subject have pointed out. At the moment we are at stage two in deciding the total sum to be available, in consultation with local education authorities, and we are ready to listen to anybody who may make repre-
    1876
    sentations. There is then a third stage, after which I shall be able to make a statement.
    Mr. Maude: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when recasting the grant system that, apart from the need to bring student grants up to the purchasing power which they have now lost, the system of means-testing for parental contributions is very much out of date and that all the figures involved in it have now been rendered nonsensical by inflation?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We also have that point very much in mind and will be taking it into account with the students and other bodies in stage three. The way in which the students have conducted their case has been a model for all other groups.
    Mr. Molloy: Could not the right hon. Lady consider making an immediate award to try to restore some of the purchasing power of the grant, rather than let this matter await all the steps which she says have to be gone through, because students are finding the situation extremely difficult? Secondly, would she consider increasing the student lodging allowance since the situation in that respect is becoming very serious?
    Mrs. Thatcher: A proper procedure is laid down, which the students and everybody else are following. I believe that we must take it through to a conclusion.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: In considering further education, will my right hon. Friend look at the discretionary grants system with a view to producing some degree of uniformity in the standards of study which would justify a grant and in the situation as between local authorities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That matter does not come within these negotiations, but we have received representations on this point and are looking at it.

    Corsbie Hall School, Fife
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is aware that several local education authorities send mentally disturbed children to Corsbie Hall School in Fife, where the fees are £820 per child per annum; and what steps have been taken to ensure that accommodation and

    1877
    teaching standards at that school are adequate.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. Three local education authorities in England—Manchester, Bolton and Oldham—have received my approval to place children in this school. As the school is in Scotland, advice was sought from the inspectorate of the Scottish Education Department.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to information provided to me by the principal some weeks ago, a larger number of education authorities in England than those which she has mentioned send children to Corsbie Hall School? Is she satisfied that the Scottish Education Department is dealing with this problem with the expedition it seems to require, because I have not heard from them for weeks on this urgent matter? Does she recognise that it is an undesirable principle that this problem involving this kind of child should be dealt with by private enterprise?
    Mrs. Thatcher: On the first point, I have given the hon. Gentleman the accurate information which I have. If he has any other information to give me, naturally I will look at it. In regard to the second point, I am answerable for many things but not for the Scottish Education Department. However, I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to that Department's attention. On the third point, we try to make provision for extra schools for special education, but the demand is very great indeed.
    Mr. Hamilton: 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.

    Smoking by Schoolchildren
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of the rate of smoking tobacco by school children on school premises, since the publication of the recent report by the Royal College of Physcians, in preparation for her forthcoming booklet on the subject.
    Mrs. Thatcher: None, Sir.
    Mr. Deakins: Would the Minister not agree that smoking tobacco is at least as
    1878
    dangerous to health as some rather more notorious drugs we have been discussing recently, and should not the right hon. Lady be thinking seriously of tackling the problem of tobacco addiction by school children as a way of improving the health of the nation?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am a non-smoker, and in my present capacity I cannot set myself up as an authority on what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, a pamphlet will be put out later by my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security in connection with the anti-smoking campaign.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would she not concede that the most satisfactory impetus which she can give to a national campaign such as that launched by the new Association, A.S.H., would be by giving powerful support to the Private Member's Bill which has sponsors from all parties in the House and which, notwithstanding all vicissitudes, reaches its Committee stage on 17th March? Would she not agree that if she put behind that Bill her considerable weight and Ministerial stature that Measure would make good progress?
    Mrs. Thatcher: My observations lead me to believe that my weight is not as great as that of my hon. Friend.

    Dyslexia
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she is now taking to encourage local authorities to provide specialised help for dyslexic children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Since replying to the hon. Member's Questions on 17th February, I have received his letter dated 3rd March and am considering the views expressed.—[Vol. 811, c. 505–8.]
    Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the answers given by her Under-Secretary in response to Questions which I have tabled about these word-blind children are deplorable because they are evasive and inaccurate? What is more, they have distressed both parents and experts of the World Federation of Neurology. Does she accept that the lack of provision for these children is a cause for concern and that there is now a need for urgent action?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We try to be straightforward and accurate in the answers which we give. The answers to those 15 Questions were approved by me, naturally on the very best information and advice that we have available. Since then, the hon. Gentleman has let me have another lengthy letter in which he refers to a further letter written by a very distinguished medical person. If the hon. Gentleman will let me see the whole of that letter. I will consider the whole problem.

    Primary School Building, Derbyshire
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will allocate increased funds for the primary school building programme of Derbyshire for 1972–73.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend has been able to add a third school to Derbyshire's primary improvement programme for 1972–73, which now totals over £200,000 compared with £140,000 in 1971–72.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, bearing in mind that every little helps in this problem, he will appreciate that there was a very severe cut in the allocation for the 1971–72 programme and that, although this increase is welcome, it is to be hoped that he will do his utmost to increase the allocation for 1972–73, in view of the enormous amount of primary school rebuilding necessary in Derbyshire, where there are more than 180 schools which were built in Victorian times.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am aware of the general problem that my hon. Friend has set out and of the very powerful personal representations that he has been making. The 1973‴74 programme from the authority is now being considered. Of course I can give no undertaking, but I know that my right hon. Friend will bear closely in mind the arguments to which the House has just listened.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even this increased allocation, which I believe is about £50,000, merely brings up the sum for the replacement
    1880
    of primary schools to about £200,000, which is less than half of the last allocation made by the outgoing Labour Government?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentlemen is, helpfully, simply repeating the figures which I gave for the 1972–73 allocation. However, he is wrong. As I said earlier, it compares with £140,000 in 1971–72.
    Mr. Edward Short: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Derbyshire and other high-growth counties have considerable problems? Bedfordshire is another similar county, where the greater part of the building programme for many years has gone in providing basic needs—roofs over heads. There are new areas with very good schools, but there are old areas with old, outworn, decrepit schools. Will the hon. Gentleman see whether he can give further allocations to counties such as Derbyshire?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: There can be no further allocation in the programme for 1972–73. It would not be right to mislead the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else on that point. It is precisely the kind of argument which the right hon. Gentleman has adduced which leads to a very careful consideration of the proposals for 1973–74.

    University Students
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many university students in receipt of grant are not finishing their courses to degree standards; and how many other than medical students in receipt of grant are over the age of 24 years.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In the calendar year 1969, approximately 6,500 students studying for first degrees in the United Kingdom had not successfully completed their studies at university when their awards were terminated. The results of about another 1,000 award-holders were not known. Information on the second part of the Question is not available.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend agree that, although this is a small proportion, it is still much too high a figure and one which needs close investigation?

    1881
    On the second part of my Question, which my hon. Friend has not been able to answer, will he agree that it is wrong for this new trend towards a category of permanent student to be encouraged by grants? Will he institute with his right hon. Friend a close inquiry into the way in which student grants are being abused by people who appear to regard being at a university as some sort of career?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: If my hon. Friend has specific examples, I shall be glad to have them. However, it is not my experience that it is as easy as my hon. Friend suggests to remain what he calls a permanent student on a grant. We must keep this in perspective.
    On the first part of his Question, it is 13·5 per cent. of the total. It is one of the lowest in the world and is the envy of many other countries. Again, I do not want to breathe complacency into my answer, but it is only fair to the large number of people working very hard in our universities to put the matter in perspective.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the drop-out rate in many of our polytechnics is as high as 30 per cent., according to some figures published this week? In view of the fact that they appeared in reputable newspapers, they should be denied if they are not accurate. Clearly there is a higher drop-out rate in our polytechnics. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this aspect of the problem and try to discover the reason?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: We are dealing with figures, and I must be precise, The Question referred to universities. Without adopting the figure, which I also saw, I know that the hon. Gentleman will realise that a higher fall-out rate in an institution dealing with both degree and sub-degree work is to be expected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This would be a natural expectation. But I will look at at the figures, because we want no wastage of investment in people who, quite rightly, cost a great deal of money.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. In view of the seriousness of the situation, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Secondary School Reorganisation, Birmingham
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has had any consultations with the Birmingham Education Authority on the subject of secondary school reorganisaion.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir.
    Mr. Carter: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Birmingham education authority has recently been forced to withdraw what was probably the most regressive reorganisation scheme for secondary education issued anwyhere in the country? It received a complete lack of support from students, teachers, educationists and many other people involved in education. Will the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that in the City of Birmingham there is full consultation with everyone concerned before another system of reorganisation is produced?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Birmingham local education authority is well able to answer for itself. I am not directly, in that sense, responsible for it. I believe that one of the principal considerations in the mind of the authority has been the publication of proposals for local government reorganisation since it first tabled its proposals, and this is one of the primary reasons for its reconsideration. But I repeat that this is a matter for the authority.

    Mathematics Teaching Books
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will advise local education authorities that they should ensure that supplies of mathematics teaching books in schools are available with traditional measurements as well as the metric system so that future generations will be able to evaluate non-metric speed limit signs.
    Mrs. Thatcher: In 1969 the Department suggested to local education authorities that although pupils should become increasingly familiar with metric units they should retain an adequate knowledge of imperial measures for everyday needs. That advice still stands.
    Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many primary schools metric mathematics is the only form of mathematics now being taught? Is she further aware that parents, especially those in Harrow, feel that, until further discussions have taken place, it is wrong for their children not to be taught in the traditional way as well?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I was not aware of that fact. If my hon. Friend will let me have details, I will of course draw them to the attention of the local education authority, because this is directly contrary to the advice of the Department.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all modern cars have speedometers calibrated in miles and kilometres per hour and, therefore, that anyone should be able to convert without knowing the system or having to look at speed limit road signs?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House have listened to the hon. Gentleman's observations about the ease of conversion. I doubt whether every Member could do it. There will be a need to learn metric and Imperial units for some time to come.

    Further Education (Charges to Students)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has for increasing charges to students in further education establishments; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: A circular on tuition fees in further education establishments is shortly to be issued from the Department.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman now assure the House that there will be no increase in these fees, bearing in mind that in the main the students who take advantage of further education are a deprived section of the community? On that basis, will the hon. Gentleman also take into consideration that they are performing a very useful function in education? Will the Government now give us a straightforward answer and assure us that there is no possible chance of
    1884
    their interfering with this very useful provision?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I will give an absolutely straightforward answer: yes, there will be some increase according to the discretion of the local education authority concerned. That was clear from the moment of publication of the White Paper by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep the matter in perspective. Net expenditure—I am now talking about after fees have been paid—in 1972–73 will be running at £266 million. That is the background against which to set a request for savings amounting to £5 million.

    Museums and Galleries (Entrance Charges)
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the entrance tax to the national museums and galleries will be imposed; and when she intends to introduce legislation to enable the trustees of the British Museum and Natural History Museum to make a charge.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Government are not imposing a tax. They are asking the public who use them to pay a share of the cost of the services provided by the institutions. My noble Friend the Paymaster-General is not yet ready to make an announcement about the timing of any necessary legislation and of the introduction of charges.
    Mr. Strauss: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that in his speech on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill he said that enabling legislation to enable trustees of museums and galleries to impose these entrance charges
    "does not mean compulsory powers to force them to make charges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1434.]
    Does that mean that the Government will bring no pressure, financial or otherwise, on trustees to force them to impose these charges if they do not want to do so?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of those very wise words. They exactly state the position. The legislation will not force; it will enable.
    Miss Lestor: When I asked the hon. Gentleman about this matter on a previous occasion he said that there would be a statement on it. Will he now tell me what is the estimated administrative cost of imposing these charges and what the net yield will be?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Those matters will form part of the announcement which will be made by my noble Friend.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, now that some of the more hysterical arguments put forward by the no-charges lobby have abated and have been succeeded by a period of more reflective calm, there is a great deal of public support for the idea of imposing moderate charges for museums and galleries to enable resources to be devoted to worth-while objects, if the arrangements can be worked out?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the central argument has very largely got across. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that.

    Arts Council
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make it a condition of the Government grant to the Arts Council that plays put on by the subsidised theatres should take account of the moral susceptibilities of the public.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: As my noble Friend explained in another place, he is consulting the Arts Council on how the moral and religious feelings of the public can best be taken into account.
    Mr. Strauss: Does not the Paymaster-General's proposal mean selective application of censorship in the least appropriate area—the theatrical enterprises of high artistic standard and with experimental purpose? I remind the hon. Gentleman that the criteria laid down by the Paymaster-General—possible affront to some members of the public—were the exact criteria which impelled Lord Chamberlains in the past to ban plays which afterwards proved to be of high dramatic quality.
    Finally, may I ask whether the Paymaster-General is seeking by his action to impose indirect Government censorship on some theatrical enterprises,
    1886
    thereby circumventing the unanimous decision of both Houses of Parliament to abolish all theatrical censorship?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take that position. I should have thought that it was a broadly acceptable proposition that it is not reasonable for public money to be used to support those enterprises which are gravely offensive to the moral and religious susceptibilities of a large number of people. All the indications are that that has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that while most people in this country will undoubtedly support his attitude towards what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) described as "censorship by the Paymaster-General", they will take a very different attitude towards censorship by foreign Governments of exhibitions in this country financed by the Arts Council? Will my hon. Friend in future ensure that there is no subsidisation by the Arts Council of exhibitions which are subject to censorship by the Russian or other Governments?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I must make it clear that there was nothing in the general approach of my noble Friend which changed the relationship of the Arts Council to the Minister of the day. I must make it clear that decisions of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, however strongly he feels about them, are essentially those of the Arts Council. There is no disposition whatever on the part of my noble Friend to set himself up in the position of personal censor.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I believe that the Arts Council will refuse to implement the Paymaster-General's proposed censorship and that, as a member of that body, I shall encourage it to do so?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon Gentleman ought to know that I, too, am very well informed about precisely where the discussions have got to. I do not take the hon. Gentleman's gloomy view. But if the hon. Gentleman takes that view, he is saying that in the expenditure of public money in this respect there are no barriers at all and that absolutely anything goes.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the principles governing the nature of theatrical and other artistic productions that will be financed by Arts Council grants.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My noble Friend considers that the nature of artistic productions is a matter of good taste rather than of principles.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since my hon. Friend has made it clear that no regulation is to be carried out by the Minister but is to be carried out by the Arts Council, may I ask whether it is not essential now to know exactly what principles the Arts Council will apply and to have a clear statement of policy from the Minister about the views of the Arts Council, in view of the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I should think that this is not quite appropriate when there is the special relationship with which we are all familiar. My hon. Friend took a very distinguished part in the debate in question in which I recall that I used the analogy of the University Grants Committee. When we have a body of this kind, it is surely much more in accord with our general way of doing things that the Minister makes a general approach and sees what the response is. I should much prefer to leave it as a matter of good taste.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: May I ask the Minister to make a simple statement to the effect that the Government are against censorship of the arts—
    Mr. Orme: Of all censorship.
    Mr. Davidson: Censorship of freedom—and accept the proposition at least that it is the plays which challenge conventional ideas, which occasionally shock and sometimes outrage, which need subsidising, and that plays which are conventional—drawing-room comedies and "Who's for tennis"—are always put on by the commercial theatre anyway?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I gladly make the straightforward and simple statement that the Government are not in favour of censorship of the arts. But I must plainly differ from the hon. Gentleman, because I
    1888
    think that a very wide range of people have been gravely offended by the use of public money in some limited number of ways. I believe it to be part of the duty of Government to set standards in this kind of matter.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: For the better understanding of this rather difficult and delicate matter, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider asking the Arts Council whether, in its Annual Reports, which I read with great interest, it will include the titles of the productions and not merely the institutions in receipt of Arts Council money?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I will gladly see that my hon. Friend's suggestion is forwarded to the Arts Council.
    Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that the Government were guided by what was offensive to the majority of people. May I ask whether, if the hon. Gentleman equates that with not being in good taste, he intends to recommend that we now have a Minister of Taste?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Until now this matter has been dealt with in a pretty high and serious way. It is a perfectly reasonable attitude for the Government, by an approach to the responsible statutory body, to seek to ensure that public money is not used in a way which the Government are entitled to judge is gravely offensive to the religious and moral susceptibilities of a large number of people.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will introduce legislation to abolish the Arts Council and make grants on her own authority.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the form of my Question is the only way that I can find to press him to get the Council to increase the grant of the Royal Shakespeare Company, which is completing a notable decade of achievement and which cannot, because it is playing to capacity audiences, increase its revenue?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am used to my hon. Friend's ingenuity in getting his point across. I must make it clear that this

    1889
    is essentially a matter of priority decision by the Arts Council and not by my noble Friend, as I suspect he knows. But he would be well advised to make these views well understood in the Arts Council area. He moves with far greater authority than I do in artistic circles.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to protecting hon. Members from receiving line-by-line and blow-by-blow accounts of various plays which have been put on, sometimes under the auspices of the Arts Council, which many of us find very uncomfortable and—a noble Lady has been to one of them four times—rather disreputable?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not entirely certain that I have grasped the full significance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he has some specific matter in mind which falls within the responsibility of the Department, I will gladly look at it.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind and convey to the Arts Council the fact that I am much more in favour of the Royal Shakespeare Company having public money than I am of some of the performances which are put on at the Royal Court Theatre, which are certainly bad for children? I hope that that will be widely expressed in no uncertain terms to the Arts Council, because I am not at all satisfied about what it does.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that my hon. Friend's words will reach the Arts Council.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that complaints received by the Arts Council in respect of productions financed directly or indirectly by it have amounted to about six in the course of the year? Is he further aware that no one has named these unnamed plays, which exist apparently in people's own fevered imaginations? Is he further aware that the production to which my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) referred was not, in fact, supported by the Arts Council?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I gladly make it clear that we are dealing here only with a fringe matter. The hon. Member, who took part in the debate in question, will recall that I was at great pains to make
    1890
    that absolutely clear. I have total faith in the ability of the Arts Council and of my noble Friend to reach a very happy understanding in this matter.

    Non-Medical Use of Drugs
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she has had with women's voluntary services about guidance to parents of elementary schoolchildren on the non-medical use of drugs.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have had no direct discussions although I appreciate the initiative of the Women's Voluntary Service in making trained speakers available to talk to parents of young children.
    Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the initiative taken in this highly controversial field by Lady Reading represents by far the most promising approach made so far? Will she by every means encourage it from her Department and try to get other people to act in the same way?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I would certainly join my right hon. Friend in praising Lady Reading's initiative. I have not myself been able to attend one of the talks, but officers from the Department have been and have said that they thought that the talks made a very useful contribution to the spread of unsensational and accurate information on the subject of drug taking.

    Youth Service
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now publish a White Paper on the future of the Youth Service; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope to make a statement within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, but will she not understand that, among many of those carrying the main responsibility for the service, there is great anxiety to see a clear presentation of the Government's future strategy on this vital front?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I share the hon. Member's anxiety, and I hope that we are within sight of having a statement.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend look very sympathetically at

    1891
    the Young Volunteer Force, the task force working in London and the provinces, to see what she can do to encourage local authorities to help them?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have just appointed a new chairman of the Young Volunteer Force. I am sure that it will have an important part to play in the coming year.

    Higher Education (Rephasing)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will call a round table conference of academic, student, professional business and other representatives to discuss the rephasing of higher education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Consultation would clearly be necessary before any major changes were made in the pattern of higher education, but I have no present plans for a conference of the kind described by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Judd: Again I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Will she not agree that the major social problem in Britain at the moment is that many of those who go on to higher education and thence to positions of responsibility in society find increasing difficulty in communicating with the majority of the population upon whom they are dependent, and that if they were, for example, to have the opportunity of exposure to work before going on to higher education, by means of a job of some kind, much better use might be made of higher education and they might become much more useful leaders of society later?
    Mrs. Thatcher: A number of people who have a gap between school and university benefit even more from higher education than had that not been so. It would not be possible to legislate for this although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is advisable to have as many opportunities for experience between school and university as possible.
    Mr. Edward Short: When will the right hon. Lady be able to make a statement about the future development of higher education?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot give a specific date. The right hon. Gentleman will know, perhaps better than anyone else, what the timetable is with regard to the University Grants Committee. We are,
    1892
    of course, considering the problem of coordinating planning in relation to the polytechnics. He will also know that that is not an easy problem.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I told the House last Tuesday in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), I intend to do so at the meeting on 7th April.—[Vol. 812, c. 1397.]
    Mr. Barnett: Does that mean, taken together with the reported meeting with the T.U.C., that the Prime Minister is now recognising that there is a serious economic crisis and that he is prepared to consider a voluntary incomes policy? If he is going to do so, does he equally recognise that he vitally needs the support and co-operation of the T.U.C.? To get that, is he prepared to say now that he does not rule out the possibility of meaningful concessions in growth, unemployment and the Industrial Relations Bill?
    The Prime Minister: What it means is that the meeting of the Council on 7th April will be the first after my right hon. Friend's Budget and will therefore give the Council the opportunity of a wide-ranging discussion about all aspects of the economy. I therefore thought it appropriate to take the chair on that occasion. So far as the Trades Union Congress is concerned, I met the General Secretary in the autumn at my invitation. A fortnight ago, at the request of the Scottish T.U.C., I met its representatives. I stated in the wind-up to the debate on the economy and again in answer to Questions that I was always ready to meet members of the Trades Union Congress. Last night I received a letter from the General Secretary suggesting such a meeting. It has now been arranged to take place next Thursday afternoon, when I shall be able to listen to whatever views the Trades Union Congress likes to express to me.
    Mr. William Clark: Would my right hon. Friend, either before or immediately after the next "Neddy" meeting,

    1893
    give consideration to speaking to the nation so as to counter the many misrepresentations of Tory policy which the Opposition are putting out and which are being reflected in some Press articles and television broadcasts?
    The Prime Minister: It will naturally be possible for me to express the Government's views to the C.B.I. next Monday and the T.U.C. on Thursday of next week. It will also be an occasion on which, I think, the public can be informed further of the Government's views.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the news that he will meet the T.U.C. outside the N.E.D.C. will be met with widespread satisfaction? Is he aware that there is a feeling that inflation and the lack of expansion is a national matter and that the possible settlement of the Post Office strike seems a very good opportunity for him to get together with the T.U.C. and others concerned to see how this very grave matter can be tackled jointly?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that next Monday, for the C.B.I., and next Thursday, for the T.U.C., will be very opportune occasions on which to discuss economic affairs in general.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: As, clearly, yesterday's meeting of "Neddy" felt some considerable disquiet about the prospect for industrial investment, would the Prime Minister tell us how he sees this prospect, which now looks as if it has deteriorated considerably from the decline, unusual though that is, predicted in the Government's own survey?
    The Prime Minister: I should not like to give the right hon. Gentleman a particular forecast now. I do not think that this is the moment when I should do so, though obviously the question of investment will be one of the major items to be discussed with both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.

    OLDHAM
    Mr. Lamondasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Oldham.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Lamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in South-East Lancashire many towns, including Oldham, which have contributed considerably to the well-being of this country but which are now slowly bleeding to death due to increasing unemployment, mounting redundancies, low wages and, most important of all, the continual loss of young people? Do not these facts demonstrate clearly that massive assistance is needed to enable this area of the country to become rejuvenated?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join with the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to what has been achieved in his constituency and in the North-West in our industrial history. It is true that the Hunt Committee recommended that his constituency should have intermediate area status, but this was rejected by the last Administration and we do not see any reason to review that decision at present. If one takes the North-West as a whole, outside the areas which are especially assisted, unemployment is significantly below the national average.

    MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the establishment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the educational, health and other problems of mentally handicapped and socially disturbed children.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government are already taking action to improve the relevant services, and additional expenditure has been allocated for the purpose over the next four years. I do not see the need for any further inquiry.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because this problem tends to be swept under the carpet by far too many local and health authorities, it should be enumerated and measured as quickly as possible? Is he aware that there is apparently no machinery for doing this and that a lot of this work is left to private enterprise, as I pointed out earlier in Question No.8 to the Secretary of State for Education and Science? May

    1895
    we have an assurance that sufficient money will be available to enable authorities to tackle the problem and that it will not be left to private fee-paying schools?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman no doubt knows that responsibility for mentally handicapped children will be transferred from health to education authorities on 1st April under the rearrangement of the machinery of government which I made last autumn. As for resources, it has been announced that an additional £110 million will be spent over the next four years on the health and welfare services, and part of that will go—
    Mr. Hamilton: How much of it?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give the exact details off the cuff. If the hon. Member cares to table a Question to my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will be given the specific details. Part of the money will be spent on the children about whom the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned.
    Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has a point when he says that we have not sufficiently quantified this problem? While there are always objections to the establishment of a Royal Commission, is he aware that, in the view of some of us, there is urgent need to discover the area and extent of what to many people is an increasingly disturbing social problem?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider the particular point raised by my right hon. Friend on the need for further knowledge of the exact numbers involved. As far as organisations are concerned, we possess the necessary information. We have had the Seebohm Report and action taken about this both at the centre and in local government, as well as the Report which has been made on "Living with Handicap", which is concerned with methods of looking after these children. If it is a question of quantification, then I am prepared to look at the matter to see what further can be done.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise with his right hon. Friend the now urgent need to provide
    1896
    for the special educational requirements of deaf and blind autistic and dyslectic children as envisaged in the new legislation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will make a further detailed statement of policy this spring about services for the mentally-handicapped, and I will ask him to make a point of dealing with this particular problem.

    GERMANY (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to Germany.
    The Prime Minister: I am paying an official visit to Germany at the invitation of the Federal Chancellor from 21st to 24th March. I shall also spend a day in Berlin.
    Mr. Marten: If by chance during the course of that meeting the question of the Common Market should be raised, will the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear to the Germans that any increase above 3 per cent. in our initial contribution to the Community budget would be regarded as a bit of a defeat, particularly in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very tough speech last month at the Mansion House?
    The Prime Minister: I think it not unlikely that a considerable amount of time will be devoted to discussing the E.E.C., and I will have the opportunity of explaining in detail to the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic our attitude about the financial arrangements and how we have come to the proposals which we have put to the Community.
    Mr. Thorpe: Since the whole House feels regard and affection for the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), would the Prime Minister consider taking him on his visit and making him an honorary P.P.S. for the occasion so that he may see at first hand something of the economic growth in Germany, and the high wages and greater social security benefits that are being paid? We may then at least be able to relieve the hon. Member for Banbury of some of the

    1897
    nightmares from which he obviously suffers.
    The Prime Minister: While my affection for my hon. Friend is at least equally deep, I know from experience that he is adept at finding out information for himself. However, I am sure that he will have taken the right hon. Gentleman's words to heart and will spend a great deal of time in Europe.

    RETIREMENT PENSIONERS
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received to date from retirement pensioners about the Government's economic and social policies; and what replies he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: It is not possible to identify how many of my correspondents are pensioners. The replies sent to letters about pensioners set out the various ways in which the Government are helping or propose to help them.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Prime Minister accept my warm congratulations on his commitment to creating in Britain one nation? Will he tell ungrateful pensioners who may not appreciate the munificence of the Government that that commitment is to one nation in two parts, the first part comprised of those who can stand on their own two feet and the second of those who cannot?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot, I regret, accept the thesis put forward by the hon. Gentleman. What divides the nation is when one section is determined to pursue its own interests regardless of the interests of others—[Interruption.]
    Mr. William Hamilton: Look behind you.
    The Prime Minister: —and perhaps those who are putting in inflationary wage demands, incited by hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.]—will bear this
    in mind. When we are asking the community to provide, through taxation, for the improvement of benefits to those who are less fortunate, which is the policy which we have been pursuing, that is not divisive. It is the real meaning of community and one nation.
    Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for
    1898
    Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that those who cannot stand on their own feet are not helped by mutilating the feet of those who can?
    The Prime Minister: Another way of putting it was eloquently stated by the late Sir Winston Churchill when he said that one cannot help the weak by weakening the strong.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: After all these cliché—[Interruption.]—will the right hon. Gentleman now turn to words of his own, which he did not intend as a cliché, when he spoke in Leicester during the election about the effect of rising prices on old-age pensioners? In view of his responsibility for rising prices over the last nine months—[Interruption.]—which are now rising far faster than at any time in recent history—by abolishing the Prices and Incomes Board, the Consumer Council and by encouraging private enterprise to put up prices, will he say, in the light of that, whether he is fulfilling the pledge which he gave at Leicester?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have learned from his own bitter experience in office that the Prices and Incomes Board and the Consumer Council were not able to influence prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, they were not. There is no evidence at all that they were able to influence prices. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman ever have the machinery for the detailed control of prices. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman is largely responsible for the fact that the inflationary wage demands which he himself stoked up during his last nine months in office have led to the rising prices which we have been experiencing since.
    Our task has been to slow the rate of inflation down, and we can take some encouragement from the fact that awards of wage increases are no longer escalating at the rate they were under the right hon. Gentleman's Government but are stabilising, and there are some signs of their now coming down.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 8TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill.
Motion on the Provision of Milk and Meals (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Standing Orders (Revision).
TUESDAY, 9TH MARCH—Remaining stages of the Industry Bill and of the Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 10TH MARCH—Remaining stages of the Highways Bill and of the Fire Precautions Bill.
THURSDAY, 11TH MARCH—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: Army Estimates, 1971–72, Vote A.
Motion on the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order.
FRIDAY, 12TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 15TH MARCH—Industrial Relations Bill: Report stage (1st Allotted Day).
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the concern both in the House and far more widely about the statements made by members of the Government regarding Rolls-Royce, which are widely regarded as having, whether intentionally or not—in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should say unintentionally—misled the House. [Interruption.] The House has, nevertheless, been misled. Will the Leader of the House undertake therefore to lay on the Table all the communications made by Ministers in their discussions with the City and with Rolls-Royce, all the statements made in the House by them and the private corrections of those statements made in letters to hon. Members which they then refused to make public in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Business question."] I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do this next week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Will the Leader of the House undertake to do that, and, further, since it is clear that—[HON. MEM-
1900
BERS: "Too long."] It will be longer still on Rolls-Royce if we do not get the truth from the Government.
Further, as a Board of Trade inquiry, which can inquire only into the actions of the company, is inadequate, will the Leader of the House move, as part of next week's business, to set up, a Select Committee to inquire into all the actions of the Government in relation to Rolls-Royce?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that premise on which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition bases his question. I cannot accept the proposition for placing all these documents before the House, as he suggests; nor have I anything to add on the question of a Select Committee to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier on. What I can tell the House is that the Government will publish a White Paper on Rolls-Royce. Its timing and content will, naturally, depend upon the course of the current negotiations.
Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week I asked him to flush out the usual channels with a view to arranging that the Writs for five outstanding by-elections should be moved at an early date? Does he recall, also, that the silly suggestion was made that this could not be done because of the postal strike? As the postal strike is now coming to an end, may we be assured that these seats will not be left empty for up to nine months, as was the poor habit of the former Government?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recall my hon. Friend's question last week. I recall, also, the answer which I then gave him, that, in common with my predecessors and Leader of the House, I have no responsibility in this matter.
Mr. Thorpe: With regard to Monday's business on the Immigration Bill, although we know that the Government are in some difficulty with their timetable, will the Leader of the House take it that there is opposition to the concept of taking the Committee stage in Standing Committee and that we shall wish to refer to that on Monday? Even if the Government will not change their mind about that—many of us hope that they will—will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be an announcement on Monday to the effect that the

1901
Standing Committee will be large enough to ensure that all the different points of view in the House are adequately expressed and represented?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the Government's programme, which I can prove to be incorrect. I have nothing to add to what I said about a Standing Committee in my answers last week. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if it is decided by the House that the Bill should go to a Standing Committee, it will certainly be a large Committee.
Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend keep under active review the possibility of finding time for a debate on the Little-wood Report?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate my hon. Friend's close concern on those matters and the importance of the question which he has put to me. I cannot offer time in the immediate future.
Mr. Carter: Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate next week on the subject of the bankruptcy of the Vehicle and General Assurance Company, so that, among other things. we could discuss whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry still supports the view, expressed to me in a letter last July by the President of the Board of Trade, that he would use his statutory powers to safeguard the interests of policy-holders?
Mr. Whitelaw: I could not promise time for a debate next week. What I can do is assure the hon. Gentleman that, as he has already made clear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is closely looking into all the questions concerning this matter.
Sir G. de Freitas: Last week, the Leader of the House encouraged us to study the Report of the Royal Commission on Pollution. Now that many of us have completed our study, may we be told that he will find time for a debate in the next month or so?
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman puts a fair and reasonable question, but "the next month or so" is a rather elastic phrase. I cannot give a promise for such a debate, but I shall keep the matter under consideration.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill is to be taken, especially as we have been assured that there is to be a Ministerial statement made at the same time on the future of that industry?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say at this stage when it will be taken.
Mr. Kaufman: Does the Order to be debated on Monday night relate to the increase in the cost of school meals? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman take it that the people of Manchester will regard as thoroughly unsatisfactory a debate lasting only one and a half hours on a Measure which is preventing 4,000 children in Manchester from continuing with school meals?
Mr. Whitelaw: Basically, the answer is that the Motion is a Prayer and that under our Standing Orders Prayers are allotted one and a half hours.
Dame Irene Ward: Reverting to the Shipbuilding Industry Bill tease, we keep being told that it is imminent or that it is about to be introduced, but for the Chamber of Shipping as well as for the shipbuilders it is most important that the Bill should be introduced without much further delay. Will my right hon. Friend persuade whoever he has got to persuade that those who are interested in this matter would like the Bill without further delay?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the important point which my hon. Friend raises.
Mr. Lawson: Does the Leader of the House intend next week to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and, if not, why not?
Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir, Scottish Members seem to be fully engaged on legislation upstairs.
Mr. James Johnson: When can the right hon. Gentleman find 1½ hours to debate the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme, 1970? Has he solved his domestic imbroglio with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who seems to be in purdah on this matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I responded correctly, as the House thought,

1903
last week, when I said that a Motion relating to a Scheme which had been objected to by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments was to be withdrawn from the House. My right hon. Friend decided that it was right to withdraw the Motion, and did so. I think that in answer to Questions he has said that he will consider a further Scheme and make a statement on it as soon as possible.
Mr. Dell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement next week about the Government's intervention in the Harland and Wolff situation? Is he aware that a statement was made yesterday by way of Written Answer, and that it is totally unsatisfactory that this further departure from Government policy should be presented to the House in a way which prevents hon. Members from questioning the Secretary of State?
Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that this is basically a matter for the Northern Ireland Government. But I shall call my right hon. Friend's attention to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Ginsburg: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on defence and research and the Government's observations thereon, which were published in the last Parliament and have still not been debated?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future. I note the importance of the subject, and I will certainly look into the matter for the future thereafter.
Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us more encouraging information about the prospects of asking the House to implement the long overdue, 3½-year-old Select Committee on Privileges Report, which he has told us over and over again he hopes to bring before the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any encouraging news as to exactly when that will be done. The previous Government took some time in considering it. I do not rival them yet, but I accept that I am beginning to do
1904
so. However, I still hope to do this in the near future.
Mr. Stallard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread public interest in the findings of the Committee that reported on the working of the Rent Act, the Francis Committee? When can the report be debated?
Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement on the matter next week.
Mr. William Rodgers: I welcome the promise of a White Paper on Rolls-Royce, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many matters on which we want replies which do not involve negotiations about the RB211? Will he therefore note that it would be quite unsatisfactory to sterilise debate on the matter in the House until the White Paper is published if it is not published next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: There is no question of the announcement of a White Paper sterilising debate or Questions in the House. I was simply making clear, in answer to the Motion put down and the request from the Leader of the Opposition, the Government's intention to publish a White Paper. I can go no further than that today.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what does sterilise debate and meaningful questions is obscurantism about the facts in this case and the successive contradictions of the Minister responsible in the House and outside? Is he aware that all of us agree that while negotiations are going on with Lockheed nothing should be published in a White Paper which makes those all-important negotiations more difficult? But in so far as there were negotiations with Rolls-Royce and the City, the merchant banks, the Bank of England and others, surely he will agree that a White Paper on those documents could be issued without in any way prejudicing the negotiations?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have promised a White Paper on the Rolls-Royce position, and I shall stand by that promise.
Hon. Members: When?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say when it will be published. I made it clear that the timing and content will naturally depend on the course of current negotiations, and I do not necessarily mean only the negotiations with Lockheed. There are other negotiations in this situation, and all of them must be taken into account in the timing and content of the White Paper.
Mrs. Renée Short: In view of the decline in house-building all over the country and the serious position in the construction industry, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that after the Secretary of State for the Environment has made his statement about the Francis Committee next week there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the general housing situation as soon as possible?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Lady's premise. I have promised that a statement will be made by my right hon. Friend on the Francis Committee next week. I cannot say when an opportunity for a wider debate will be found.
Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern in the steel constituencies about the absence of any Government statement on the future of the steel industry? As there is concern and there are rumours about possible sackings and discharges, will he represent to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that it would be very welcome if next week, or as soon as possible thereafter, he could give us an indication of the Government's policy on the future of the industry?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will naturally call my right hon. Friend's attention to what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should move on.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I am glad to be able to inform the House that in discussions which continued at my Department until early this morning agreement was reached between representatives of
1906
the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office on a basis for resolving the dispute.
The executive council of the union unanimously agreed to recommend the union's members to accept the terms of the agreement and to return to work and is taking immediate steps to conduct a ballot for this purpose.
The agreement provides, subject to a return to work, that the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office will set up a Committee to settle the dispute, consisting of a chairman, mutually agreeable to both sides, with a nominee of the union and a nominee of the Post Office. My Department has been asked to provide the secretariat. The Committee will have the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into the circumstances of the dispute between the Post Office and the U.P.W. arising out of the U.P.W.'s claim for pay increases and shortening of incremental scales. The inquiry to include the financial situation of the P.O., its utilisation of manpower and the present relationship between the P.O. on the one hand and the U.P.W. and its membership on the other.
To assess the arguments advanced by both sides, to hear witnesses and finally to make recommendations for a settlement of the dispute. The parties agree to accept these recommendations."
In the event of a disagreement between members of the Committee on a recommendation, the recommendation will be made by the chairman.
The Committe will report to the Post Office and the Union of Post Office Workers and the report will be published.
I am hopeful that we can look forward to an early return to normal working in the Post Office and an end of this strike which has caused grave damage to both Post Office and union and serious inconvenience to the public.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side welcome the fact that at long last a Committee of Inquiry is to be set up into the postal workers' grievances? Is he aware that we particularly welcome the far-reaching terms of reference, covering all aspects of the Post Office's finances and manpower management, and the decision, to which he did not refere but which is an essential part of the settlement, to start talks urgently between the Corporation and all the unions concerned into the pay

1907
principles which should operate in the Corporation?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House one adequate reason why a similar Committee of Inquiry was not set up two weeks or more ago, when it was being pressed from this side of the House as the only basis for a solution of the problem?
Mr. Carr: I will deal first with the middle point put by the right hon. Lady. I only gave the terms of reference of the Committee. I naturally agree with her that an important part of the document to which the two sides agreed yesterday is that, separately from the Committee, the Post Office will invite, as a matter of urgency, the U.P.W. and the other union concerned into discussions with a view to reaching agreement on a basis for determining pay in future. I welcome that. It is a very good follow-up from the Committee.
I turn now to the right hon. Lady's first and third points in her question. There really is a distinct difference between the Committee which has been set up and a Committee of Inquiry, which is traditional and for which she has asked in the past. I believe that this new Committee, with its particular terms of reference, is almost a new device in industrial relations—and if I may I would like to call it a "Committee of Settlement". There are distinct differences. The right hon. Lady asked why we did not have this before, and the answer is simple. It was not possible to have it before, because, quite apart from the reason I gave to the House last week and on other occasions—the parties at no time asked for it—the essential thing is that the new Committee has terms of reference which involve the advance willingness of the parties to bind themselves to the Committee's recommendations.
Another essential difference between this Committee and a Committee of Inquiry is that the parties have given to the chairman of the Committee the right to make recommendations which are binding on them in the event of any disagreement within the Committee. Also, of course, the whole thing is dependent upon a return to work. These are vital differences from a court of inquiry.
Mrs. Castle: I agree that this is a new type of inquiry and it is certainly different from the normal type of arbitration, which was refused. The important element which helped to lead to a settlement was the wide-ranging nature of the terms of reference and also the procedure which is to be adopted, under which both sides will have a chance not only to call witnesses but to cross-examine each other's witnesses. The point I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is why some such similar proposal at least could not have been offered before to the union either by the Post Office or by the Government.
Mr. Carr: This, of course, must remain a matter of opinion and of my knowledge as a result of my long discussions with both parties. I can only assure the House that in my view, however regretfully, we could not have got this sort of Committee any earlier than we did.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Contrary to what the right hon. Lady has said, is my right hon. Friend aware that opinion outside will overwhelmingly feel that the country is much indebted to him for the speed, tact and sense of timing with which he has handled this most difficult situation?
Mr. Carr: I thank my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, judging from the reaction of the thousands of postal workers demonstrating at Hyde Park this morning, we might well be in a situation where there is some way to go before we see an end to the dispute? My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has drawn attention to the important element of determination of pay principles. Will he draw the attention of the Committee of Settlement to the need for urgency to deal with this point and to produce a form of machinery to replace the old Civil Service Pay Research Unit?
Mr. Carr: The Committee of Settlement is the parties' own committee and they are free to bring before it what they wish or do not wish.
Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman did nothing, then, did he?
Mr. Carr: The other important matter to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) referred—the inquiry into the whole question of pay settlements in the Post Office—is, of course, a matter which the parties themselves have agreed to proceed with outside the Committee, one of the main reasons being that other unions are involved. It is therefore outside the new Committee, and what goes to the Committee is a matter for the parties concerned.
It is, of course, true that the strike is not yet over. The establishment of the new Committee and the rest are subject to a return to work. I hope, however, that the House will realise two things. This settlement received the unanimous recommendation of the executive committee of the union to back it, and the decision will be taken not by voices at a rally but by a branch-by-branch ballot.
Mr. John Page: Is not the proposed method of settlement just another form of arbitration?
Mr. Carr: The proposed Committee of Settlement has two features to it. The first feature is no doubt very similar to arbitration in that it will take place while work is going on, the recommendations are accepted in advance by the parties as being binding on them, and the chairman has the right to make recommendations if there is disagreement in the Committee. These are typical of arbitration. What are not typical of the normal arbitration boards are the wider terms of reference and certain parts of the procedure. This is important to the union, and this is why I am loosely calling the new Committee a new name—Committee of Settlement.
Mr. Thorpe: Leaving aside the past and not wishing at this stage to dissect the details, many of us will welcome the setting up of the Committee, wish it well, hope that it will get down to work immediately and, having said that, enough said.
Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the right hon. Member. Perhaps this gives me the opportunity to say that I think a great deal is owned to the persistence and good will of the parties during the very long discussions yesterday in what were not easy negotiations but were always carried out with persistence, determination and good will. Perhaps the House will not
1910
think it out of place if I pay tribute, which I know the two parties did, to the very skilled services of some of my senior officials.
Mr. Michael Shaw: Could my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Committee of Settlement will begin its deliberations whether or not there is an early return to work by the Post Office workers?
Mr. Carr: Both parties agreed that the implementation of the settlement and the working of the Committee were dependent on a return to work.
Mr. Bidwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, despite its length and magnitude, the strike has retained a remarkable degree of public sympathy and support? Does not he further agree that none of us in the future has the right to assume that, notwithstanding the inflationary situation, the members of the public are not prepared to pay decent wages to postal workers or to remove the antiquated salary scale which afflicts many of them?
Mr. Carr: I would be unwise to comment on salary scales and so on which have been at the heart of the dispute and which are now to be considered by the Committee.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The whole House will agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about his own officials. Indeed, some of us would have hoped that their services might have been invoked a little earlier in the dispute. [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what we said about even the present vulnerable situation and the need for a return to work means that we should all of us do better not to go further into the present situation in order to allow the parties to do what they can to get the new Committee at work for the future, with its very welcome terms of reference?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he recognises—[Interruption.]—as some hon. Members behind him do not, the very serious situation shown by the rally this morning? The issue has to be decided, as he says, by ballot. Is the situation shown by the rally not a tribute to the courage shown by Mr. Tom Jackson and others in putting the proposal before their members?
Mr. Carr: I certainly reiterate the tribute I paid to both parties and specify quite happily and fully the part which Mr. Tom Jackson has played as the general secretary of this union. As to the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I can only say that I am glad he associated himself with the tributes to the work of my officials, but I think it a pity he made the other remark. [Interruption.] He has a perfect right to make it, but I think it a pity that he did so. I think he has forgotten that the officials to whom he rightly paid tribute, as well as myself—and I do not expect him to pay tribute to me—were involved on ay occasions starting on the day before the strike ever began.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT (ROSKILL COMMISSION REPORT)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move the Motion, I would tell the House that between 40 and 50 hon. and right hon. Members have indicated that they want to speak. I would ask hon. Members on the back benches to be as brief as possible. I would also like to say this to the Front Bench speakers. In the two-day debate on defence Front Bench speakers took 5 hours out of the 12 available. It may have been necessary. Yesterday, if one includes the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Front Bench speakers took nearly two-thirds of the 6 hours available. Today is a Motion only to take note and I hope that those who speak from the Front Benches will have regard to this.
4.0 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Roskill Commission on the Third London Airport.
In commenting upon your very sound and sensible remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the last time that I opened a debate I was criticised by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman for having spoken too shortly.
I begin by expressing my very real admiration of Mr. Justice Roskill and his team for the quick, clear and decisive way in which they tackled this formidable problem. May 1 remind the House who they were—a professor of transport, a partner in a firm of consulting engineers, a principal planning inspector from the Department of the Environment, the professor of aircraft design from the Cranfield Institute of Technology, the deputy chairman of Courtaulds, a professor of economics at the University of London—all sitting under the chairmanship of a High Court judge.
This reminds the House of the quality of those selected for this task by the previous Government. It is worth noting that the average attendance at all meetings was 94 per cent. This and the very full opportunity provided for public criticism and comment show only too clearly the dedication of the team to the difficult task it was given. They were all very busy people.

1913
Their report shows clearly that they recognised that the conclusion to which their work seemed to them to lead would not be a popular one. Everyone concerned, I am sure, hoped that their conclusion, when it came, would be acceptable to the vast majority of people. If this does not appear to be so today, I hope that they may draw some comfort from one of my hon. Friends who said to me that the fact that he totally rejected their conclusion did not in any way diminish his admiration for the way in which they had done their work and presented their report. The Government decided that they must give Members of both Houses a chance to study the report and then to have a full debate about it. Neither I nor any of my colleagues concerned with this problem have made up our minds. We want to listen to the voices and have time to study any new points which may emerge.
We in this House have had the opportunity of listening to or reading the reports of the debate in another place, and I thought it would help the House if I concentrated on the civil aviation problems which have been thrown up in the debate while leaving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with the cost-benefit analysis arguments and those matters falling within the planning and environmental areas.
First and foremost, this is a human problem, not only because it is primarily with passenger traffic that we are concerned, but especially because one of the most important of all the factors we have to consider is the impact of noise from modern aircraft on the community. This is not only a question of the areas which will be affected by the new aircraft, but also of the noise levels round existing airports, at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted.
In the last nine months the volume of correspondence and the number of meetings in the Department of Trade and Industry has left no Minister in any doubt about this. The choice and timing of a new airport is closely linked in my mind with a sincere wish to provide some alleviation to people in these areas at the earliest practicable time.
I might at this point mention that the noise impact must be considered not only in relation to people living in the nearby vicinity of the airport, but also in relation to people who live at some distance from
1914
it but who are over-flown by aircraft which have not achieved a height sufficient for their noise to be dissipated. It is these reasons, as well as the others in the report, which compel me at this stage to question seriously the possibility of doing without a third London airport. In this I am comforted by the unanimous view of the Roskill Commission.
Secondly, there are the economic factors. Tourism is a vital British industry, inwards for so many foreigners who flock in increasing numbers to enjoy the skill of our forebears in preserving the best of our past in architecture, history and tradition, and outwards with the increasing millions of British people who seek holidays and relaxation in sometimes hotter or sunnier parts of the world. The great majority of our business men who maintain the vast trade of the country do so by air and we export, as the House knows, four times as high a proportion of our manufactured goods as does the U.S.A.
The net balance of receipts from our air services alone is £38 million a year. Each of these facts makes it unthinkable that we should as a nation decide to put the clock back and cut our use of air travel as a matter of policy. "Stop the world, I want to get off" is as impossible for a modern industrial nation as for the passenger on a B.O.A.C. flight half-way across the Atlantic.
Mr. John Hall rose—
Mr. Noble: Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to carry on so that I may be as brief as possible. On the economic side, it is right to give very serious thought to the viability of the new airport as an investment. If the final site, wherever it may be, has some disadvantages, the greatest effort must be made to overcome these, not only for the comfort of the passengers but for the acceptability that will flow from this for both airlines and airport.
I now come to the interesting possibilities which can be injected into the problem of the third London airport by the development possibilities of STOL or VTOL aircraft. Let me say straight away that a myth is growing that there has been a new or dramatic change in this direction since the Roskill Commission was set up. There has, I believe, been none. The

1915
Roskill Commission was given every piece of information available to the Ministries concerned and in addition it received evidence from the manufacturers. Military fixed-wing VTOL aircraft are already in existence and many hon. Members will have seen the Harrier in action for some time at the Farnborough Air Show. While it is hard to foretell the future most experts believe that the development of VTOL for civilian purposes is likely to take longer than STOL. It is therefore mainly with STOL aircraft that the case has been put forward, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick in another place, for very serious consideration as to whether a third London airport is really necessary.
Enough studies have been made of this type of aircraft to show the potential it could have to solve a number of the problems which face civil aviation. The shorter runway needed, the possibility of quieter engines, the better noise shadow are all attractive features. Whatever decision may be taken on the third London airport, it is important for these studies to be continued with vigour. We do not know, and at this stage can only make "guesstimates" of, the cost of such a project, the price of the aircraft, or the operating costs, all of which would be critical for the airlines which would be the purchasers. We can continue to study the air traffic control problems, which do not at this stage look too difficult, and the other operating problems which could be involved in what would be a new system of air transport. All these important studies can and should continue.
We must realise, however, that these aircraft would be relatively small—probably 100-seat aircraft—and probably short-haul aircraft. To a considerable extent, therefore, they may tend to create traffic rather than replace the larger wide-bodied aircraft.
Whatever the outcome of these aircraft and their development over the next decade, it would, in my view, be most dangerous to gamble that they can alter the situation before 1985. I accept that it is far less risky to believe that they may make a very distinct difference by the decade after that. Therefore, such developments could mean that not all the four runways which the Roskill Commission was asked, in its terms of
1916
reference, to study would prove necessary. This is an interesting field for speculation. It is, however, speculation and it would be difficult to justify picking a site which could not satisfactorily be developed to provide four runways simply in the hope that things would change so as to make no more than two runways necessary.
It is right to consider the second part of this argument. It is said that STOL makes the building of a new London airport unnecessary. It is suggested that by a combination of a new runway at Gatwick, possibly a change of use at Stansted, increasing use of Luton, the bringing in of a STOL runway at Heathrow and the development of the airport at Lydd, or elsewhere on the coast, the situation could be held until the date when STOL was ready for full operation. It is argued that this would save the cost of the third London airport.
But all these costs at Gatwick and elsewhere need to be studied, and they will not be inconsiderable. These proposals, even if they should in the end prove attractive, would entail greater noise than otherwise at the existing airports. All in all, we would be taking a considerable gamble on the success of a quite new type of aircraft which seems likely to be able to serve only a limited part of the market. In my present state of knowledge. I do not regard the V/STOL and the third London airport as rivals. I believe that they are complementary and that both may be needed for the future of civil aviation.
A fair weight of argument has taken place about the journey times to or from the various sites. This can be psychologically important, but I urge the House not to be blinded by these times alone. Many hon. Members will have wasted hours circling over Kennedy Airport and very many minutes being held in the stack over other busy airports. It is the door-to-door time which is the most important factor and not the time spent in the air and on the ground at either end of the journey.
If that is the critical factor, both the success of air traffic control systems and the new development perhaps of faster trains could have a most important bearing. I hope, however, that Members will not make the error of believing that the

1917
speed of trains is the whole answer, as the frequency of the service is equally critical for door-to-door times. We are living in an age of very rapid technological change, but so far no modern airport has been able to rely wholly on rail services.
There are those who have regretted that the Roskill Commission was not asked to study a national airport plan rather than, in its terms of reference,
"an airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area".
To such people I simply say this: in practice it would have made very little difference. I know that there are suspicions about the exact way in which some of these questionnaires are put and answered, but the inescapable fact remains that all the serious airport congestion is in serving the London area. Although the demand in the North and Midlands may well increase in the next decade, so will demand in the South-East, although perhaps less fast, and 50 per cent. of the travellers to London Airport are from overseas who like to start their tours from and, after I hope a good tour round Britain, generally finish them at London. No juggling with the figures will, I suspect, do more than alter the emphasis at the margin.
The House from time to time has had reason to be sceptical about estimates of growth of demand in various fields, but it is noticeable that all our experience shows that in the passenger traffic field they have been consistently underestimated.
There are two other purely civil aviation matters which I should perhaps mention—the possibility of quieter engines for the next generation of aircraft, and the question of freight. Air freight is increasingly a subject which adds to the pressure on airports just as it becomes a more acceptable method of moving goods for export of high value or special importance. Thirteen per cent. of our exports by value leave the country by air. It is tempting to suggest that all freight should leave the country from airfields elsewhere than in London in order to help relieve the pressure, but 40 per cent. of the freight passing through London airports is currently carried in passenger aircraft. This enables the airlines to provide a more frequent freight service and to more destinations.
1918
A lot is being done on quieter engines. The 747 is noticeably quieter than the 707 and helps in reducing the number of aircraft needed to carry a given traffic of passengers. But, with all that can practicably be done, I see no alleviation in the next five to 10 years. I read the speech of the noble Lord Lord Kings Norton in the other place. He has a great knowledge of these affairs, but he said that the big change in quieter engines would come in the next two decades.
I have tried to be reasonably brief and, without bias in any of the four directions, to set out some of the considerations which any thoughtful person must balance. I hope that in this way I shall have helped the debate. Let us not forget that the four sites finally chosen by the Roskill Commission were chosen after carefully studying a total of 80. Each Member may have his views, but each of the sites has come through numerous very careful processes of sifting. It is for the Government to make the final decision which, if any, will be selected. We shall listen with the greatest care to the arguments put forward as the investment needed is no small matter and the effect on many thousands of people will inevitably depend on our decision. This is no light task.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: The Minister for Trade has set the House an excellent example by speaking briefly and I shall do my best to follow it, not only because of what you, Mr. Speaker, said, but for another very important reason. The first debate on this matter took place in another place. I counted the speeches made during the two-day debate in another place last week and they came to nearly 40. It would be a great pity if the Commons was not able to make an almost equal contribution.
The Minister said—and, for once, no one could criticise him—that the Government have pointed out that they will listen to debate. Therefore, I take no exception to the emptiness of his speech, although I shall take some exception to what he said about whether we must find a site capable of development to four runways. My own belief is that the argument so

1919
far has been about the wrong issue, namely, Cublington versus Foulness. I shall come presently to what I think is the right issue. Before I do that, however, I must pay tribute to Sir Eustace Roskill and the members of his Commission, and certainly not a merely ritual tribute. They have done a most remarkable job of analysis and they have been extremely unfairly criticised, especially by many, including some eminent men who should have known better, who rushed into print before they had any chance of reading the report at all.
At the most negative, the fact of the Roskill Report has helped to save us from having a four-runway airport at Stansted, which would probably now be in about its third year of construction. Apart from anything else, the spending of £1,500,000 on Roskill was worthwhile in order to save a faulty investment of £300 million at Stansted.
In more positive terms, they have made what Professor Peter Hall, in New Society, called, and rightly called
"… a heroic attempt to extend the field of rational, balanced socio-economic inquiry"
into a wholly new sphere.
They have for the first time brought to bear the full range of environmental as well as economic arguments on a major investment decision, and they have provided infinitely more systematic evidence on which to base an airport decision than has ever been provided at any time in any country in the world.
It is wholly untrue, as some people have suggested, that they have ignored the non-economic arguments or that they have based their entire conclusions on a dubious cost-benefit analysis. Page after page of the report deals with noise, regional planning and environmental factors, and no one who has read the Report can possibly make this criticism. Moreover, on a minor point, the Commission has done a service to the country by establishing a precedent of being the first Royal Commission which did not believe what it was initially told by the Ministry of Defence. It treated the Ministry of Defence evidence—which weighed heavily, as I know, having been President of the Board of Trade at the time of the previous Government's decision—with a great deal of scepticism and in
1920
the end forced the Ministry of Defence to come to a different view.
Whether one agrees with the Commission's conclusions or not, the Chairman and members of the Commission deserve our profound thanks.
Having said that, I have a central criticism, but it is not the popular one that they should have chosen Foulness rather than Cublington; it is that they took the problem in the wrong order and discussed the choice of sites before they discussed the timing of the need. I quote the critical sentence from the Commission's Report, chapter 5, paragraph 2:
"… we initially concentrated our resources on the selection of the short list and only subsequently did we start detailed work on the timing of the need."
This is shown in the fact that Chapter 4, the selection of the short list, comes before and not after the chapter on the timing of the need. This was the central error that the Commission made. Its significant is immense. Here I dissent from the right hon. Gentleman. Since it had not queried the timing of the need, it automatically assumed that there was a need for a four-runway airport in the South-East and it confined its search to sites that would accommodate four runways. If, on the other hand, it had started with the timing of the need, it might well have concluded that no foreseeable need for a four-runway airport existed and it might have looked for other sites which would have been suitable for a comparatively small airport but not suitable for a four-runway airport. The whole position would then have looked totally different. The regional planning argument, the size of the airport city, the surface access model—which has been so much criticised—and the noise contours would all have looked quite different.
I should like to say a brief word on the terms of reference, if the House will forgive me, for I was heavily involved with the setting-up of the Commission. It may be that the terms of reference were at fault, as has been suggested. If that is the case, I accept my full share of blame. Certainly, we considered those terms of reference in more detail and at greater length than terms of reference of any previous Royal Commission have even been considered. As hon. Members

1921
will know, this was not a party or governmental matter. Some hon. Members will remember that we had most helpful discussions with the then Opposition, with Lord Dilhorne, who was most helpful in the whole matter, with the present Home Secretary, the present Minister of Aviation Supply, the present Lord President of the Council and others. It is fair to say—I am not trying to avoid blame, if there is blame—that the terms of reference were fully agreed at the end of the day with the then Opposition. But, though agreed, they may well have been wrong. So it is worth looking back to see what the terms said. Incidentally, it is a curiosity, as was mentioned in the other place, that this is the first Royal Commission ever not to print the terms of reference on page 1 of its Report. I quote the terms of reference:
"The Government will set up a non-statutory Commission with the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into the timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area, to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 38.]
Probably, being wise after the event, it was a mistake to refer to a four-runway airport, although we did this in good faith and with good motive, because at that time almost all expert opinion was stressing the urgency of the need and assumed that there was a need for a four-runway airport.
There was also another reason, of wanting to be honest from the start and avoid the situation which has arisen more than once before with existing airports, of starting off with what is stated to be a limited size airport which then begins surreptitiously to grow to an infinitely larger size. I was anxious to avoid any charge of bad faith if the chosen airport later became a four-runway airport whereas it started out as a single-runway one.
But even so, "the timing of the need" was the first phrase in the terms of reference, and if there was any doubt that the terms of reference were flexible, I should have thought that it was finally dissipated by an answer which I gave on the same day to the then hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, Mr. Frank
1922
Hooley, who lost his seat, when he asked me
"Will the terms of reference entirely exclude the possibility of siting the airport outside the South-East, since it could gravely aggravate the congestion which it is designed to relieve?"
I replied:
"No, Sir, they do not entirely exclude that. It would be open to the Commission to say that there was no need for a third airport, or that it should be indefinitely postponed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 37-8.]
To be fair, I went on to say that this would be unlikely in practice because most people thought that there would be a need.
But I should have thought, nevertheless, with no disrespect to Sir Eustace Roskill, that it was perfectly open to him on those terms of reference, as explained in my subsequent answer to the Question, and indeed, it would have been very natural, to start by examining when, if at all, we needed a four-runway airport.
So far from having started with this central question, the Commission never demonstrated the need at all for four runways and did not demonstrate the need even for a three-runway airport. This seems to be by far the most important fact about the Report, although obviously it was not intended to be so so far as the Commission was concerned. This negative fact emerges most clearly in Appendix 20 on page 244 in the table at the top of the page which shows that a third runway, on the Commission's best traffic forecast, would not even be completed at any of the four sites until 1995 and that a fourth runway would not be completed until 2002 on three of the four sites and at Foulness it could not put a date on it at all.
Forecasts of what may happen at such far-off dates as the turn of the century, as the Commission says in another context, are meaningless because of the difficulties of prediction. It is quite fanciful to try to predict the need for conventional runways in 1996 or 2002. We do not know how we shall be travelling by then, by STOL, VTOL, whether we shall have fewer and larger aircraft, completely new forms of train transport and the rest. We have no idea what the regional arguments will be, whether we need three or four-runway airports at the turn of the

1923
century, or whether they should be in the South-East or in a totally different part of the country.
If the worst comes to the worst—this is my major disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman—which I find very hard to envisage, and we need four conventional runways in the South-East some time in the 21st century, then the greatest risk we should cause by not building them now and not choosing a site which would allow four runways would be that when that need arose, instead of having a single four-runway airport, we should have to have two airports of two runways each. No doubt this is less economical from the point of view of the airlines, but surely it is infinitely better than closing all the other options now open to us.
I therefore conclude—this is the crux of my argument—that no case has been made out for a new four-runway third airport, though certainly a definite case has been made out for some additional capacity in the South-East by the early or the middle 1980s.
If this additional capacity need not take the form of a four-runway airport but something altogether more modest, two new options open out which were not discussed in the report but which I hope are being urgently considered by the Government. The first option, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is that of having no third London airport at all—that is, that we hold on until the middle 1980s when the development, we hope, of STOL and quieter engines will revolutionise the position and remove the need for a third conventional airport altogether. This was the case, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that was most powerfully argued in another place by Lord Beswick and Lord Kings Norton, and it is probably the option which is preferred by most of the airlines.
We should have to assume a more intensive use at all the existing South-East airports. This would involve Heathrow expanding its growth up to capacity. It would involve at Gatwick possibly a second runway but certainly computerised air traffic control.—[Interruption.]—Not necessarily. The figures can be argued that way, but I will concede that it would probably mean a second runway. It would involve at Luton a new taxiway.
1924
It would involve at Stansted the movement of most of the non-air traffic movements to another airport and a great expansion of air traffic movements. It would involve the continued use of Southend. It would involve a positive effort to divert London traffic to airports outside the South-East, most obviously Birmingham and Manchester.
It implies that advanced passenger trains in the future will cut into London-Glasgow air traffic in the same way as the existing Inter-City trains have already cut into the London-Manchester air traffic. In particular, as the Minister for Trade rightly said, it assumes that we put an intensive effort into the development of STOL which would need far shorter runways and would create a noise disturbance over only about one-twentieth the area of even the quietest existing conventional aircraft.
In other words, the view is that we would avoid the need for more conventional runways up until the middle 1980s by diversion of traffic and the more intensive use of existing airports. And we would avoid the need for conventional runways after the middle 1980s by the development of STOL. This is an option which in logic has much to recommend it. It would avoid the need for a brand-new airport in some hitherto peaceful and undisturbed site. It would be less damaging on balance environmentally, except for the noise factor, to which I will return. It has attractions from the regional planning point of view. It is interesting to note that this possibility was urged on Roskill by the Town and Country Planning Association, although the association appears to have subsequently changed its mind.
This is much the least costly solution and it cannot be wholly ruled out in terms that it is wrong on the likely traffic forecasts. After all, Roskill has already postponed the date when we need the first runway from 1974, as it used to be, to 1980. Adding to that a second runway at Gatwick, it could be postponed to 1982.
Mr. Peter Masefield, in his evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, went even further and said:
"we have figures which show that with a second runway at Gatwick, with more use of Stansted in the existing runway and not going to any expansion of Stansted but just

1925
using what there is to much more near its capacity and with further use of Luton and Southend we could probably get by on a middle estimate of traffic growth up to about 1985."
So this option cannot be ruled out as impracticable on air traffic forecast grounds.
Nevertheless, having, like other hon. Members, considered this with—I hope—extreme care, I believe that at the end of the day we must reject this solution, unless there is some very rapid and unforeseeable technological change in the prospects for STOL or quieter engines.
Incidentally, I might just mention while I am on this that I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) should go to the trouble of tabling a Motion criticising me for having accepted this solution when I made an extremely careful Press statement saying that I thought it was not acceptable unless there was some great technological development of the kind which we cannot foresee. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion is wholly inaccurate.
There are two reasons for rejecting this option. The first is noise. I believe that noise more and more is the crucial issue in this whole argument, although I am very sorry that Lord Sandford, the Government spokesman in another place, put the matter in a very misleading way; because he gave the impression that a decision in favour of a third London Airport now would bring immediate relief to Heathrow, Luton and the other places, whereas it would do no such thing. It would give no relief until the first new runway was built, which, if the Government accept the Roskill date, will be 1980. Therefore, it is quite misleading to say that we must have it to give immediate relief to Heathrow sufferers.
Nevertheless, whatever the date is, at some point a new airport would give substantial relief. The relief is possible; the relief is desperately urgent, in my view; and the relief must be given.
I think that noise is increasingly becoming the critical pollution issue. I think that it will be between now and the end of the century. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said
1926
this in its recent Report: "As for noise", which was not in its terms of reference—
"large numbers of the British public have reached the limits of their tolerance, and demand that they should be protected from this sort of disturbance, especially noise from aircraft and traffic."
I believe that, if anything, that is an understatement. It will certainly be considered to be an understatement by the present victims of Heathrow—700,000 families, as we are constantly and rightly told—at Gatwick and at Luton where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) keeps on reminding me, the problem is getting worse and worse at a steady pace.
I therefore believe that we cannot accept the no third London airport solution, which threatens more noise than would otherwise be the case at existing airports. We must stick to a solution which brings the earliest practicable relief.
There is another reason for rejecting this option, which I will not go into in detail. It is that it is, in my view, imprudent planning. We cannot rule it out in terms of the traffic forecasts, but it would be an imprudent piece of planning, because all the assumptions that it makes are optimistic assumptions, and not all these optimistic assumptions may turn out to be right. We could find ourselves dangerously up against airport capacity in the South-East by the early 1980s.
This solution rests on an optimistic assumption about how much we can divert to regional airports. This is always a popular thing to say in the South—"Let us divert it all up to the North and the Midlands". However, as the right hon. Gentleman said, 80 per cent. of traffic at London Airport either has an origin or a destination in the South-East. Peter Masefield put the matter very vividly the other, day when he said:
"London is the honeypot of all the things that count".
That is true. Business traffic, tourism, Government traffic and the rest—overwhelmingly the demand is for South-East capacity.
We must face the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the short-term growth of air traffic is in the South-East. The rest of the growth is fragmented over the whole of the remainder of the country. It is so

1927
fragmented and so spread that it is not large enough, apart from Prestwick and Manchester, to command a reasonable frequency of international services. Of course, Manchester, Prestwick and Birmingham expanding and will expand and should expand, though Manchester, interestingly enough, is expanding more slowly than any of the London airports. But we cannot expect a degree of diversion of traffic to non-South-East airports which would obviate the need for new capacity in the South-East by the middle 1980s. Incidentally, if we did we would create a worse noise problem than by any other solution, because virtually every airport outside the South-East is much worse situated from a noise point of view than any of the four Roskill sites.
Mr. John Tilney: It is not true of Liverpool, where the broad band of the estuary goes both sides of the airport.
Mr. Crosland: I accept that fact, but Speke at Liverpool fundamentally proves my point. Here is an airport with an excellent runway, first-class airport services and no traffic. Liverpool Speke fundamentally shows the difficulty that any Government have in diverting airlines to a place to which they do not want to go. Roskill was very good on this argument. An airport must be viable if it is to work as an airport.
The non-third London airport solution is optimistic in terms of possible diversion of air traffic, and it is also probably optimistic about STOL. I am certain that this will come, and that when it comes it will revolutionise our entire airport needs. I listened with pleasure to the confident statements made in another place by Lord Beswick and Lord Kings Norton and I accept that there have been rapid developments in the last four years. I accept that seven years ago nobody could tell that the jumbo jets would come as rapidly as they did. But if we are to base our decision on that, we must be certain that by the middle 1980s STOL will be taking up almost the whole increase in traffic. That is a lot to be certain of if we base our essential investment decisions on this assumption.
There is room for debate about the likely timing and the likely viability of STOL. At one extreme many people
1928
think that the Commission was too pessimistic about it, but at the other extreme we have to be very optimistic and very certain to think that STOL can obviate the need for more conventional capacity, even with peak pricing, which is one of the most important factors in this situation.
This line of argument against a third London airport has been useful and has shown that we have a little more time and a little more leeway for coming to the right decision. It points to the urgent need for us as a nation to back the development of STOL but, at the end of the day, I believe the solution is not the right one, partly on grounds of noise, because it offers no early practical relief at the existing airports, and partly on grounds of imprudent planning, in that at worst it could mean a possible total snarl-up in the early 1980s, and at least it would mean that we would be constantly up against the limits of capacity with no reserve or bolt-hole of capacity available to us.
So I come to the second option, which is the one I strongly believe in. That is, a new one to two runway airport which need not necessarily be on any of the Roskill sites.
I will say one word about the criteria for choosing a site. The Roskill Report has given us invaluable help in suggesting the right criteria by which to decide the site. But it showed a rather excessive solicitude for the needs and convenience of air travellers as opposed to the needs and convenience of those who are on the ground. As part of this they gave excessive weight to the factor of business time when costing surface access to the airport. On the other hand, many of the Commission's critics have shown even worse indifference to some of the immensely powerful arguments in the Report.
If this option is accepted, the first question to ask is, does this new, smaller airport have to be in the South-East at all? For the reason I have already given, that the short-term problem is the growth of the South-Eastern traffic, I believe that it has to be in the South-East, otherwise the airlines simply will not use it. We already have Manchester with some spare capacity, Liverpool Speke with a great deal of spare capacity, and other provincial airports, including Elmden, which are capable of growth.

1929
If on top of this spare capacity we were to build a brand new airport on a virgin site—at Severnside or Thorn Waste—the airlines would not use it. There would be no sufficient build-up of frequencies, and without that the airport would never attract the inter-line traffic essential for the development of a viable airport. In other words, in the foreseeable future the whole thing would be an appalling waste of money and turn out to be a white elephant.
It is possible that the second runway, when the time comes, may be needed in the North Midlands and not in the South-East, and it is likely that eventually we shall need a new international airport somewhere else, but in the meantime the next runway has to be in the South-East. That is quite apart from particular objections to some of the favoured sites—for example, Thorne Waste which is a long way from everybody's constituency except mine, although people in Grimsby would welcome it. But it is open to many practical objections. I conclude that the first runway must be in the South-East. But it does not need to be very near London or as near London as Roskill assumed. This is an extremely important point because, on the basis of traffic forecasts, it is clear that this next runway will be mainly for charter and inclusive tour flights, which makes it possible to put it considerably further away from London.
I do not want to go into the question of individual sites. I have to watch the time with extreme care. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am grateful for that generous support. The site could be one of the four Roskill sites. I do not think that it could be Nuthampstead, for which no case was made out, but it could be Cublington. This would certainly run into the opposition of that vociferous lobby, which is highly organised, well-financed and has a most expensive public relations firm working for it—and it is clearly not troubled by the postal strike.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman name the public relations firm concerned?
Mr. Crosland: I will ask my hon. Friend when he winds up to name it. I have the name in one of my innumerable documents.
1930
The Cublington lobby is in danger of losing sympathy, partly by its frivolity in dealing with the arguments against Foulness and partly because it has given the impression to the Commission and others that it does not care tuppence about anybody else's noise or environment—noise in particular. I hope the Cublington lobby will put its case in as moderate a fashion as it can, bearing in mind that it is not only the people living in Cublington who dislike noise, have houses that may be knocked down and care about their environment. I will go no more into Cublington than that, except to say that, despite Professor Buchanan's intensely moving and almost poetic memorandum of dissent—[Laughter]—I am sorry the hon. Member thinks it is funny but I believe that it could go into an anthology of English prose—I am not wholly convinced by it. I recall that the Strategic Plan for the South-East said that Cublington was:
"not within an area shown in the Strategy as of regional significance either for agriculture or for amenity".
So two views are posible even on that.
The site could conceivably be Thurleigh, which has the distinction of having generated the only body of organised support in favour of an inland site—
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet rose—
Mr. Crosland: I prefer not to give way, I am concerned about the time factor. Thurleigh has the only body of organised support in favour of an inland site in the Trade Union and Labour Co-ordinating Committee for the Support of Thurleigh, which has produced an admirable and robust memorandum making the case for Thurleigh, which is in many ways superior to Cublington. The economic and regional planning case is stronger and there is certainly more economic need and more local support there. There is a great deal to be said for considering Thurleigh even for this smaller airport.
On Foulness, I merely say that one has to keep the site in mind, but I believe that the Commission made an overwhelming case against it—first, in terms of damage to the environment, damage to the coastline, damage to wild life, which was most ably and eloquently put in a letter to The Times by our late colleague, Terry Boston; a strong case in terms of

1931
the need for new road and rail links, which is a real economic case and which is nothing to do with calculations of business time; a case in terms of much greater disruption of families and homes by the motorways which will be required. The Secretary of State for Environment will remember the row over West-way. When motorways are taken into account, more homes will be destroyed by an airport at Foulness than by one at Cublington. There will be much more noise in total once we take into account the indirect effects. Then there is a safety hazard, which I believe to be totally unacceptable. I was impressed with the arguments in the other place by Lord King's Norton, who knows much more about this matter than any of us, and who regarded this as sufficient argument against Foulness—and, as a layman, so do I.
But a site for this smaller airport need not be any of these four sites because it can be further away from London. What the Government must now do is to consider other possible sites in South Hampshire, in the so-called Essex gap, and a site such as Lydd and so on.
A brief word about blight. What I have suggested would have great advantage from the point of view of planning blight, which is a most serious matter. These four sites have now suffered from planning blight for a period of years. What the Government should do is to remove at least two of these sites from planning blight by saying that they will not accept them. They should take Nuthampstead and Cublington off the hook and leave Thurleigh as a possible inland site. This at least would minimise the problem of blight. If the Government decide that an inland site is not acceptable at all, then they should remove all three. The search is then confined to an alternative coastal site to Foulness.
I conclude by saying that I do not envy the Government in their decision or in having to make their choice. I am sympathetic since this is not a party issue. The choice will not be resolved, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, by glib talk about a national airports policy. While we have so much under-utilised capacity outside the South-East a national plan would not be decisively relevant on this issue. Apart from that,
1932
we have no idea what sort of runways we shall want in 20 years' time.
The great gain that has emerged is that we now see that we do not need to commit ourselves to a brand new four-runway airport on one of the Roskill sites. We have some leeway on timing which we should use to intensify work on STOL and on noise generally, including retro-fits on existing jet engines, which would cost a great deal less money than building an airport at Foulness. Meanwhile, we must find another smaller and preferably coastal site which would avoid the horrors and the economic waste of a vast new international four-runway airport, whether it be at Cublington or at Foulness, while at the same time bringing relief to Heathrow, Luton and other places as soon as practicable.
Thanks to the evidence produced by the Roskill Commission, although not the Roskill conclusions, we have a short breathing space for urgent study of these various alternatives. I hope this study is already being conducted.
4.55 p.m.
Sir David Renton: I disagree with the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) on many of his points, but I will ease the minds of many hon. Members by saying that it would not be right for me to take up time by answering all his arguments.
I welcome the candour with which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the terms of reference. I agree with him that it is probably right for us to think more in terms of a two-runway third London airport than the four-runway airport which he envisaged at the time the Roskill Commission was appointed. The appointment of the Roskill Commission was welcomed by both sides of the House and, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, there was consultation between the Front Benches before its appointment and its terms of reference were established.
The Government were wise to defer a decision until the matter had been fully debated in both Houses. There was a most valuable debate in the other place, and I believe that we are likely to have an exceedingly valuable debate in this House today. I hope that the Government will not then long delay the decision and that the decision will be

1933
made in the light of what has been said in both Houses of Parliament. My right hon. Friends may well find that a fairly clear consensus will emerge above the controversy.
Although in the opinion of so many people the Roskill Commission reached the wrong conclusion, it must be said that it carried out the most formidable logistical study in depth ever undertaken in this country and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, probably in any country. If genius has been rightly described as "an infinite capacity for taking pains"—though that is a somewhat cynical description—I would say that the Commission has made a brave attempt indeed. The information it has gathered is of value to Government and to Parliament in expressing their views on this matter. The information may well form a provisional pattern for the kind of approach which needs to be made to some of our modern problems. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) will be dealing with The weaknesses of the way in which cost benefit analyses were used by the Commission and I do not propose to deal with that matter other than in a general way.
The Commission cannot be blamed for not being provided with a national airports policy. It was asked to assume the need for a third London airport and to inquire into the timing of it. In doing so, it proved conclusively, in my opinion, that there is a need for a third London airport, although I agree with the right hon. Member for Grimsby that it should be a two-runway airport.
I will briefly set out my reasons for thinking why the Commission proved that to be the case. Heathrow is already handling 250,000 flights a year. The noise of those flights affects 700,000 households with 2½ million people living in them within the 35 NNI contour. That nuisance is already unbearable. We should urge the Government to reduce the use of Heathrow. With overloading, it has a capacity of 330,000 flights a year and it could reach that figure in three years' time. It could outgrow its capacity before many years have passed.
Gatwick, Luton and Stansted already produce a big enough noise problem for people who live round them, even without their flight capacities being enlarged in
1934
in any way at all by more intensive use of existing runways or by making new runways which would in any event have bad environmental results.
Therefore, it would be utterly wrong to solve the problem of the undoubted growth of air traffic in London and the South-East by a greater use of existing airports.
It is also not a solution of the problem—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—to say that somehow we should compromise and get an airport which would be of use to the Midlands and the North of England as well. This is a South-East problem. We have only to turn to Table 12, on page 192, and to Table 10·5, on page 103, to realise that some 70 per cent. of the traffic now and if Foulness is chosen, 80 per cent. of the traffic in 1981, would arise from London and the South-East. Those figures prove the need for a third London airport.
Mr. John Wilkinson rose—
Sir D. Renton: I am sorry, but I must help the House by getting through what I have to say and not being diverted. I do not deny that another major airport may be needed in the North of England or the Midlands at some time before very long. But I express no opinion about that nor about when or where it should go.
I hope that the third London airport will be built as soon as possible on two runways. The question is where to put it. Any site has important disadvantages. We are faced, as we are so often in important national questions, with a choice of evils. In my opinion, there are four main factors involved in the choice of site: cost, accessibility, noise, and what I briefly call "land use", in which I include the whole of the environmental problem and the whole of the planning problem. Of those four factors, land use is easily the most important in this country. That is why I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment is to wind up this debate. Far too much of our land is already covered by urban development and development of one kind and another, which occupies no less than 16 per cent. of the land surface of England,

1935
taken as a separate country, and a very much higher proportion than 16 per cent. of Greater London and the Home Counties.
As Professor Buchanan has pointed out, future generations will be better educated and more prosperous, and they will demand more spacious living standards and find it even more difficult to obtain them than do people in Greater London, Birmingham or Manchester today.
I have to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman about some of his remarks on the planning aspects. We are told that 4 million more people must be accommodated in the South-East of England in the next 30 years. That means an awful lot more land will have to be used for development before we stabilise the population, which certainly we should do. Another major airport would act as a magnet. Professor Buchanan talked of 275,000, but the Commission made it clear that, if Cublington or Thurleigh were used, the airport would attract 400,000 people. Winding up for the Government in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Drumalbyn accepted that figure.
That land use factor must far outweigh the relatively narrow differences arising on the cost benefit analyses. Even if we accept the cost benefit analyses, which I do not completely, in my view the £197 million of difference is outweighed by this tremendous prospect of a concrete jungle being created right in the heart of England, if any of the inland sites are chosen.
As to noise, there again I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. Noise is a nuisance but, with technical improvements, it may one day diminish. I happen to live on the down-wind side of what is probably the noisiest airfield in the country, Alconbury, and I have to put up with the noise of the so-called Phantoms. I would rather have the countryside there with the noise than see yet another great sweep of countryside taken for urban development and no noise at all. That may be said to be a subjective opinion but, when we are comparing these various important factors—noise, cost, accessibility and land
1936
use—we should not over-emphasise the noise factor, vital though it is.
Accessibility is obviously important and involves tremendous road and rail construction. That means more land for development and, therefore, it is tempting to use the short haul which might well have pointed to the choice of Stansted. But let us get the right sense of proportion about this. If we compare Cublington and Foulness, the Commission showed that on a journey between London and those two places, Foulness is only five minutes longer by rail. In my opinion, the accessibility factor is one which again is outweighed by the land use factor.
Let us therefore implore the Government to bear in mind above all else that, whether it is for the airport itself or for communications, once the land is developed the change of use is permanent, irreversible and irretrievable. That means, in the words of Professor Buchanan, that
"the choice of an inland site would be an environmental disaster."
His note of dissent should be read by every planning officer, every politician and budding politician and every local government councillor. It is a classic expression by a man of great practical experience of the need for foresight and sensitivity in planning matters, if future generations are not to resent the follies of their forebears as we today have reason to regret some of the errors of the past including, in my opinion, the siting of both Heathrow and Gatwick.
Thanks to the massive opposition of over 200 members of this House who have signed a Motion rejecting an inland site or the extension of existing airports and supporting Foulness or any other coastal site, I believe it to be unthinkable—
Mr. Bernard Brains: They had not read the Report.
Sir D. Renton: I will not be diverted by my hon. Friend except to say that I do not think that any hon. Member who signed that Motion before reading the report has withdrawn his support since doing so. Therefore I assume it to be unthinkable that any inland site would be chosen by a Government who promised "a better environment" as part of "a better tomorrow".

1937
I am familiar with each of the four Roskill sites, and I have travelled the Maplin Sands at low tide in a D.U.K.W. From a constituency point of view, my main interest lies in Thurleigh, because the choice of that site would threaten the southern part of my constituency, especially St. Neots and Kimbolton. However, there has been a recent move with regard to Thurleigh which causes some anxiety. An enlarged wartime runway there has been used for some years for experimental flights by the Royal Aeronautical Establishment, where important work has been done on supersonic flight. But now that runway is used extensively and increasingly for civil training flights by large jet aircraft by day and by night. Although I know that it is not within my right hon. Friend's responsibilities, I hope that he will be able to assure us that this is not intended to be a permanent practice. I hope, too, that he will be able to explain the Government's policy on this.
Perhaps it will not come amiss if I refer briefly to Foulness, which, by the way, seems to have been aptly named by our forebears. The coastline at the side of it has been used for many years as an artillery range. It is flat, desolate and, in my opinion, an unattractive piece of estuarial coastline. Let no one wax lyrical about it—
Mr. Braine: Except those who live there.
Sir D. Renton: Yes, and they are entitled to. As Lord Greenwood pointed out with very apt poetic quotation in another place, where one's home is, there one's loves are, and one is entitled to defend one's home wherever it may be. I stand up for my hon. Friend's right to defend his constituents in this matter but, as I said earlier, this is a choice of evils which we have to make. Knowing the country surrounding the other sites, if I were asked to make the choice I should choose the Foulness country. If Maplin Sands are reclaimed from the sea, 18,000 acres would be added to the terra firma of this island and would save many more acres of beautiful country from becoming a concrete jungle.
The Brent geese would have to find other feeding grounds, and I understand that they would do so. But if any inland
1938
site were chosen the habitat of dozens of species of smaller and, in my opinion, more attractive birds would be destroyed for ever. That is my answer to my old friend Peter Scott and my fellow members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
I ask my right hon. Friends not to choose any inland site. Do not stab at the heart and lungs of the southern half of England!
5.11 p.m.
Mr. George Darling: As the debate continues I think that many of us who have critical views to express on the Commission's proposals will find that previous speakers have elaborated on those criticisms, and, therefore, our speeches should get progressively shorter.
I propose to throw away quite a lot of my speech notes, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) have between them expressed many of the arguments I wished to put forward. I think that by the time I have finished hon. Members will understand which parts I have skipped over, because my argument is in favour of a proposition which does not appear in the Roskill Commission Report but has been referred to by my right hon. Friend, although I think in quite the wrong terms.
I think that we are in danger of considering the Roskill Commission Report as being purely negative in so far as it has a practical application. In the view of many people, Roskill appears to have recommended in the end only where airport sites should not be located. Having considered the four sites which, for social and other reasons, I think will be rejected by discussion in this House and in another place, I believe that none of the Roskill sites will see an airport built upon it.
I was going to adduce strong arguments against Cublington. I know the Vale of Aylesbury very well. I have travelled along every road and lane between Aylesbury and Buckingham, I have been on many of the footpaths, and I can claim a wide acquaintaince, for snacks and beer with most of the pubs. I am utterly opposed to the idea of an airport in the Vale of

1939
Aylesbury. But, as my right hon. Friend suggested, I do not want anybody to be persuaded by some of the romantic arguments which have been put forward in this very expensive campaign which has been conducted by the so-called Friends of the Vale of Aylesbury, because there are some pretty squalid rural slums in the villages in Buckinghamshire. If the Friends of the Vale of Aylesbury want to make sure that there are no arguments in favour of an airport being built there, they should get rid of one argument which I know many villagers have in favour of an airport—namely, that it would give them better chances of good employment and better housing than they they now have.
I take a national view. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire that it would be quite wrong to extend—
Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: No. Sorry, I shall not give way to any hon. Member on this occasion.
I do not want to see an urban sprawl coming from the outer fringes of London to the beginnings of the Midland towns, which I think would happen if the airport were built at any one of the three inland sites.
I think that, as my right hon. Friend hinted, the terms of reference were wrong. I wonder what sites the Commission would have considered if the terms of reference had been: "To recommend a site suitable for a modern airport serving a wide area, but within easy reach of London, based on modern surface transport and located on grade 5 or even worse agricultural land, and causing the least possible social disturbance."
Many sites could have been considered if those terms of reference had been accepted. One site, which my right hon. Friend has rejected in a very cavalier fashion, would obviously have been Thorne Waste. If hon. Members do not know where it is, I shall tell them. It is in the West Riding of Yorkshire, on the borders of Nottinghamshire, south-east of Doncaster and south of Goole. It is quite rightly called Thorne Waste. It is a large area of flat waste land with few villages on it and very little population.
1940
But it has tremendous advantages, provided that the qualification which I have put into my suggested terms of reference is considered—namely, that we use a modern system of surface transport to get from the airport into London; that is, for passengers who wish to go to London. I suggest that it would probably take passengers not many minutes longer to get from that area into King's Cross by a modern rail system than to get from Cublington to King's Cross, if the job is done properly.
Thorne Waste has many advantages. One is that it is almost at the centre of a unique transport system. Assuming that an airport is built there, it will be the only airport near both a north-south motorway and an east-west motorway. The motorway from Liverpool to Hull, when the M62 is built, will be only a few miles away. A spur from the M62 to Thorne Waste would provide this east-west motorway with access to the airport. The same is true of the Ml and the Al. Not only that, but a spur from the main line railway from Doncaster to King's Cross could be taken into the airport. That would be a simple engineering job.
There is a fallacy in the Roskill Commission's examination of the time factor in getting from the airport into central London. This has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend and also, I think, by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. The passenger has to spend time getting out of the aeroplane and outside the airport. As all hon. Members know, quite a lot of time is now taken in getting through passport control, waiting for luggage to come up, collecting luggage, going through customs and finding an airport bus to get into London. I do not think that all passengers coming into Heathrow or any other airport which may be within easy reach of London will spend a lot of money on taxis.
If we had a rail system which went into the airport and the passengers came out, even from a jumbo-jet, straight into the train to a numbered seat, luggage being similiarly numbered, the luggage could be put into the train quickly, sorted and delivered to the passengers' seats, followed by the customs and the passports officers. By the time passengers had arrived in comfort from the airport at London, with all these activities taking

1941
place on the train, they would have made up for the time normally spent in getting out of an airport.
Therefore, I suggest that, if there is to be a modern train service with a train running, say, at 120 miles and hour, which would be feasible, the time taken from Thorne to King's Cross would be little over an hour. When one considers all the other advantages, this is a possibility which should now be considered. It may be that we would have to extend the present rail system—double the tracks and straighten out some of the more pronounced curves. We might have to bypass some main line stations like Grantham, Retford and Peterborough, and this will be costly, but if this train service can be provided, one must reckon the advantages, the savings and the monetary advantages on the other side.
The land which would be taken for the airport is of very little value. It is grade 5 agricultural land. I am convinced that if the grading of agricultural land were further refined below grade 5, this land would still be at the lowest level of all, because most of it is used merely for the collection of peat. The area is very big. Two or three airports could be put on it. It is there, it is almost derelict and it is almost unpopulated, so it has many advantages. If this reasonable train service could be provided, the time factor in travel to London would be in favour of putting an airport at Thorne rather than in any other place.
I want now to deal with the other advantages of Thorne, and the disadvantages of taking any one of the inland sites suggested in the Roskill Report. I should like to deal first with the question of people. Because of the nature of the land, it is largely unpopulated, and there would be very little cost in dealing with disturbance of houses and people. Close by, in the little town of Thorne itself and elsewhere, there is considerable unemployment because of the closing of neighbouring collieries. In fact, Thorne itself, which is a small town, has been almost depressed. Houses and shops are boarded up as a result of the closing of the colliery, and people are moving out.
Therefore, even if we had to move Thorne on one side, not for the building of the airport, but so that no people were affected by the noise nuisance, the cost of even that disturbance, which I do
1942
not think would arise, would not be very great. Unemployment is important, and this is an area which would be greatly served in terms of finding new jobs if this airport project went ahead on this site.
Another great problem mentioned in the Note of Dissent by Professor Buchanan, but which is skated over in the Report, is the problem of finding the aggregate—the sand, gravel and cement—for the building job. I am convinced that whatever proposals may appear in the Report about finding the aggregate for building airports in any of the three inland sites—one suggestion is to take it from Foulness or from the sea coast elsewhere—once construction engineers get in, they will say that they must get the aggregate from nearer places. That will mean building more gravel pits in this part of the country. Actually the gravel pits which we have are on the fringe of this part of the country and people do not want any more within the Vale of Aylesbury. There is also the question of where the cement will come from, so there will be more cement works built on the North Downs and the Chiltern Hills.
On the other hand, there are millions of tons of shale waiting to be used for the building of an airport at Thorne Waste, in the adjacent colliery spoil heaps. We are quite properly giving local authorities 75 or 85 per cent., dependent on where they are situated, for the costs of clearing them. Here is a wonderful way of clearing them. The cost would be very low, and the social advantages are obvious. So building here would mean that there would be less spoiling of the countryside than anywhere near the three inland sites.
Then there is the question of noise. There are a few villages which might be affected by noise if an airport were built at Thorne Waste. I cannot speak on their behalf of course, but I do not think that the few people who would be affected would be likely to object to moving to new locations if they wanted to get away from the noise, and the cost would not be very great because there are so few of them.
Incidentally, a feasibility study has been undertaken by the West Riding County Council which supports the view that the airport can be sited to avoid

1943
noise nuisance being inflicted on the nearest centres of population, which are Doncaster, Goole and Scunthorpe.
There is another advantage which was mentioned by both Front Bench speakers. That is the question of development of air freight. Even though quite a lot—I think 40 per cent.—of the air freight now carried is carried in passenger 'planes, if air freight is to develop in a big way to increase our export potential, and this should be a matter of deep consideration, then far more space will be required for warehousing, for proper packaging, getting the stuff into air containers and so on, than can be provided at Heathrow or any of our existing airports. There is space on this land where all the services which would be needed could be developed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby says that siting an airport here would be economically disastrous, because no one would want to go there. But this area will serve, let us remember, one of the most heavily industrialised areas of the country, including the West Riding of Yorkshire, South Lancashire and the North Midlands, and once the services were provided, I am sure that the traffic could be attracted to those services, particularly because of the cheapness of the operation, brought about by the lower capital costs.
Also—this is where I part company with my right hon. Friend—we must not consider a new airport site in terms of complementing existing airports, of talking, as both right hon. Gentlemen have done, of building up the maximum traffic at Heathrow, Luton, Southend, Manchester, Ringway, Liverpool and so on, before we need consider another airport. We have seriously to consider reducing traffic at these airports because of the noise and nuisance factors, and the congestion on the roads and railwals leading to and from those airports.
From every social planning point of view, we should do all we possibly can to reduce traffic at existing airports. This—not because I am putting it forward: others have put it forward, like the Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce, which are all in favour of the site at Thorne—is the most practical proposition as an alternative site to all those which have so far
1944
been suggested, all of which have solid objections to them, all of which I think should be rejected. This is the only one to which the local inhabitants have not yet put forward, and are not likely to put forward, any objections. I therefore hope that it will be seriously considered by the Secretary of State.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Toby Jessel: I ask for the indulgence of the House in making my maiden speech.
I wish, at the outset, to pay tribute to my predecessor as the hon. Member for Twickenham, Mr. Roger Gresham Cooke, who died about a year ago. He was an absolutely first-class constituency hon. Member who would go to endless trouble for his constituents. I am told that on one occasion he travelled 400 miles to see a constituent in gaol who had asked to see him.
Mr. Gresham Cooke was unfailingly kind and compassionate, and anyone who has the task of following him as the representative of Twickenham in this House has a task indeed. He took a particular interest in the River Thames, and was founder of the River Thames Society, which was appropriate, as the Thames loops all through the constituency, enabling two-thirds of the people living there to be within a mile of it.
There are in my constituency very many beautiful riverside scenes as well as several fine parks. However, the greatest claim to fame of the area lies in its buildings, several of which are of international renown, like Hampton Court Palace, the rugby ground at Twickenham, the Royal Military College of Music at Kneller Hall and the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. This is, therefore, no ordinary London suburb. It is a district of some distinction.
For all its undoubted advantages, my constituency suffers from one terrible nuisance, and that is the blight of aircraft noise, especially in the northern part of the area, due to the presence of Heathrow Airport four or five miles away.
Some people are well able to get used to this noise, but a great many cannot, and their reactions range from mild annoyance to quite severe misery, at times amounting to a danger to health. There was recently published in The Lancet an

1945
article demonstrating that the incidence of mental ill-health and admission to mental hospitals was much higher close to large airports than the national average.
It is in the summer that people suffer most. Their windows are open and the noise spoils their enjoyment of their gardens and spoils their indoor recreation as well. Above all, it spoils their sleep. Aircraft noise can be a terrible nuisance at night, and I would not wish it on anyone or any district that did not already have it.
It so happens that the three speakers prior to me referred, though in different ways, to the possibility of reducing aircraft noise at the existing airports in the London area; the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).
When the Roskill Report was debated in another place last week both Government spokesmen, the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Jellicoe, and Lord Sandford, drew attention to the appalling burden of noise on people already living round London Airport at Heathrow. Lord Jellicoe mentioned the figure of 700,000 households, or 2¼ million people, in West London living under the noise blanket of Heathrow. This is 24 times as many people as would be affected at any of the four Roskill sites under discussion. Lord Sandford went on to mention
"the need, first to check, and then to curb the growth of noise from Heathrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd February, 1971; Vol. 315, c. 966.]
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will share this view of the importance of reducing the existing nuisance and that this will be reflected both in his reply tonight and, later, when the decision comes to be taken, because it was an aspect that was scarcely covered in the Roskill Report, perhaps because of its terms of reference.
Earlier I referred to the effect of aircraft noise on sleep. It would be a tremendous boon to people living in the western half of London if all night flights in and out of Heathrow could he stopped. They are already restricted, but this is not enough. They should be stopped altogether and diverted from the area.
1946
To me, this means the choice of a coastal site—Foulness, Lydd, or anywhere else—because I would not like the burden which is now suffered by my constituents as a result of aircraft noise by night to be diverted to another inland site.
I believe that it is not too much to ask people who wish to fly by night to travel to a site on the coast instead of going over the residential areas where people live, even if, according to Roskill, it means a five minutes extra journey by rail or an extra 12 minutes by road. A large proportion of those who travel by night are holidaymakers making use of night tourist flights or charter flights. I have used these when going on holiday, and I see no reason why one should not spend an extra 12, 15, or even 30 minutes getting to an airport to avoid disturbing people by night.
Having said all this from a constituency point of view, I now wish to support the choice of a coastal site mainly from a national point of view. I regard our countryside as a national heritage, and there is not so much of it left unspoilt that we can afford to see another sizeable chunk of it destroyed—and it would indeed be a sizeable chunk at any of the inland sites. The area of the airport would be the size of London between the main line stations, and there would be a noise umbrella area stretching 30 to 40 miles. We do not have the right to allow the quality of the landscape to be ruined to that extent and in that way. I remind hon. Members that, speaking of Nuthampstead, the Roskill Commission said:
"we regard the many objections to the site, especially those of noise, planning and environment as clearly outweighing the advantages to those who would use the airport. We therefore reject Nuthampstead as the site for the third London airport."
If that applies to Nuthampstead, surely it applies with equal force to Cublington. Why not? I hope, therefore, that this House will echo loud and clear the almost unanimous view of the other place last week.
We should see ourselves humbly as trustees for posterity of the English countryside, and if we fail to protect it our descendants will curse us, and they will be right to do so.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member

1947
for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who has taken the opportunity to return to the tradition of making a maiden speech which is not controversial, at least in the party sense. The hon. Gentleman's speech did him considerable credit. His constituency and mine are fairly close to one another, and my personal relationships with his predecessor were most pleasant. I have no doubt that they will continue to be so with the hon. Gentleman, and I am certain that all of us feel that, both in the manner and in the content of his first contribution to our debates, the hon. Gentleman has shown that he will make further contributions which the House will hear with great pleasure.
We should, perhaps, remind ourselves that the inter-departmental committee reported in 1963 and found that a third airport would be needed for London, probably in the early 1970s. I believe that that conclusion was correct, and we are wrong in not having reached a decision on the matter long before now. Relief for those who live around Heathrow should already be under way. The recommendation of the inter-departmental committee regarding Stansted was rejected, and rightly rejected in my view, but we have failed to give sufficient urgency to the finding of an alternative and reaching a decision upon it.
If I may say so, I found myself in some disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), greater disagreement, in fact, than I found with the Minister for Trade. Perhaps my disagreement with my right hon. Friend arose, in part, because there was more in his speech, not only in length but in content, too, but I certainly did not agree with several of the things which he said.
One general criticism which I have of my right hon. Friend's approach—this applies also to the Minister for Trade—was that he did not seem to express sufficient urgency, and there was in his speech a lack of realisation, perhaps, of the feelings of those who day by day suffer from aircraft noise. These people feel that we in the House are guilty of not having regarded as a matter of the first importance the building of a relief airport, which is how they regard it, and they are most dissatisfied that, after all
1948
the years which have elapsed since 1963 when the inter-departmental committee reported and said that a third airport was necessary, still no final decision has been reached.
I hope, therefore, that what will emerge from this debate, above all, will be a decision. Of course we need the right decision, but a decision we must have.
I am a little troubled for that reason by the suggestion which one hears that after we have looked at all the proposals covered by the Roskill Commission some other idea could be tried—what about a one-runway or two-runway airport in a much smaller place?—and so on. Such an airport could be built, but there is some justification for the proposition that one should build in a place where a four-runway airport could be carried. With two separate airports, one has not only to duplicate facilities at each airport but to duplicate the facilities for reaching the airport, constructing fresh roads and fresh railways, perhaps, for that purpose.
Therefore, it seems to me a reasonable precaution if one goes ahead with a single-runway airport, as I consider we should for emergency relief purposes—Roskill touched on this but made no final recommendation—that it should be built at a spot which permits of further development.
In my view, therefore, we ought not to dismiss in quite so cavalier a fashion as my right hon. Friend did the Foulness proposal. He did less than justice to the arguments which are canvassed, although finally rejected in the Report, in favour of Foulness, and I think that he over-emphasised the difficulties of communication, the problems of building, and so on.
It is worth recalling that the public local inquiry which was held following the decision of the inter-departmental committee about Stansted came down against that development. As I said a few minutes ago, I think that that was right. Roskill now recommends Cublington. The other House recently came down quite unequivocally in favour of Foulness. Now, Foulness is organising. There is to be some opposition from the people who actually live there against the proposal for an airport at Foulness.
What all this shows is that wherever the third airport is situated—with the possible exception of the place which my

1949
right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. George Darling) has in mind—
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Thorne Waste.
Mr. Jenkins: —it is likely to have to be imposed by the Government upon the local inhabitants. It will, therefore, help if we select a place which has as few little local inhabitants as possible. It seems to me that Foulness qualifies in that respect.
Mr. Brian Harrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkins: We have more or less established a tradition in this debate that we do not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to state his views later.
Mr. Harrison: What the hon. Gentleman has said is just not true. More people will be disturbed.
Mr. Jenkins: The Roskill Commission dealt with this matter, as I have said, and I recommend the hon. Gentleman to look at the Report.
Mr. Harrison: No, it does not say that. The hon. Gentleman himself has not read it.
Mr. Jenkins: The point I am making is that, wherever the airport it situated, there is bound to be some local opposition. In London, on the other hand, more than 1 million people day after day endure the greatest concentration of aircraft noise suffered by any urban population in the world. More people are inconvenienced here than anywhere else. Each week people move into Putney. They write me letters, furious letters. They join protest organisations. They visit me here at the Palace. They listen to the Questions which I and other hon. Members ask and to the answers which are given. The hard core of them become militant protesters. Some of them are here in the Gallery today to listen to the debate. Others decide that they will move away, or they give up and sit down under it. But no one is satisfied, because the noise continues day after day, and especially during the summer months.
In this situation the need for urgency must not be overlooked. It is worth
1950
looking at what Roskill had to say on this aspect of the matter:
"… about 700,000 households are already within the 35 NNI contour at the present level of operations at Heathrow—nearly four times the number of households affected at all four sites together, over seven times the households affected at Nuthampstead and about 24 times those of Cublington and Thurleigh."
The point I am making, therefore, is not about relative conditions at the various sites. I am emphasising the enormously greater problem at Heathrow than at all those places put together. Again, I emphasise the importance of a decision being reached.
Why is the position at Heathrow so bad? The prevailing wind in this country comes from the west or the south-West. Aircraft still have to land into the wind, so hundreds of thousands of aeroplanes have to fly over millions of people in London in order to land at Heathrow. At Foulness, on the other hand, the vast majority of landings would be over the sea, and, therefore, the inconvenience and suffering would be enormously reduced. That is one of the arguments in favour of Foulness.
Mr. Wilkinson: Take-off at full power to the west.
Mr. Jenkins: Everyone who knows about aircraft noise or has experienced it in his constituency recognises that the noise about which people complain is landing noise, not take-off noise. People do not complain so much about the sudden roar of take-off. It is the continual whining scream of landing aircraft coming towards London airport in order to take up position, covering a distance of seven miles, which most people find offensive and about which they principally complain. When the wind changes, for about a third of the time, that is, the complaints come from the opposite direction, but for about two-thirds of the time landings at London airport come in from east to west. As I say, there would be a corresponding advantage at other sites and certainly at Foulness.
Heathrow will still remain the main internal British airport even if Foulness or another sea shore site is chosen as the international airport. One cannot say, therefore, that people living under the flight path at Heathrow will be totally relieved even five or ten years hence.

1951
That is quite out of the question. I believe that it will be necessary for Heathrow to remain an important airport, and that it is likely to remain our main internal one. But if we can direct international flights to an airport on the coast, the relief will be considerable. Therefore, what we are asking of the relatively few people who will be affected is not that they shall take away from people living under the glide path at Heathrow the burden which they are now suffering but merely that they shall share a small part.
My right hon. Friend reminded me of this fact: for some time we have been trying to live with the motor car. Only now are we beginning to realise that we cannot allow it always to go where the motorist wants to go; to some extent we must tell the motorist to go where it is in the interests of the community that he shall go. In other words, we must send him round to get where he wants to go. A similar lesson should be learnt in our attitude to aircraft noise. We should learn in these relatively early stages that we cannot allow aircraft to land always at the point where the aircraft operators want them to land. We must take into consideration the interests of the community, which dictate that the airport of the future, particularly the international airport, must be on the coast, and as far as I can see the best site suggested so far for that purpose is Foulness.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: For reasons of which we are all painfully aware, I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will forgive me if I do not follow him very far along the line he took in his speech. His knowledge of the problem of aircraft noise and his defence of his constituents and others suffering from it are well known in the House, and I think he has made a strong case this afternoon.
It is my pleasant privilege to be the first Member on this side to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on a maiden speech of great distinction. All hon. Members enjoyed listening to him. He was fluent, to the point and brief, a lesson to many of us who have been here for a long time. He covered a lot of ground in addition
1952
to his constituency interest. We all look forward very much to hearing him again.
I should like to pay a short tribute to Roskill. The Commission has added vastly to the sum of knowledge on this difficult question and made evident the true complexity of the decision, and also perhaps the unwisdom of originally leaving it to a Department to decide. The Roskill Commission has forced us to study and understand more about the problem of technology in our time by its work than perhaps we did before. It was right to appoint the Commission, and it is right to give praise and thanks for what it has done.
How is it, then, that the Report has aroused such widespread and highly articulate opposition, even abhorrence? In a distinguished debate in another place hardly a single speaker in two days supported the main conclusion. That is a strange prelude to our discussion, and the main theme of our discussion must be to seek the reason.
My constituency had the dubious distinction of being almost equally threatened by all the inland sites. Two were right on the border, and the other not very far away. With opposition widespread and support for the airport nil, it seemed to me that it was my clear duty as well as my inclination to oppose the choice of any of them. So it was that I and hon. Members on both sides came to form a committee which has done some work on the matter and followed the Roskill proceedings from the inception of the Commission. Our objective originally was to resist the choice of an inland site. In our work we came into contact with the societies concerned with aircraft noise at the various existing airports in the South-East—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton. I was profoundly impressed by the plight of these people and what they suffer. We came to the conclusion that if it was right to resist the immolation of the countryside it was also right to seek to alleviate the distress of those already suffering from aircraft noise. We tabled a Motion to take account of those two objectives, and it has now been signed by well over 200 hon. Members.
It has become increasingly clear to me as time has gone on that although originally the final choice of a coastal site had seemed to be an open matter,

1953
neither of those objectives can be realised unless Foulness is chosen. I say that in the full knowledge of the implications. I am in no way insensitive to the suffering of those in Foulness and the surrounding area, or to wild life. I follow the wild geese as much as any hon. Member, and I know something of the splendour of the tideway. It causes me no pleasure to say what I have said about the choice of Foulness. The headquarters of the Society for the Protection of Birds is in my constituency, and I have read Mr. Peter Condor's letters in The Times with heart-searching. But it is a question of priorities.
There is one set of statistics which dominates the report, and that is the forecasts of traffic flow mentioned in paragraph 5·13 on page 26. There are five such forecasts which the Commission took into account—the research team's, two complementary forecasts from the British Airports Authority, one from B.E.A., and one from the Board of Trade's Working Party. As the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, figures for the year 2000 and beyond must be open to doubt, but there is a remarkable similarity between the growth curve for the years affecting the decision on the third London airport. They show a tremendous upward curve and demonstrate two things. First, there is clearly a need for the airport at an early date. [Interruption.] The number of runways is another question. Second, the need is for an airport or runways in the South-East, because of the high percentage of terminal passengers originating in the South-East. For the year 1991—
Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hastings: I would rather go on. This is a complicated argument and I think it has been the pattern of the debate.
For the year 1991 the forecast is 80 per cent. for Foulness, 68 per cent. from the South-East for Thurleigh and 73 per cent. for Cublington.
I have no doubt from these figures that extra capacity is needed and that the need will rapidly increase. I have no doubt, either, that if the first runway is not provided soon the existing airports will have to be expanded to saturation point, and I regard that as unacceptable.
1954
The Commission's idea on timing of the need depended on a moment when what they called "congestion costs" exceeded the cost of bringing the airport forward. It is for the Government to decide whether that timing is acceptable, or whether they can do something to alleviate the suffering of those in the noise shadow now, by taking action rather sooner than was envisaged by Roskill. I cannot believe that they will be insensitive to this problem.
I understand that the consortium at Foulness has said that it could produce the first runway by 1975 rather than 1980.
An Hon. Member: By 1976 or 1977.
Mr. Hastings: If it were 1976 or 1977, it would bring alleviation of the suffering rather quicker than 1980.
The figures for growth cause me, too, to reject two other arguments discussed briefly this afternoon. The first is that VTOL or STOL will come in time to affect the decision. Roskill is categoric about this. One important argument against it which has not been mentioned is the matter of amortisation of existing fleets and future fleets. B.E.A. is about to put in orders for 50—perhaps as many as 80—aircraft of a new generation in the airbus range, like the TriStar or the European Airbus. It is unreasonable to expect a market to develop for VTOL aircraft to take the place of those short-range carriers before those aircraft have at least had time to justify the vast investment in them.
Second, there is the question of a national airports policy, or strategy, as it has also been called in the Report. It is a superficially attractive view that this should be worked out before the decision is taken, but I hope that the Government will not be seduced by it, first, because of the growth figures, which establish a need in the South-East now, and, second, because the economic justification for major airports in the Midlands and North is far from obvious in the Roskill findings. But I would point out to those of my lion. Friends who are interested in airports in the Midlands or the North that if Foulness is chosen the economic need for a Midlands or northern airport will accrue quicker than if either Cublington or Thurleigh is chosen.

1955
I come now to the matter of the inland sites. The first and second choices depend essentially, it seems to me from the report, on two factors which outweigh all others. The first is the cost-benefit analysis and the second is the weighting of the passenger user costs, so-called, which is, of course, a part of the cost-benefit analysis. The cost-benefit analysis holds that Cublington is cheaper by between £197 million high to—167 million low compared to Foulness.
In my submission at Stage V of the inquiry, I tried to concentrate on this because, as time went on, I had less and less faith in the cost-benefit analysis and I was glad to see that the same view was taken by Professor Buchanan in his admirable Note of Dissent. On page 155, he referred to the work of the research team undertaking the analysis and said:
"As the Team progressed, with ever more ingenious methods of surmounting this or that difficulty or criticism, so I became more and more anxious lest I be trapped in a process which I did not fully understand and ultimately led without choice to a conclusion which I would know in my heart of hearts I did not agree with."
One might ask why the team was having to use so much ingenuity if this was a truly scientific process. I do not believe that there is a true answer to that question. The best authority I have been able to discover on cost-benefit analysis is a paper or survey by A. R. Prest and R. Turvey included in "Surveys of Economic Theory", published by Macmillan in 1968. These two eminent experts had this to say about cost-benefit analysis:
"It is always important, and perhaps especially so in economics, to avoid being swept off one's feet by the fashions of the moment. In the case of cost-benefit analysis, one must recognise that it is a method which can be used inappropriately as well as appropriately … cost-benefit analysis as generally understood is only a technique for taking decisions within a framework which has to be decided upon in advance.—"
I submit that no such framework existed in the choice of this airport. It is the essence of the selection of an airport of this kind that it involves deciding about the relative importance of a whole series of imponderables. That was the position.
Subjective judgment is not always irrational. Some of the most important
1956
decisions we take in our lives are subjective. Should I fight for my country? Should I get married? Should I join the Conservative Party or the Labour Party? These are not susceptible to cost-benefit analysis! Roskill holds, on the other hand, that there is something inherently to be mistrusted about subjective judgment. He has this to say on the subject on page 11:
"It was not easy to see how this mammoth task could ever be begun. let alone brought to a satisfactory conclusion … It seemed essential wherever possible to avoid subjective judgments upon any part of a problem which had roused such deep emotions and that our method of analysis must be devised with this … in mind."
But deep emotions were aroused and the decision to discount them was a subjective judgment in the first place. It was a value judgment.
It seems to me that this rigid adherence to cost-benefit throughout the report leads to some ludicrous positions. For example, there is the matter of Stewkley Church, a Norman church. First, the experts claimed that it could be written into the cost-benefit analysis at its fire insurance value. When they saw that this simply was not accepted as tenable, what did they do? They said:
"We decided that no attempt should be made to value explicitly in money terms such contentious items as the loss of wild life or churches which would have to be demolished."
But churches and their demolition are an important matter. The Commission's view has discounted a whole range of things which people think important. The Wing Airport Resistance Association produced a list of about 10, and a good case could be made for every one of them. Again, the value of the countryside as such was never costed in the Report.
I come next to the enormous item of passenger-user costs—£167 million low and £207 million high. This, as I understand it, represents an aggregate of higher fares on a journey of 44 minutes as opposed to one of 39 minutes, travelled at high speed—and one does not know what form of surface transport there will be in the future. It is a matter of minutes, if not seconds. This extra money would in any case not be paid by the State or the taxpayer but by the passengers themselves. The difference is

1957
considerably in excess of the total supposed "benefit" of Cublington over Foulness.
The cost-benefit technique is still in its infancy. It is appropriate as a guide, not to accurate costs at all but to rational judgment, on certain restricted projects such as water and transport projects, research and development and, in some cases, defence. It is wholly inappropriate on this scale to this study. I am reminded of the character in Oscar Wilde who was said to have understood the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Another factor which Roskill left out of account but which I am sure the Government will take into account is the sheer impracticability of forcing through a decision on an inland site against popular resistance. I am not talking about pitchforks, although there might well be a few. I am talking about legal resistance. Essex County Council, with certain reasonable reservations, is, I understand—and my noble Friend Lord Molson mentioned this in the other place—in favour of Foulness. Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire County Councils are implacably opposed to the choice either of Thurleigh or Cublington. Unless this House is prepared to alter the law of compulsory purchase in a way which I do not think many of us would be prepared to accept, then access to every acre would be resisted—let alone any agreement reached on compensation. In this way it could be years before work could begin. It is possible to hold up even a reservoir for years in the countryside, as I know well, in an area where local people are against it. How much more difficult to impose this airport with all its inconveniences as well.
I should like to finish with a word or two about Foulness. I do not want to enter into the case too deeply. Some hon. Members have confused the noise figures in Roskill with the noise figures which would apply if the northern site for the runways at Foulness were chosen instead of the site which, for incomprehensible reasons, Roskill adopted. My noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal was asked in another place why Roskill came out for the southern site as opposed to the northern, and he replied that he did not know any more than anyone else. I hope that the Government will take all this into account and that those con-
1958
cerned with noise will realise that if the northern site for the runways were adopted the noise shadow would fall mostly over the sea and would be vastly better than either Thurleigh or Cublington in consequence.
Foulness also has the merit of flexibility. Should unexpected factors occur such as a break through in V.T.O. development or should the forecasts of traffic turn out to be unduly high or low, the situation could be coped with by altering reclamation. There is far greater flexibility at Foulness than at the inland sites. But once the Vale of Aylesbury is below concrete, even for one runway or half a runway, that is the end of the matter.
I want to mention the question of the airport/seaport, or Europort. I took the chair at a conference last October at the Hilton Hotel where learned papers were presented on this subject. I was convinced then that there was an important case for a seaport as well as an airport and that compatible advantages could be gained. I was convinced also that the case had never been deployed or examined fully during the Roskill inquiry. I hope that the Government will not neglect this. I am sure that they will not. There are certainly potential advantages. But we are required today not to decide that, but to decide on the airport. That is a big enough decision in all conscience. We are required—or the Government are required—to take it furthermore at a moment when, after two centuries of despoliation, man is beginning to stand back aghast at the results of his technical capacity and of his greed. Nowhere is this stance more important than in this crowded island. I am sure that the Government will respect it. It is not only the logic of argument which should lead them, I believe, to choose Foulness and to choose it soon, but also because of a quality which has seemed at times to have been overwhelmed during the course of the Roskill inquiry—the quality of common sense.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. David Steel: Hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that so far this has been a most stimulating and at times entertaining debate to which the hon.

1959
Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has made a distinguished contribution. I hope to make at least a meritorious contribution by being exceedingly brief. Because so much of what I would have said in elaboration of my argument has been said by other speakers, I propose to give the House the conclusion which my party has reached without repeating in any way all the argument and processes gone through to reach that conclusion.
Our conclusion is that if there is to be a new third airport in the South-East region it should be at a coastal site, either Foulness or, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) rather grandly put it, at some other site. That is our conclusion and it is possible, strangely enough, in this debate to be guilty of tedious repetition without having uttered more than a couple of sentences. Therefore, I leave that conclusion as it stands.
I turn to the important word "if", because as has already been pointed out, the consideration as to whether there should be a third airport in the southeast region was outside the Commission's terms of reference, at least I considered it so, despite the ingenious explanation given by the right hon. Member for Grimsby about a supplementary answer to a Question at the time the Commission was appointed.
It seems rather strange that apart from the Minister I appear to be the only Scottish Member of the House—and I do not limit the remark to Scotland—who is attempting to intervene in the debate. It would be a great mistake for hon. Members to assume that this is purely a South-East problem. We are, after all, talking of a possible expenditure of £500 million or £600 million, some say more, of public money. This is a genuine national question in which I would have thought all Members from whatever part of the country would be particularly interested.
I come to the two points on which I find myself in disagreement with the spokesmen from the two Front Benches. I believe that both rather made light of the lack of a national airports policy. This has been a grave deficiency, not just shown up in the discussion in the Roskill Commission, but for many years. I will give two examples. In the South-East of
1960
England the very fact that the British Airports Authority in its calculations does not take into account the movement of traffic in and out of Luton airport because Luton is not under its control is, I would have thought, a defect of any rational discussion of airport facilities around London.
Equally, in Scotland I am bound to say that I think we made a grievous mistake, because of the lack of a national airports policy, in spending money on building a new airport at Abbottsinch just outside Glasgow when the same amount of investment should have been spent in providing proper communications between the already existing Prestwick Airport and the centre of Glasgow. If that had been done and Prestwick had become the domestic airport for the City of Glasgow as well as an international airport, then Prestwick would be a more useful asset to the country as an international airport with transatlantic traffic, because it would at once have been linked into the domestic air services of the country. I do not share the rather light view that has been taken it appeared to me, by both Front Benches, that the lack of a national airports policy is something we have to gloss over or ignore. I think it has been a serious defect, over many years.
The second point on which I dissent from the Front Bench spokesmen is on their assessment of the possibilities of using under-used capacity in other airports elsewhere in the country. In an interesting article in the Economist on 7th February entitled "Who Needs a Third Airport, Anyway?" the following observation was made:
"What none of the commission's research papers have yet told is how strong the demand will be, five or six years from now, for locally based air services among people more or less resigned for the moment to travelling south to London to catch a flight because it is from London that the widest choice of flights is offered. Four out of every 10 British passengers going through London's airports now live outside the south-east (six out of 10 live outside London)."
This seems to be an important factor. Here I separate the argument as between tourists and business traffic. The Minister in his opening speech more or less accepted that there was nothing else to do with tourist traffic except that it must enter and leave through London. I reject this absolutely. The reason why tourist traffic comes in and out of the City of

1961
London is that that is where most of the air routes are. The tour operators, in the United States or elsewhere, suggest itineraries to their customers which begin and end at London. Even if they are going to the Highlands of Scotland they will go in and out of London.
I say to hon. Members from South-East England, whom I hope I carry with me, that it is as much in their interests as in the interests of those of us who represent constituencies well away from London to argue that this need not be so, and that we ought to be diversifying international air routes in and out of Britain to encourage more of the tourist traffic to originate from airports elsewhere.
I agree with the remark made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who said that there is surely no reason why we cannot, within a British airports policy, direct airlines to make use of certain airports. To take one tiny example, why is it that flights from here to Norway must go to and from London when it would be much more sensible for them to go to and from either Edinburgh or Newcastle Airports? Newcastle has an excellent airport and the country is about to spend £9 million on reconstructing Edinburgh Airport. These are the obvious, nearest places to the Scandinavian countries. It would be of potential benefit to these airports if international traffic were siphoned through them and customers transferred to the domestic routes which already exist for travelling to London.
This is not such a difficult proposition as people seem to imagine. If we travel to New York and we are unable to get a seat on a plane direct, although it may be a little inconvenient and a little tedious, none of us thinks too much of having to fly to Washington or Montreal and then catching a domestic connection to get to New York.
Moreover, not every country in the world accepts as a basic proposition that its central, international airport must automatically be in the capital. I refer in passing to the pattern in Zambia where all incoming traffic clears customs at the international airport of Ndola in the north of the country, in the mining belt, and those who want to go on to the capital, Lusaka, do so either in the same
1962
plane or in another plane, on a domestic internal flight. If we adopted that strategy we would not only cut down right away on a number of flights that come in and out of London, but by the end of the century it would be possible, if we developed land travel, to cut down absolutely the number of air traffic movements within the country.
I refer particularly to the development of the hovertrain. It seems extraordinary that this country, which was the first successfully to develop the hovercraft has not carried over with sufficient energy and priority the development of the hovertrain. My noble Friend Lord Gladwyn in his speech in the other place drew attention to the fact that there is a company called Tracked Hovercraft Limited, wholly financed by the Government, through the National Research Development Corporation, working on this. We are not according this project the priority it deserves. We have allowed the Japanese to overtake us.
I argue that we should develop this 250 mile-an-hour method of land transport because it can operate in and out of city centres and can be used effectively and noiselessly If it were brought into being in another 25 years' time it would more or less eliminate inter-city air travel altogether in this country and open up the possibilities of using other airports besides those situated in the South-East as our main international airports, because people would then be able to travel easily and quickly into the centre of the capital if they wished.
When I was at the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe I was astonished to find among the papers and reports submitted to us a report of a conference of European Ministers of Transport, in which we were a participant, which included among other things a report from consultants on the patterns of the future travel in Europe. This report included, without any fixed dates or times, charts and maps showing hovertrain routes through the Continent of Europe, from London to Birmingham and Manchester and on to the central industrial belt of Scotland. Are these to become a reality in the thinking of the Department for the Environment? If they are, as I think they should, clearly they would affect our thinking on the future pattern of the movement of

1963
people in this country and therefore the potential use of our different international airports. I hope that the Ministry will pay attention to that matter.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: As I think the House knows, Foulness is in my constituency. In my opinion, the Roskill Commission was absolutely right in rejecting it as the site for the third London airport. The great majority of my constituents who have expressed a view agree with me. But I confess that one of the difficulties which they and I have had to face has been the facile but mistaken assumption that many commentators have made, and are still making—some of them were made before the Roskill Report was published—that if runways are built on land reclaimed from the sea nobody inland will be disadvantaged, no noise nuisance will be caused, and if airlines and their passengers do not want to go there they can be forced to do so. This, as I hope to show, is nonsense.
It would be very tempting for me to say that, because the Commission was right to reject Foulness, it was right to recommend Cublington. I shall resist that temptation. I have a great deal of sympathy with the people of Cublington and all those at Heathrow and other airports who live in the shadow of incessant aircraft noise so movingly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) in what the whole House would agree was a most admirable maiden speech. But if an entirely new four-runway airport is needed—and, like the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), I am not at all satisfied on that point—and if the logic of the argument points away from an inland site towards one on the coast, Foulness is not the best coastal site which could be chosen.
The more I look at the problem, the more I am driven to the conclusion that, however meticulously the Roskill Commission addressed itself to its task, it was given the wrong terms of reference and it interpreted them too narrowly. It was not the Commission's fault that, instead of being asked to take a long cool look at our national airport requirements, it was limited to inquire into the
1964
timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports in the London area. But it was not obliged by its terms of reference to choose a site close to London, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in another place made perfectly plain at the time.
That being so, the House may consider it exceedingly odd that the outer edge of the area within which the Commission was encouraged to search for a suitable site by the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government went within 10 miles of the Wash on the east and 15 miles of the Severn Estuary on the west. While this did not suggest that the third London airport had to be within 50 miles of London, one wonders why coastal sites within reasonable distance of London and much better placed in relation to the industrial Midlands than Foulness were deliberately excluded by those briefing the Commission. Had the area of search been drawn a little wider, the Commission might have come up with a different and better answer.
Whatever the truth of that, it seems equally odd that the Commission spent not much more than two months reducing some 78 sites within the area of search to a short list of four without detailed consultation with the British Airports Authority, and then spent two years investigating those four sites, all of which are unattractive in varying degrees to the Authority and to the airlines—Foulness being the least attractive of all.
So much has been said about Foulness that it is my duty to tell the House why it is unattractive for other reasons. Before anyone rejects out of hand the conclusions which the Commission reached, it is highly relevant to note that had it chosen Foulness instead of Cublington it would have been, not the third, but the fourth London airport since it is clear that the airlines so dislike the prospect of going there and it is so much further from the Midlands that Luton Airport, to take one example only, would continue to operate and would even expand.
That would mean, as the Commission made plain—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is not present because he was wholly wrong on this point—that the

1965
total number of people in South-East Essex, North-East Kent and Luton who would suffer from serious noise would be far greater than at Cublington or at any other inland site. That makes nonsense of the argument that the choice of Foulness would reduce the noise nuisance to a minimum.
There is another reason for believing that more people in South-East Essex and North-East Kent alone would be disadvantaged by noise than was at first thought likely. Continental air space starts at about 30 miles east of Foulness. This gives rise to air traffic problems which would bring flight paths and stacking areas over land rather than over the sea. The enthusiasts for Foulness have forgotten that our Continental neighbours are also flying aircraft, and, for safety reasons, we cannot use limited air space as we would like. Also, since safety is a factor of the highest importance, we should not overlook the fact that Foulness is a bird sanctuary and is in the path of bird migrations which have taken place from time immemorial.
We know that birds constitute a grave hazard to aircraft in flight. The loss of an Electra with 62 lives when it collided with a flock of starlings at Boston Airport in 1960, of a Viscount with 17 lives when it collided with swans over Maryland in 1962, the near loss of a Vanguard at Turnhouse Airport, in the same year, and the near loss of two giant jet aircraft at Sydney Airport last year serve as an awful warning when it is realised that the high density of birds in these cases is also found at Foulness.
On statistical evidence alone we can be absolutely certain that there will be a major catastrophe at Foulness, if it is selected, within 20 years. Let me read what the Commission says on the point:
"There must be a greater risk of a major disaster at Foulness than at any inland site. The loss of life would be appalling and the public reaction would be one of horror."
Mr. Norman Tebbit: The evidence of Dr. Schaefer—which comes partly from a lecture which he gave at Queen's University, Ontario, during a conference on world bird hazards—made it clear that there is no greater risk at coastal airfields than anywhere else. The evidence is that in the typical form of accident which occurs on a coastal air-
1966
field the hazard to life is much less. One of the accidents quoted by my hon. Friend was due to a swan flying at 3,000 ft. There is no evidence whatsoever that Foulness would be less safe.
Mr. Braine: I am content to let the matter rest with what the Roskill Commission said, but I could quote the Chairman of the International Committee on Birds Hazards to Aircraft, Mr. M. S. Kuhring who has stated that he believes that it is impossible to overcome the bird strike hazard at Foulness. I have no judgment on this matter. I merely record what others have said. But I would hardly think it reasonable to expect that Her Majesty's Government will force the British Airports Authority and the airlines, including foreign airlines, to accept a site which experts consider appreciably less safe than others which could be chosen?
On the human factor, hon. Members who have already spoken, especially the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who made a very powerful speech to which I listened with great interest, and the hon. Member for Twickenham have been very eloquent about the human factor. They are absolutely right in that. In return, I beg them to understand that siting the airport at Foulness, especially if this were associated with a seaport, favoured by the Port of London Authority and the Southend Corporation, and, as I understand it, by some hon. Members, would impose an intolerable strain upon the living conditions of the very large population already living in the area.
South-East Essex, which includes the County Borough of Southend, is a relatively narrow peninsula confined between the Thames and the Crouch. It is already a growth area. Our population numbers well over 300,000, and is expected to grow whether an airport at Foulness materialises or not. Our environment is already under heavy assault. At the western end, art Canvey Island, oil companies are seeking to put up refineries alongside a resident population of 26,000 on the island itself and 45,000 in neighbouring Benfleet.
My right lion. Friend knows that development of this kind is bitterly resisted by my constituents and by the local

1967
authorities. But the arrival of an airport at the other end of the constituency would begin to put intolerable pressures on the whole of South-East Essex. We are already one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest, residential areas in the country. People have moved there voluntarily, seeking to get away from the congestion of the big city, to enjoy a garden and fresh air. Many of them are elderly folk who have come to spend their retirement in better and quieter surroundings.
Because of the physical limitations of the area, which so many of the advocates of Foulness ignore, the new motorway and rail link that will have to be provided will plough right through the heart of the airport city, with all the noise and nuisance which this must cause. By what right is development to be thrust upon us which will worsen the conditions in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden)?
Let us suppose that the decision is taken to force Foulness upon us. According to the evidence given to the Commission, the population in the relatively narrow corridor will double by the 1990s. How is the extra population to be accommodated? Unless new urban areas are to be created north of the Crouch, which the conservationists view with horror, it can only be done by adopting a density which will turn South-East Essex into near slum by the end of the century.
There are limits to the growth in the area. Whereas an airport could be accommodated, and perhaps a seaport as well, the accompanying proposal for large scale industrialisation would lead to a serious sacrifice of our environmental standards. No wonder that the Roskill Commission, when considering the planning aspects, rejected the Foulness site on the grounds that it would lead to over-crowding. No wonder Essex County Council, who began the advocacy of Foulness as a sort of reaction against Stansted and as an insurance against Nuthampstead, have begun to draw back from the implications. They now tell us that they do not mind an airport at Foulness, or a minor seaport. but that there must be no large-scale industrialisation. Having declared Foulness to he a growth
1968
point, how could large-scale industrial development be stopped? Presumably, by the use of planning controls. Is it likely that the Government, especially after the Rolls-Royce experience, will sanction hundreds of millions of pounds of capital expenditure on an airport and a seaport and then say that there must be no oil refineries, no petro-chemical works, no ore treatment plants, no steel works, when these are the very things which alone will make the investment pay?
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Essex County Council have modified their view. I received from them yesterday a document which ends up saying that
"No variation of previous policy is involved in this statement."
It says earlier that
"An airport at Foulness would be welcomed from a planning point of view."
It then gives two reasons.
Mr. Braine: I have just described that as ridiculous, and I stand by that. How can one say that he is in favour of an airport and a seaport but not in favour of any large scale industrialisation? If the hon. Gentleman reads the document he will see that it says that there. Indeed, it would be better if instead of intervening on a point which betrays his complete lack of knowledge of the geographical and planning difficulties of my area, had allowed me to move on. If one cannot stop development of this kind, how is it possible to protect the existing population against a worsening of their environment in this narrow peninsula?
Against this background, I have asked myself the question whether a third London airport is necessary. As in so many situations, the difficulty lies less in finding the right answers than in asking the right questions.
The Commission were asked to select a four-runway site and they did so. But on each of the four sites studied, the first runway would not be ready until 1980 at the earliest, the second would not be ready until 1983—with the exception of Foulness, where it would not be ready until 1986—the third would not be ready until 1990, and the fourth would emerge some time after the year 2000.

1969
One wonders what is going to happen to aircraft technology in the relatively long period before the third runway is needed. Does it stand still? If that is the time-scale which we are having to consider it is a great pity that the Commission were not asked to look at two-runway sites. Had they done so, then entirely new possibilities would have been opened up and a solution might have been found more nearly in accord with a national airport policy, which at least some of us feel to be necessary. By that, incidentally, I mean a policy which does not assume that Britain ceases to be of any importance north of the home counties. If we could get by with a two-runway airport in the South-East and if it has to be on the coast, then Lydd springs to mind as offering special advantages. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask the British Airports Authority what it thinks of that suggestion.
If, however, the argument is that we need a four-runway airport on the coast which will cater not merely for the growth of air traffic from the London area but will take the heat off existing airports, which concerns many of my hon. Friends, there are at least two areas which could have been examined just outside the area of search which the Commission looked at, namely, the Wash and the Severn Estuary. While both of those sites are further from London, they are much nearer the industrial heart of the country, and the Wash is much nearer to our main industrial markets in Europe, which lie to the east, rather than to the south of Britain.
Earlier I questioned the wisdom of committing ourselves to the expenditure of untold millions of pounds on airfields which in the end may prove to be not only in the wrong place but not required at all. Why is not more regard paid to developing technology? The Commission touched briefly on two possibilities which might well affect future demand for airport capacity but did not feel able to examine them in detail. Yet both have a cruicial bearing on the problem. One is the Channel Tunnel. I understand that if this materialised and the advanced passenger train service was introduced, it would be quicker to go from London to Paris, or perhaps to Brussels and Amsterdam, by train than it is to go by air from our existing airports.
1970
The second possibility—I will not develop this because others have done so—which might completely change the prospect is the development of V/STOL aircraft. This development is technically and economically feasible, as has already been demonstrated in the United States, and I wonder, therefore, whether my right hon. Friend was right in the cautious view he expressed. My information is that it is feasible to have STOL aircraft in service by the early 'eighties or even earlier if the Government were to make up their mind that the future of short-haul traffic really lies with this type of aircraft. After all, 40 per cent. of the movements through Heathrow is short-haul traffic, and if this traffic could be withdrawn from Heathrow and operated from other smaller airports a great deal of the noise and congestion there could be overcome.
I appreciate that there are inponderables, but we would look very foolish indeed if we were to sink vast sums into the development of huge new airfields and spend millions of pounds on road and rail links only to find, at the end of the day that much of the new infrastructure was outmoded and unnecessary. If these wider considerations are to be ignored and if Foulness is to be thrust on my constituents, then there are many safeguards they will demand. [Interruption.]
I am reacting in this way because of the insensitivity which has been displayed by some of my hon. Friends, who seem to think that the people who live in South-East Essex and North-East Kent are of no account in this matter. I wish, therefore, to take time to explain that there are certain safeguards which our people will demand and expect to get. At this stage I will mention only two.
First, South-East Essex is an area which has suffered grievously in the past from floods. The people of this area require a firm assurance from the Government that the large-scale dredging of sand and the alteration and configuration of the coastline which an airport would entail will have no adverse effects on tidal and surge behaviour in both the Thames and the Crouch and, therefore, on the lives and safety of our local community. The Commission said that it was satisfied on this point, but I am

1971
not. Some of the local authorities are not satisfied either. Our people have had to live under the threat of floods for decades and since the Commission deliberately left out of the reckoning the possible additional effect of dredging for a port, the whole question needs close and careful study.
Secondly, it was clear from the evidence to the Commission that normal life would be impossible on Foulness Island and perhaps for some distance inland. This would sterilise some of the finest farming land in the country and would drive out people whose ancestors have lived there for centuries. This poses a special problem.
The people of Foulness do not own their own farms and homes. Their landlord is the Government and they are the tenants. Their average age is high and their uprooting would cause intense distress. We would, therefore, require resettlement on the land elsewhere for our tenant farmers, decent rehousing for our old folk and fair compensation for the loss of livelihood and the destruction of our fishing and whiteweed industries. If a whole community is to be uprooted to serve the nation's need, the nation must deal with them generously. I say this because the existing law of compensation is not adequate to meet the circumstances I have described; it must be made so.
I hope that it will not come to this because it seems, on any objective basis, that it would be the height of folly for any decision to be made about Cublington, Foulness or anywhere else and to embark on huge investment before a clear national policy for airports has been evolved.
When the Roskill Commission began its work we were led to believe that the situation was desperate and that London had to have a third airport by the mid-seventies. Roskill concluded that the first runway would not be ready before 1980. The situation is, therefore, not as desperate as it was first thought to be. There is still time for second thoughts and deeper study. I hope the Government will agree.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I made a very respectful request earlier for brevity. I suggest that it is not fair for hon. Members to speak
1972
for 25 minutes. Many hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. John Hall: I wish, at the outset, to express warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on a maiden speech which was excellent in every respect. My congratulations are the warmer because it came within my definition of "brief", being of less than ten minutes' duration. No other hon. Member has succeeded in living up to that example, though I intend to do so.
Mr. David Steel: I was brief.
Mr. Hall: I was timing the hon. Gentleman rather carefully.
My speech will be entirely negative in character. I have no expert knowledge of where airports should be sited or of the complications that arise from the infrastructure that must be developed from them. There has been complete unanimity of view on both sides of the House in this debate on one aspect, however, and that is that the siting of any airport, wherever it may be, causes untold distress and damage to the environment.
At the risk of being accused by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) of being a public relations officer for the Friends of the Aylesbury Vale, I intend to speak entirely against the recommendation of the Roskill Commission that the airport should be sited at Cublington. As a Buckinghamshire hon. Member, I am opposed to this proposal because it affects not only that county but the surrounding counties, including Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire.
This proposal affects my constituency in part. As for the south of my constituency, the siting of an airport at Cublington might, in fact, reduce the noise nuisance, because I take it that it would mean Luton Airport closing. The southern part of my constituency suffers considerably now from flights in and out of Luton and from overflying and stacking into Heathrow. I take it that the activities which now affect the southern part of my constituency would diminish as more aircraft were diverted. From that point of view, looking at it selfishly, it would benefit the southern part of my constituency, and one would

1973
imagine that those constituents would urge me to support the siting at Cublington. However, they do not, for they appreciate the immense damage that would be done to the life of the county of Buckinghamshire if the airport were to be sited there.
In the northern part of my constituency we are likely to be affected by the noise zone. Chequers only just narrowly escapes, and perhaps the Prime Minister should bear this in mind. The neighbouring town of Princes Risborough and an area to within six miles of the heart of Oxford City would be affected by the noise zone.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby referred to Professor Buchanan's Minority Report as poetical and suggested that it should have a place in the annals of English literature. I agree. It is poetry and there are times when we should pay more attention to poets and less to technologists.
I wish particularly to draw attention to the disaster that would befall the Vale of Aylesbury if, by some mental aberration the Government should decide to accept the Roskill Recommendation. In the Minority Report, which I have in the form of an appendix to the memorandum submitted by the Buckinghamshire County Council, Professor Buchanan said:
"I believe, as I have said before, that the Vale of Aylesbury is a critically important part of this island. It is part of the fundamental hill and dale, forest and farmland break between London and Birmingham. It is of immense value to the nation, even more so to my mind than the Nuthampstead area which lies on the fringe of an unbroken stretch of countryside extending northwards through East Anglia to the sea. To locate the airport squarely athwart the break between the country's two largest conurbations, with the noise area extending from south-west to north-east for nearly 40 miles, and with the consequent constraint on all the modest activities that the area so conveniently accommodates at present and all those it could accommodate in future, would seem to me to constitute nothing less than an environmental disaster."
Of course he is quite right. The statement of Stewkley Parish Council—and the village of Stewkley would virtually disappear under concrete if the recommendation were accepted—is a description of the life of a typical English village which once destroyed, can never be replaced.
1974
We are told about the cost benefit analysis and how it is adapted to the loss of churches. Stewkley church is 800 years old and is regarded as one of the finest examples of its kind in the country. How can a cost-benefit analysis be adapted to that? What price can be put on a heritage which, once destroyed cannot be replaced?
In a sense this is not a technological problem, it is an emotional problem. The time is coming when we should stop to consider exactly what we are trying to do. We are obsessed with technological advance, with increasing our gross national product, developing our productive facilities, getting to places faster, cutting minutes off our journey time, although if one asks travellers what they do with the minutes they save, they find it difficult to say.
What is the result of all this activity? Is it designed to make us happier? One cannot think so if one looks at the world population today, and when one sees the increase in the population of mental asylums and the increase in the number of people suffering from mental diseases and the modern strain diseases. Is it not time we stopped to consider what we are trying to do?
Is it right to spend so many millions to allow a very limited number of people to travel faster and more often from A to B when the effect on the people living around the area over which the aircraft pass will be so great? Is it right to encourage more and more flights of aircraft, with all the pollution that comes from the burning up of the fuel and potential long-term damage caused by the vapour trails that are left in the sky? We should stop and consider these matters.
I do not want to suggest where an airport should be. I feel, as other hon. Members do, that perhaps we do not need a third London airport, although we might need another national airport. I beg the Government to look at this problem again, to consider the problem nationally and, above all, to keep in mind the normal things which make life worth living in this country. I ask them not to do something which will destroy these amenities and the things which we enjoy. That is all I ask the Government to do. If they fail to do that—and I am sure

1975
they will not—let me remind them of a quotation from G. K. Chesterton which refers particularly to the area for which I speak. It is an extract from one of his poems:
"Prince, Prince-Elective on the modern plan,
Fulfilling such a lot of people's Wills,
You take the Chiltern Hundreds while you can—
A storm is coming on the Chiltern Hills."
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I hope the Minister will take up the invitation which he has had from several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), to say something on the question of a national airport policy, even if it is merely to indicate the broad ways in which further studies might be developed by the Government. This should not prevent us looking fairly and squarely at the more immediate problems that face the South-East, even though I speak as a Northerner who takes it for granted that anyone who wants to go to Scandinavia should use Newcastle Airport to do so.
I want to speak tonight to some extent on behalf of the National Trust, on whose executive I serve, and the Town and Country Planning Association, on which I also serve, and to express the clear views of two other bodies with which I have close connections, the Countryside Commission, and a movement I helped to found, the Youth Hostels Association. All these bodies take a similar view, that the Roskill Commission recommendation should not be accepted and that the threat to the area of countryside involved in all three inland sites would not be acceptable.
The Cublington site recommended by the Roskill Commission would affect the National Trust severely. Three major properties would be involved, and the wide Ashridge Common area which is frequented by many people at all times of the year. Waddesdon, Ascot and Claydon all attract large numbers of people. Last year about 100,000 people visited these three properties. Taking Waddesdon as an example, the enjoyment of that area would be largely if not completely destroyed if an airport were to be sited
1976
at Cublington. The Chairman of the National Trust in a letter to The Times said that the problem would be comparable to that faced by the people who go to Kew Gardens. I think that it would be a good deal more severe than that. This terrible concentration of noise would be enormously damaging. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) was right in welcoming the growing recognition of the damage caused by noise. This is a major consideration which cannot be quantified in money terms. Any attempts at analysis would be hopeless.
My right hon. Friend referred to the Town and Country Planning Association and said that its views had changed somewhat. They have no doubt been modified, but the association still holds to the view that almost certainly there is no necessity for a third airport to be a four-runway airport—which is close to the view expressed by my right hon. Friend—and that urgent consideration should be given to more modest proposals. On the whole the association favours the Foulness site as being more satisfactory from many planning points of view. It strongly supports the minority recommendations of Professor Buchanan and stresses the importance of development on the east side of London as against the over-heating and over-concentration to the West. No doubt it would agree with some of the ideas put forward by the Essex County Council whose views we have heard criticised but which takes the view that it is practicable to have a modest development in Essex which could be of considerable value to the people living in the area as well as meeting the early needs for airport development.
The other body to which I shall refer is the Countryside Commission. It interests me to find that the Commission, whose remit is to advise on broad countryside questions and matters of amenity, takes the view that as between the four possibilities with which latterly the Roskill Commission was concerned the Foulness proposals would do least damage to amenity and countryside questions though the Countryside Commission fully recognised, as we all do, the damage to and concern for wild life in the area. But taking that matter fully into account, the view of the Countryside Commission

1977
is that of the four alternatives Foulness would be the right site to choose.
I accept my right hon. Friend's view that we do not need to be tied to this if we move ourselves away from the assumption that we need a four-runway airport. It is conceivable that there might be another site on the coast which would be preferable to any of those proposed so far. We should not rule this out. We must be clear in our minds that we must take action as soon as practicable to help to tackle the noise problem which already affects so many people. I hope that it will not be accepted that we should only build up existing airports and so increase still further the trouble many people are suffering today. We should not accept that as a tolerable alternative. I believe that we must find another site which at least could meet the more modest needs which now may be thought to be necessary.
We know that very many of the complaints against the Roskill proposals appear to come from an extremely well-organised body of people, who are often professional people and who know—and this is no complaint against them—how best to make their complaints and to whom to make them. However, I am attracted by the fact that complaints are also being made by a body like the Youth Hostels Association, which speaks for a large number of people whom we want to encourage to use the pleasures of that great stretch of countryside.
I hope that very careful thought will be given to the suggestion which has been made by my right hon. Friend that we should not accept the assumption that a four-runway airport is absolutely vital. There are alternative possibilities, of which Foulness may be one, but there may be other sites on the coast which should be considered.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. W. Benyon: I am sure the House would understand if I were to deal with the Roskill Report in purely emotional terms because, if this recommendation were accepted, my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) would face the destruction of
1978
over 2,000 houses; over 7,000 people would be displaced from their homes and in many cases their livelihoods; ancient buildings would be destroyed, including the gem of Norman architecture which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall); and thousands of acres of some of the finest country, both agricultural and scenic, would disappear under a mass of concrete and tarmac. It involves bulldozing flat a site five miles long and two-and-a-half miles wide—a site three-and-a-half times the present size of Heathrow. It involves imposing on 50 sq. miles an intolerable noise burden and on 350 sq. miles what is described as noise nuisance. I hope the House will be under no illusion about the human and environmental consequences of accepting this recommendation.
This part of Buckinghamshire has a proud and ancient history. Turner described it as "mid-most unmitigated England". Hon. Members will appreciate that when Roskill talks about the destruction of the breeding grounds of the Brent goose at Foulness in the same breath as saying that the Buckinghamshire communities will be directly affected, it is a Freudian slip which has caused the greatest anger and resentment in my constituency.
Emotion, however understandable, must take second place to reason in this debate. No matter how much we admire Mr. Justice Roskill and his team, no matter how much one accepts the time, devotion and deliberation given to this mammoth task, I do not believe that any reasonable person reading this Report can accept the majority conclusion.
However, I completely accept two of the basic arguments in the Report. First, there is an urgent need for a new airport—and whether it be two or four runways does not matter—and, secondly, the airport must serve the Metropolis. Much as I would like to support the proposals for Severnside, Liverpool, Humberside, and so on, I do not believe that these can stand up to the Roskill evaluation; neither do I accept that the probable advances in aircraft technology permit delay. We have heard a great deal about this topic today, and we shall hear a good deal more about it in the coming months.

1979
I was interested to hear the Minister's opening remarks. I have studied all the evidence carefully, but I can find nothing to support the view that vertical or short take-off aircraft will sweep the board in the foreseeable future. In any event, heavy cargo and inter-continental supersonic aircraft will still need conventional airports with conventional runways.
If we are to relieve the intolerable burden at existing London sites and at the same time avoid the environmental disaster of Cublington, I come to the inescapable conclusion—I come to this conclusion with a certain amount of regret because I have a great personal feeling for Foulness—that Foulness is the only site that makes sense. I was interested to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). He seemed to lead us up the garden path, and then suddenly stop. He mentioned Lydd and one or two other sites. But this would mean starting the Commission all over again. We must accept that Roskill has looked very carefully at all the sites in the south-east of England.
Foulness makes sense, especially from the planning point of view. Whether one accepts Professor Buchanan's Minority Report or the views of the South-East Economic Planning Council, the London Regional Planning Council, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Civic Trust, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, or the National Trust, all of them without exception reject Cublington as the site for the proposed airport and opt, instead, for Foulness. It would make a mockery of planning if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is just about to announce his approval of the new South-East Plan, threw the biggest possible spanner into the works by accepting the Roskill recommendation.
The North Buckinghamshire area is the last stretch of open country between London and Birmingham. Contrary to what has been suggested, it has no unemployment problem. There is evident prosperity in the area, with the prospect of its being more prosperous in the future. To place such a major growth creator as an airport with its potential for 65,000 jobs in such an area would, at one and the same time, destroy the
1980
countryside for ever, would join the London and Birmingham conurbations together and, in planning terms, would result in severe over-heating. It would, as Professor Buchanan has said, be an environmental and planning disaster.
Foulness, on the other hand, would achieve a planning objective. It fits into the regional strategy, and it will relieve certain pressing social problems of East London and South-East Essex, as the Essex County Council itself point out. Uncertainty has been expressed about the prospect of a motorway. However, we should still need a motorway in South-East Essex whether the airport went there or not. So that is not a valid argument.
The second major weakness of the Roskill Report is the cost-benefit analysis. I know that other hon. Members are hoping to deal with this point in greater detail. I content myself with repeating what the Report itself says. It is a sophisticated tool, but one which is in its infancy. When it is used for a straightforward study like the Victorian Underground line, it makes sense. However, it breaks down when it comes to deal with intangibles. What value is to be put on the planning considerations when one adds to them the full amenity value of the countryside? The experts advising the Wing Airport Resistance Association have put an extra cost on Cublington of £400 million for this alone. The Commission disagree.
The Wing Airport Resistance Association has done a magnificent amateur job. It did not employ full-scale public relations consultants, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby seemed to indicate. It had help in running three Press conferences in London. However, it was a spontaneous effort, and when hon. Members suggest to me that the association overplayed its hand and that it was an organised lobby, all that I can say is that, if it had been, hon. Members would not have been subjected to all this literature. It is because the protest has been unorganised and spontaneous and has stemmed from the people of the area that it has been so successful.
I am sure that what the Minister and the Treasury will bear in mind is that Foulness will cost the taxpayer less than Cublington in terms of capital expenditure and extra operating expenses. The

1981
lion's share of the Roskill Commission's differential is the extra cost to the air traveller. However, it works out at about 20p per journey, which is minute in relation to the total cost of the project and the cost of the journey itself. The cost-benefit analyses are suspect. Equally suspect is the Commission's suggestion that Foulness might not be economically viable.
If the Government mean to alleviate the intolerable conditions of the existing London sites, they will have to impose restrictions, especially on night flying. That must apply to Cublington as well as to the existing sites. What is sauce for the inland Heathrow goose is equally sauce for the inland Cublington gander—
An Hon. Member: And Foulness.
Mr. Benyon: I want to urge strongly upon the Government the need for a quick decision to be made. If it were only because of the anxiety and fears of the people involved, it would be bad enough. However, so much else hangs on the decision. The future planning of a large part of South-East England is being held up, and vital economic decisions are being delayed. I urge the Government to act quickly and to choose Foulness, thereby keeping us in the forefront of air transport developments without creating the environmental disaster envisaged by Professor Buchanan.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) will appreciate, I cannot agree with everything that he has said.
I am sorry that there are not more hon. Members on the benches opposite to listen to this debate. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) rightly said, this is a national problem in which the Opposition should be taking their proper part.
The Action Committee against Foulness Airport and the Sheppey Group—I happen to be a joint chairman of the latter—were criticised in The Times yesterday for not mounting a bigger public relations campaign against the airport being sited at Foulness. However, we are not rich groups, and we do not repre-
1982
sent rich people. We have very limited funds. The reason why we have not mounted a major public relations campaign, however, is that we have rested our case on the findings of the Roskill Commission after deliberations lasting two and a half years. Even if we could have afforded a P.R. campaign, which was quite out of the question, it would have been improper to wage a publicity campain against the possibility of the Government not accepting the recommendation of the Commission. That is not my interpretation of the way in which our parliamentary democracy should be worked and how a Government decision should be made.
I do not blame those living round Cublington for their vigorous action and their £50,000 campaign. They are in a very difficult position. Their area has been very strongly recommended by the Commission as the site for the new airport, and they have a great deal to lose. I do not blame them for their bonfires and balloons and the hue and cry that they have raised, even if they had not read the whole Report when they began their campaign. They have no time to lose. I do not blame them for saying that it must not be Cublington. But I condemn them absolutely for the arrogant and insensitive manner in which they have said that it must, therefore, be Foulness.
The people of Cublington do not want the airport in their part of the country, for all sorts of reasons. At the end of the day, their case rests on the environmental question and the loss of precious countryside in the Vale of Aylesbury. But they have no right to say that anyone else can suffer as long as it is not them, and I am sure that that argument will carry no weight with a single member of the Cabinet, because this will be a Cabinet decision.
There has also been a serious misunderstanding about the number of people who would suffer from noise pollution at Foulness compared with the number at Cublington. Misunderstandings have again been expressed today, and there has been considerable misrepresentation in the Press. As recently as 12th January, the Daily Telegraph said that 284 persons would be affected at Foulness. The figure, in fact, is over 62,000.

1983
This propaganda campaign by the various resistance associations has tried to suggest that the Foulness site presents no environmental disadvantages. It is a disgraceful distortion of the truth, and Parliament must hear the facts if there are still rumours, vague ideas, loose statements and anxious thoughts about this problem in the massive decision with which we are faced. Now is the time to put up the facts for examination, so that the Government can consider them and then come back to us with their recommendation.
The Roskill Report is the result of two and a half years' work. Here are the answers to almost every question. There has never been such a thorough examination of a planning decision. I think that it was right that it should have been so long, detailed, painstaking and thorough.
The Commission looked at 78 sites and took evidence from over 160 organisations and individuals and—this, I think, is important—from seven Government Departments. The Commission properly recognised the full depth into which it had to go to recognise the great width of the consequences of its recommendation and ultimate decision.
The Roskill Report—276 pages long—is not light reading. It must not be treated lightly. It cannot be cast aside and tucked away in some dusty file in Whitehall. After all, when the Conservative Government were in opposition in 1968, when the Roskill Commission was set up and announced by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), they were consulted before the right hon. Gentleman came to the House and made his announcement. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), now the Minister of Aviation Supply, said:
"The Opposition have throughout taken the view that it is highly desirable that the Commission should be in a position to reach a conclusion on the most suitable site without the risk of that site subsequently being rejected by a local planning inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 33.]
The Liberal Party also indicated its welcome of the establishment of that Commission. As the chairman of one of the protest groups against an airport in Kent at that time—the Sheppey Group—
1984
I also welcomed the decision. The members of that protest group were prepared to accept that the Commission was the only way for a full and fair examination of the total problem of the Third London Airport to be made.
When the list of sites was narrowed down to four—we were glad that Sheppey was excluded—whilst we were against the choice of Foulness, because we knew that it would affect people living in Kent, we said that we would accept the decision of the Commission even if it had gone against us. We made this clear, and I made it clear on many occasions when speaking in public. If the decision had gone against us we should have pressed the Government for everything possible to be done to minimise the problems which people in Essex and Kent would then have had to face. We had never adopted a dog-in-the-manger attitude on the matter. I have always tried to see the problem in its total context of a national requirement.
We put our case to the Roskill Commision at the Stage 2 and Stage 5 hearings fully and forcefully. We were determined that the Commission should not fail to recognise the environmental disadvantages to a great number of people if Foulness was chosen. Those disadvantages, as has been evidenced in the debate today, were not, in our opinion, readily apparent. We also argued that there were important factors concerning the economic, social, agricultural and air safety aspects at Foulness which made it vital that Foulness should not be chosen as the site for the airport under any circumstances.
The Roskill Commission, which considered the whole of the problems which would be created by the formation of an airport at Foulness, considered the effect on the environment, the economic result, the social effect, the effect on agriculture, and the suitability of the site for aircraft operation. I should like to look at those five points as Roskill examined and reported upon them.
On the environment, Roskill found that Foulness would have a direct noise effect on fewer households than at Cublington. The figure for Foulness was 20,300 households compared with 29,400 at Cublington. But it is necessary to consider the effect which would be caused by the increased use of existing London Airports and also that Luton was seen for certain

1985
to have increased usage as a result of the choice of Foulness. The Roskill Commision—this I believe, because it is the only possible and positive evidence on which I can go—reported that at least another 25,000 households would be affected by increased traffic at Luton.
Another point which must be made on this question—many hon. Members are rightly concerned at the present intolerable noise pollution at Heathrow—is that if Foulness were chosen and proved to be an unattractive site to airline operators both in Britain and from overseas, there would inevitably be no let up whatsoever for Heathrow, and there would be a build-up at Gatwick with a demand for a second runway there, and a build-up at Stansted and at Luton. In paragraph 13.18 Roskill says:
"More householders would be affected by Foulness and Luton combined than by either Cublington or Thurleigh."
On economic grounds, Foulness is stated by Roskill to cost in capital terms over £100 million more to develop than Cublington. The most important economic consideration is the success or otherwise of the new airport. Because of its distance from London and its general inaccessibility, Foulness is seen by Roskill, by the British Airports Authority, by the two British airlines, and by many major overseas airlines, as unattractive. Many airlines would prefer to use the other London Airports which I have mentioned. Charter flights might decide to bypass the London Airports altogether and flights from America might go direct to Paris, to Amsterdam and to Frankfurt.
The question of surface access has been fully stated. There is no doubt that Foulness is considered too far away and on the wrong side of London.
The social and planning effect has been mentioned by many hon. Members. There is no question that Foulness will require much longer road and rail links, and extensive development throughout southeast Essex involves not only high capital cost but a greater land requirement. We read in the Report that an airport city would have to be developed there, requiring accommodation for a further quarter of a million people.
We are sometimes told by those in opposition to the Roskill recommendations that, concerning the agricultural
1986
effect, land in south-east Essex is not so valuable. But Roskill did not agree. In paragraph 6.62 Roskill states:
"The agricultural advantages of the smaller land demands of the whole Foulness scheme—airport and urban developments—are nullified by the high quality and productivity of the area thought by the consultants to be required for urban development."
The Commission concluded that the loss of agricultural land was likely to be worse at Foulness than at Cublington.
There is one last point, the fifth point, which I wish to make which Roskill also stressed—namely, the suitability of Foulness for aircraft operation. This is a disputable and arguable case. The danger of bird strike is very real. I speak as one who has been involved in bird strike in an aircraft during the war. Two of my friends were killed in an aircraft hitting a kite hawk over India. It is difficult to say how great the danger is today. I know there are hon. Members present with considerable experience of aircraft operation. Modern jets have great power and can endure the loss of one engine on take-off or landing. But we have read and been told today that there were two incidents at Sydney Airport last year involving large passenger traffic and that a disaster was only narrowly averted. The danger remains, and that thought should be in our minds as we consider this problem and in the Government's minds as they make their recommendation to Parliament.
Roskill has said that it is not certain, but that all it can say from the evidence which it heard is that the danger from Foulness was much greater than at an inland site. It is my experience and evidence that birds do not fly away. Statistical analysis, I am told—I consulted an expert on this in the airline business this week—estimates that there would be a major disaster at an airport at Foulness once every 20 years, which means that it could occur in the first year or the twentieth.
Do we need a third London airport at all? That is the other question. Will not VTOL and STOL make it unnecessary? My investigations show that VTOL is a development confined to military operating aircraft. The expensive fuel and the poor payload are, naturally, enormous considerations. But STOL is a possibility. I am advised that it cannot

1987
be ready before 1980 at the earliest and that 1985 is more realistic.
Perhaps the Government could encourage the development. There are such aircraft of a passenger airliner type already flying in the United States. I should like to think that the Government did not neglect the opportunity to investigate this development, but I believe it to be a long way off and it cannot encourage us to tuck this problem under the carpet.
Meanwhile, while this is still being thought of as an idea for the future, London is still Europe's main cargo and passenger staging post. This must be a vital factor in our economic planning, economic opportunities and further development.
The reason for this, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said, is that the frequency of North Atlantic flights from Heathrow is double that of the biggest other airport in Europe with international traffic, Orly. The value of cargo going out of Heathrow is also almost double the value of that going out of Orly, and very much higher than that which travels internationally out of Frankfurt. London attracts this inter-port trade and cargo traffic.
I was discussing this in France at the weekend, and found that if a textile manufacturer wishes to ship textiles by air to Chicago, he flies them not from Paris-Orly but from London, where there is a much better chance of tucking them under the floor of the aircraft. As the Minister said, a great proportion of cargo is carried under the floor of passenger aircraft; it is because of the high frequency of flights from London on the North Atlantic route that London is so attractive.
But France, Holland and Germany are doing their best to overhaul us in our economic advantage. We could be bypassed. We could lose our present advantage by making a wrong decision now or in the near future on the siting of the new airport. We must recognise the economic and commercial elements in this decision. Roskill did; Parliament and the Government must.
As Roskill also said, in paragraph 2.11:
1988
"Generally it has been accepted that there should be a third London airport and that this country should not purchase peace and quiet at the price of cutting itself off from the world's air routes."
Every solution has its price. It is no good siting this airport far away from London, where it will not serve its purpose as an airport. Of course there is no ideal site, but we must make a balanced judgment. We have to make our decision in the interests of the whole nation. As we face that judgment, we must contain the environmental problem and obtain the economic advantages. That is the challenge which faces the Government.
I am very glad that it is the Secretary of State for the Environment who is to wind up the debate. I, and, I am sure, all other hon. Members with anxieties about this choice, have confidence in the Government for the high priority which they give to environmental questions. But, at the same time, this country cannot afford to sacrifice its economic opportunities as it considers those important questions.
7.36 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not know what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) meant when he said that the real Opposition were not present. I have often thought that I am the real Opposition. Perhaps the quantity of the Opposition is not here, but the quality is.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) made the case for the third London airport being in Thorne Waste, which is a long way from London. I am sure that those of us from Liverpool could argue the case much better, because the facilities which he says should be there we already have. Therefore, if one argues on those lines, Liverpool would stand a little in advance of Thorne Waste.
There is a fine airport in Liverpool which is being under-used. Yet I have a difficulty in arguing for its greater use. If it is used more the environmental background of those who live there will be much worse. I accept that planes come in along the River Mersey, but when there is a diversion of aircraft because of fog from Manchester to Liverpool the complaints about noise level increase. A much greater development of Liverpool

1989
Airport will increase the noise problem and the antagonism of those who live in council houses around the airport.
So I am torn between arguing for the further development of the airport and recognising this problem. For once in my life I am not sure on which side to come down. There is a very good case on both sides. This is, of course, one of the greatest conurbations in the country. It is absolutely essential that we have a national airports policy. I recall making speeches urging this four years ago, yet such a policy does not exist. One must exist if we are to have the proper development of our airports.
I intervene in this debate primarily because I have been asked to do so—that is, by an organisation of trade unionists calling itself the Trade Union and Labour Co-ordinating Committee in support of Thurleigh. The members of this organisation are represented in this House by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they have asked me to express their point of view, possibly because they thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not express it forcefully enough. It is understandable that hon. Gentlemen opposite should complain about the possible development of another inland airport.
Of the four sites considered by Roskill, the members of the Trade Union and Labour Co-ordinating Committee are in support of an airport being sited at Thurleigh. It is surprising to find people who live in an area supporting the idea of an airport coming to that area. These people may not comprise the majority of local inhabitants—although they do represent the majority of workers in the locality—but their views should be heard. They say:
"As far as we know, we are the only spontaneous group to emerge in favour of an inland site for the Third London Airport. On this issue, at least, we are not a sleepwalking, unrepresentative minority in a rural area"
[Interruption.] I appreciate that some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this and would prefer Foulness or one of the other suggested sites. This Committee represents 33 affiliated organisations, including district committees and trades councils in the area. These people are not saying, "We intend to campaign for an airport in our part of the world" but just that if an inland airport is to be sited some-
1990
where, it should go to Thurleigh. They go on:
"Buchanan grossly underrates the value of the amenities that would be affected by Foulness. The coastline of Northern Kent, dear to thousands of working-class holiday makers, is dismissed contemptuously by Buchanan in his dissenting note as 'an area popular for caravans and chalets'. True, Sheppey may not possess for Buchanan the unspoilt charm of rural Buckinghamshire with its historic homes and weekend-cottages. But the Kent coastline happens to be a popular spot for trippers trapped in the most heavily urbanised part of England."
They then make this valid point which must be taken into account:
"Buchanan fails to distinguish between Cublington and Thurleigh … What he does not point out is that much of the area affected by Thurleigh is in East Anglia, well outside the growth corridor. The problem in East Anglia is not lack of green acres but lack of industry of any description, which is the reason why average earnings per capita are lower in East Anglia than in any other region in the country (apart from Ulster) and why so many villages, populated mainly by the middleaged and elderly, are slowly dying."
They then say under the heading of "Environmental Benefit of Airport":
"The airport and airport induced development will create new employment, force up wages, improve working conditions, increase leisure through reduced overtime, create new entertainment amenities and improve public services, most notably public transport. All things being equal, a major new airport should be sited in a deprived area where these benefits will greatly enhance 'the quality of life', and where the advantages of an airport outweigh the undoubted disadvantages".
As this Committee represents 33 organisations, its case must be considered.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) made an absolutely first-class contribution in which he made a powerful case not for a four-runway third airport but for a two-runway one, for which a good case can be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) underlined this and pointed out that we need something to relieve the present congestion as quickly as possible.
In all conscience I cannot suggest, as much as I would like to, that the third London airport should be sited in Liverpool, although I am in favour of Liverpool being used more. Other hon. Members have other parts of the country in mind. We must be realistic, and clearly it must be sited somewhere below a line drawn across the middle of Britain.
Mr. Tilney rose—
Mr. Heffer: I will not give way. I wish to be brief and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
If it must be an inland airport, then the case put forward by the Trade Union and Labour Co-ordinating Committee in support of Thurleigh is as good as any that can be made. Frankly, it is the first time that I have heard a group of people living in an area saying, "We are in favour of an airport coming here". Usually it is the other way round.
As I explained, I appreciated the views of those who object to airports being sited in their areas. As I drive along the A5 I go through the Cublington area and appreciate the beautiful villages. I have read the posters and, as I say, I appreciate the opposition of the people there to the possible siting of an airport in their midst. We must remember that such opposition will come from any area where the siting of an airport is suggested.
I hope the Government will pay attention to the case presented by the Trade Union and Labour Co-ordinating Committee, which supports an airport being sited at Thurleigh. If it is finally decided to have an inland airport, it might as well go there, where it will at least be welcomed by many ordinary working-class people.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I shall offer a commentary on two aspects of the Roskill Report which, in my view, have not had sufficient attention, but, before coming to that, I must say how difficult I find it to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who advocated the positioning of an airport in the constituency in which my mother-in-law lives.
I shall address myself, first, to the question of need and, second, the question of the kind of airport required. First, on the question of need, there is a great danger that out of all our discussion and deliberation will come a political compromise, a compromise which will involve an increase of utilisation of Heathrow, an extension with a second runway at Gatwick, and a realignment of runways and facilities at Luton. Nothing could
1992
be worse, and I regard it as essential to identify that danger in terms of the need.
I can illustrate the point in this way. Everybody pays tribute to the fact that air transportation is the fastest growing trade in the world, but a simple quantification of that rate of growth is worth while. For every one passenger who flew in 1950, 100 fly in 1970, it is predicted that 150 fly in 1975, and 250 by 1980. It is essential that, in our thinking about the need for a new airport, we realise the magnitude of the problems facing us.
The British Airports Authority estimates that by 1980 about 44 million passengers will pass through London alone. This tremendous pressure is continuing even at a time when most people consider that world aviation and air transportation is in a kind of recession. Last year, that recession was represented by a growth of only 10 per cent. as against the 13 per cent. predicted. But the pressure is there, and we must recognise it.
There will be a change in the style of airport demand. The very nature of the increase in passenger traffic is not matched by an increase in the number of aircraft movements. For instance, at Heathrow last year there was an increase in the number of aircraft movements of only 3½ per cent., although the number of passengers rose substantially. So the type of airport which we are contemplating is very different from that which we have been accustomed to use over the post-war years.
How can one justify the need? It can be justified by a reiteration of some of the fundamental characteristics of air transportation. First, there is the very nature of speed itself—and the more so with the advent of Concorde not far off, I hope—a characteristic which draws air transportation business to the airline desks. Every possible 12-hour journey increases air transportation demand.
Two hundred years ago, one could get as far as Thurleigh in 12 hours. Now, one can go to Los Angeles. With Concorde, one will be able to go as far as Tokyo.
The frequency of operation steps up demand. As range increases, so people find it easier to go to places. The ability to pay is growing as world prosperity rises, as disposable incomes rise—a point

1993
which we hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear in mind. Next, there are the fare reductions. These are made even at a time of inflation. In 1950, it took two-thirds of a person's average annual salary in this country to buy an air ticket to New York, whereas now it takes only one-sixth.
The need to fly is increasing all the time. Not only is there a considerable increase in the world population but that population is drifting towards urban areas. Whereas there are now about 750 million people in urban areas in the world, there will be 3,000 million by about the year 2000. Education has increased people's demand to travel. Whereas they used to come to Hastings for their holidays, they now go to the Costa Brava, and in 10 years—good luck to them—they will probably go to the Caribbean.
The demand is there and the pressure is there. We must beware of ignoring that pressure in relation to the need.
Now, the question of the type of airport required. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Walton about the need for a national airports policy. One criticism which I have felt regarding the Roskill Commission—it was almost admitted today by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)—was that the terms of reference were far too limited. The Commission's destination was to consider the third London airport, but the myopia inherent in its terms of reference has, I feel, influenced our whole debate today.
Roskill did not explore the question of the type of airport required. I have commented already on the change of style in air transportation, with fewer but bigger aeroplanes and many more people travelling. The Roskill Commission did not really look at the fundamental effect of these changes on the ultimate type of airport. Although it is easy to jump back from a consideration of four runways to two, I preach some caution about an easy jump backwards of that kind. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Grimsby gave me the impression towards the end of his speech that there were likely to be more and more Royal Commissions in sight with fewer and fewer runways, and that, whereas we have VTOL and we shall have STOL, his prescription was
1994
to eradicate it all with a kind of "Dettol".
The types of runway configuration proposed for each of the four airport sites are almost identical, and, in my view, as an aeronautical engineer, inherently dangerous. They are for four parallel runways in tandem, and quite unacceptable in terms of the long-term operational demand for aircraft movements as it steps up in the way I have described.
There is not in the Report nearly enough meteorological information regarding the problems of the Foulness area. Frankly, I am not so worried as one of the noble Lords in another place about the problem of bird strikes, because the birds in the Foulness area are there because of their breeding habits. It may be rather a rash thing to say, but, if one fills the area with concrete, they will have to go elsewhere.
Mr. Wilkinsion: will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Warren: No; I am trying to be brief.
Mr. Wilkinson: There are enormous numbers of winter migrants.
Mr. F. A. Burden: They do not breed there at all.
Mr. Warren: The next point to which Roskill did not attend as much as one hoped was the question of air traffic control. The Commission seemed to think that air traffic control was not, so to speak, a movable feast, that one could do nothing about it, that one could not move beacons, and so on. We must ensure that air traffic control is our servant. We can route aircraft exactly where we want. This has been one of the failings at Heathrow; people have tended to accept that aeroplanes must fly over London.
Again, on the question of the type of airport, we should be more willing—I wish that the Roskill Commission had taken this line—to accept general aviation and the business aircraft, because that could be a way of cutting down the amount of ground transport required. Also, we should be more interested in providing successful interfaces with other forms of transportation right from the start. In my mind there remains the searing memory of the fact that, since

1995
1946, we have talked about a rail link with Heathrow Airport, yet we are still not at the building stage.
We ought to consider Foulness and the other Roskill sites in relation to the concept of a total European gateway concept. One cannot consider a large international airport as a site on its own. It fits not only into the whole structure of the United Kingdom economy but into the concept of a gateway to Western Europe. We should have considered the third London airport site in terms of its relationship with Schiphol in Holland and Paris Nord in France. One of the best points I can think of for a third London airport would be Northern France.
Next, on the question of the location of the airport, conservation is far more critical than concrete. I hope that it will be generally recognised that, whatever kind of airport emerges from all our deliberations, and with all the great steps forward offered by technology—STOL, V/STOL, quiet engines, and the rest—the majority of aircraft using the new airport will be those already flying today.
Not much can be done to those aeroplanes to make them less noisy and less polluting of the atmosphere. In my view, Roskill completely failed to take account of the incoming population. At whichever site be chosen, about 250,000 people will probably come in as an additional group to the area concerned, but Roskill did not include them in its studies of the effect of noise.
Further, in considering the question of the style of air transportation and the type and location of the airport itself, and accepting that technology can help us by reducing the number of runways we need, it is essential to bear in mind that such arrangements can be come to only with the general compliance of international organisations like the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Air Transport Association, and with the compliance of the member States at the destinations to which the aircraft go. It is no good having the capability to launch them into the air from an airport in this country and then finding that there are not adequate facilities for them to land somewhere else.
I believe that in this choice of an airport we are quite rightly looking at the choice of the last large airport in this
1996
country, but we must not believe that technology will make much difference to the style of airport needed compared with those used since the Second World War. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to recommend any site. Although Lydd, near my constituency of Hastings, has been mentioned today, I would not wish to promote it any way because we have the problem in selection of foisting one place onto another.
There is no easy solution, but I plead with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides to avoid the political compromise which I see looming large. The greatest danger in this exercise, for which I castigate Roskill, and from which all aspects of aviation have suffered so much in the past few years, is that, given the myopia that Roskill had, things can go so sadly wrong.
I apologise to the House because I may not be able to stay through the succeeding speech owing to a previous engagement. I ask the permission of hon. Members to withdraw in due course.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Hon. Members with constituencies encompassing Cublington, the other inland sites and Foulness may be rather surprised that a Member for a Welsh constituency should seek to intervene in the debate. I assure them that my intervention will take less than 10 minutes, and that it is made for good reason and not out of some kind of Celtic malevolence—though perhaps it will be understood that my enthusiasm for Norman churches might not be as great as that of some other hon. Members.
I take part in the debate because should the third London airport go to Foulness there is a very strong possibility that the Shoeburyness gunnery range, which will have to move as a result, may be visited upon the village of Pembrey in my constituency. The Roskill Commission recommended that the first runway of the third London airport should be operational by the middle of 1980. The Army has said that it could move its gunnery range by 1973. However, if it could not acquire the Pembrey site and had to go through the motions of finding somewhere else, facing another public inquiry and awaiting Ministerial decisions, it might not be able to move by 1973 and, in the words of the Commission, the timetable

1997
for the completion of the first runway might be rather tight. In other words, if the airport is to go to Foulness and the first runway must be operational by 1980 the relocation of the Shoeburyness gunnery range may become a matter of extreme importance.
In view of the hostility which the proposal to bring the range to Pembrey aroused, a public inquiry was held last summer. The report is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, who has not yet announced his decision. I am sorry to have to say that despite repeated exhortations the right hon. and learned Gentleman has refused to release the contents of the inspector's report for public discussion. It seems that the inhabitants of Buckinghamshire and Essex are to be allowed publicly to discuss their fate, if such it be, but that this fundamental right is to be denied the people of Carmarthen-shire.
Therefore, I intervene so that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for the Environment may be fully cognisant of the fact that an airport at Foulness will not only impair the environment of Essex but may have detrimental consequences to the environment of a large area of my constituency. I urge them in their consideration of the matter to read the submission of the Welsh Tourist Board to the Roskill Commission, in Document 6004, and to look at the studies of the Pembrey area prepared by the Nottingham College of Art and Design and a further study prepared by Mr. Max Nicholson and his firm of Land Use Consultants. They will read in those documents that the area the Army requires is of considerable natural beauty and enormous development potential. There is a stretch of sand extending for more than seven miles and far surpassing anything in the south-east of England. It is surpassed only by a very few stretches of coastline in the whole of the United Kingdom. Already 30 per cent. of the coastline of Carmarthenshire is under the control of the military. If the range is allowed to come as a result of the location of the airport, that will be increased to over 40 per cent.—and 40 per cent. of the best and most desirable coastline of the county at that.
Let not the Government think that these environmental problems will be
1998
outweighed by the 600 or so jobs that the Army promises. At a time of rising unemployment one can but be extremely reluctant to oppose any project that creates employment. But we should resist the offer of jobs, desirable though they might be in the short term, because the employment offered will be bought at too high a price. It will be bought at the price of damage to the environment and the loss of 14,000 acres of extremely valuable land. The very existence of the amenity of this area of coast, provided it is sensibly and sensitively developed and is untrammelled by a gunnery range, is a valuable asset in the ever more difficult task of attracting new industry to West Wales. An airport, for all the environmental problems it creates, at least produces and generates growth. A gunnery range will merely stifle it. Some would say that one of the reasons for the comparatively low rate of growth of the Shoeburyness area has been its long and continuous association with the Army.
The decision as to whether the range comes to my constituency will be taken by the Secretary of State for Wales. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he intends to consult his colleagues. My fear is that he will not be able to make up his own mind on the matter, that it will not be decided on its merits but that a decision may very well be forced upon him in consequence of the needs and requirements of a third London airport.
Many of my constituents are convinced that the airport will not go to Cublington. Whatever the planning arguments, or whatever the Roskill Commission may have said, they instinctively feel that a Conservative Government in particular is hardly likely to cause such a massive disruption in one of the richest counties, if not the richest of England. They go further. They prophesy that if the airport is required and the first runway is to be completed by 1980 the gunnery range will come to Pembrey regardless of the merits of the case, regardless of the inspector's report, if that be against the Army, and regardless of any private views to the contrary that might be held by the Secretary of State for Wales.
Some would say that my constituents who hold such views are cynical, but they would claim that they should be

1999
called realists. Let the Government prove that the cynics are wrong on this occasion by showing that they have as much concern for the village of Pembrey in Carmarthenshire as no doubt they have, and will demonstrate that they have, for the village of Stewkley in Buckinghamshire.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) showed us another side to his character tonight. I think that it is one which I prefer in that he has brought to the deliberations in this debate those measured and very careful considerations which we know he brings to many matters, but not often on those benches. He was speaking, of course, for some of his colleagues in the trade unions. I am wondering whether they will consider that he presented their case forcibly enough tonight. But he presented it very well and most adequately and made the point that the site he proposed was the only case referred to in the debate where there was local support.
There is widespread support for the Foulness site, including the Southend Council. The site is not in the area of the municipal borough. It lies in the Rochford Rural District Council. The Southend Corporation is a member of the Thames Estuary Development Company and I am sure that it must have had regard to the effects which the choice of the Foulness site would have on the residents of the borough. The site lies in the county of Essex. There again there is support for it. Essex County Council says:
"The mass of evidence collected … over the past six years indicates that in the national interest the Third London Airport should be sited at Foulness subject to conditions aimed at securing proper environmental standards."
Here, in the very location of the proposed Foulness site, is support from the local borough authority and the county council.
When one looks around the counties which have declared their interest in the location of the third London airport, one finds that there is a very substantial measure of support for Foulness. Herefordshire, for example, although it qualifies its support says:
2000
"The proposal to go to Foulness and the employment that it would generate would fit in very well to the proposals of the South-East Economic Planning Council."
It has a formal county council resolution against an inland site. Hertfordshire says the same—that an airport at Foulness would be welcome from the planning point of view. Bedfordshire has a county council resolution of implacable opposition to Cublington or any other inland site. As one goes round the compass from one authority to another—I cannot quote them all—one finds that almost without exception they are in favour of the proposal for Foulness.
Mr. Burden: What about Kent?
Mr. Jones: I shall be coming to Kent. I am going round in an anti-clockwise direction.
Buckinghamshire's case has been most adequately presented by those with constituency interests. The view of the Buckinghamshire County Council is:
"To use the Cublington site would involve perhaps the greatest disruption of villages and country life which has ever taken place in this country…"
In Northamptonshire, in which my constituency is situated, there is a council resolution to the effect,
"That the Council affirm their previous resolution that no inland site merits serious consideration."
There is widespread support for that opinion by a very large number of parish councils in Northamptonshire.
Then we get to Surrey, West Sussex and East Sussex. Their concern is essentially over the possible extension of Gatwick, on the premise that a site at Foulness, even if chosen, would not be successful owing to its alleged outlying position. I am somewhat sceptical of that opinion myself, but that is the line these three counties are taking.
The Berkshire County Council supports the view of the Standing Joint Conference on London and South-East Planning that an airport at Cublington would bring a major new source of employment which would be not contrary to the strategy for the South-East.
I come now to Kent. As I understand it, Kent is generally opposed to being "contaminated"—the word used in one of its documents—by noise from Essex. I think that most hon. Members will have

2001
had the letter from the Borough of Queenborough-in-Sheppey, containing a council resolution which supports the county council and other local authorities in North Kent and the Sheppey Group in their opposition to the siting of the airport at Foulness.
The Greater London Council has given support for some time now to the Foulness proposal, and I have a copy of the G.L.C. Council minutes dated 24th February last year in which it is stated:
"The choice as we see it is between Cublington and Foulness and we have no hesitation in saying that the preference should be Foulness."
The South-East Economic Planning Council has also come out in favour of the Foulness site, fitting in, as it says it does, to the whole conception of planning in the South-East region.
Finally, the Town and Country Planning Association, in a Press release on 15th February, added its powerful weight to the case for putting the third London airport at Foulness.
So there is this substantial evidence of opinion among those who represent their local communities, and that evidence is in support of my advocacy for the siting of the third London airport at Foulness.
8.17 p.m.
Sir Stephen McAdden: I count myself fortunate in following my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) because he has been at great pains to tour the country in order to discover that everybody wants the airport at Foulness. No hon. Members want it in their own constituencies, but they all want it in mine.
I should at once declare an interest. I live in Thorpe Bay, which is six miles from where the proposed runways would be. Therefore, I have some interest in the subject. But I also happen to know Foulness, which used to be in my constituency. I share with its present Member, my good friend the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), a great many of the views he so vigorously and rightly expressed.
I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is not here because I thought he was rather contemptuous of the people who live at Foulness.
2002
He did not like its name and implied that there was hardly anyone there and that those who were there were not very important anyway. That was going too far. Had he known anything about Foulness, he would have known that the reason why there are not many people there is that one is not allowed to go there without a permit from the Ministry of Defence. If the Ministry withdrew its activities from the whole of Foulness Island and its surrounding area, a great change would arise. It is foolish of people who desire to run down Foulness to run it down in that way.
I am more interested in how the Roskill Commission came to be set up. I recall that it was done in order to get the last Government off the hook over Stansted. They were determined then that they would never get into such a mess on planning again. Therefore, a high-powered Commission was set up. Everyone has paid tribute to it. It had terms of reference agreed by the two Front Benches.
We have heard nothing from those who have spoken except how important it is that we should have a coastal site. It was not mentioned in the terms of reference. The two Front Benches never thought, three years ago, that the only possible site was a coastal site. The two Front Benches came to the conclusion that they should look for a suitable site for the third London airport. It is only in the last 12 months or so that there has been this great agitation for it to be at Foulness.
Mr. Braine: The Labour Government in their 1967 White Paper looked at coastal sites, including those in the Thames Estuary, and rejected Foulness.
Sir S. McAdden: I am interested to hear that piece of ancient history. What is interesting me is this enthusiasm for a coastal site. I wonder whether it could be that a good deal of time and money has been spent on public relations work in selling this scheme to Members of Parliament, who have suddenly realised that this is a good thing because it will get it away from their constiuencies. So they are tumbling over themselves to extol the virtues of Foulness, of which most of them had never heard. They do not know what it is like; yet even before the Roskill Report was published they

2003
were demanding, in a Motion, that it must be a coastal site; in other words, it must be Foulness. This is the height of irresponsibility.
They might have given Roskill the benefit of the doubt. The Commission put in some hard work and came to the conclusion which I thought it would be bound to come to in the first place. I had never played any enthusiastic part in the campaign for or against Foulness since the scheme first started. I was convinced by my own study of the position that Roskill would be bound to turn it down. I did not think it was a suitable site at all. The consultations I had with people who know the area well led me to believe that this simply was not on and that the cost would be prohibitive.
Nevertheless, I did not go around trying to crab the scheme, and I only began to get a little cross when I found that other people were going around trying to force this issue instead of leaving it to the experts. Indeed, I have discovered that the Noise Abatement Society ought to change its name to the Noise Transference Society. It simply wants to transfer the noise to where I live. I do not like this, and I support the view of my old friend, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East that we should have another look at this and see whether if is necessary to have the third airport, and, if we do need one, whether it should have four runways or two.
However, having invited the advice of people who have lived with this problem for two and a half years, let us not turn up our noses at the Report, as some did even before it was published.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. David Madel: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, as the effects of Roskill's selection of Wing as the site for the third London airport has many far-reaching consequences for my constituency of South Bedfordshire. May I first say that, although I disagree with its conclusions, I cannot help but respect the Roskill Commission for the enormous, painstaking effort it put into the production of its Report. I found myself agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) when he hinted that what it should have looked
2004
at was a third national airport and that, had it been looking at that possibility, no doubt at the top of its priorities would have been the desire to find an area where there was local demand for the construction of an airport, and there are such areas, rather than an area where there is intense local opposition to it.
Burdened with the need to site the airport near London, the Commission in looking at inland sites was thus being asked somehow to squash the airport in among the intensive housing and industrial development in the South-East. In his Note of Dissent from the Report. Professor Buchanan refers to the fact that practically all those airports that have survived are badly situated, being tucked into re-entrants in closely developed urban areas, causing widespread nuisance as a result. We have a particular example in Bedfordshire, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) will wish to refer to if they succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, and that is Luton Airport. if Wing were adopted as the site, we should be compounding the folly of badly planned airports with a vengeance.
I would like to mention briefly section 4.32 in which the Commission deals with its consideration of Hockliffe in Bedfordshire as a possible site and makes a comparison with Cublington. The Commission says:
"The advice on regional planning which we received indicated that Hockcliffe would be particularly bad if in that it would prevent Luton and Dunstable from developing up the North-West corridor towards Milton Keynes and the Midlands and as a result the upward pressure of growth from London north-westwards, might be diffused horizontally on the London side of the airport and spread into the high amenity areas of the Chilterns. In addition, Hockcliffe was badly placed near a Greater London Council development. It would involve the diversion of the A5 and possible diversion of the M1. We therefore decided that the balance of advantage lay with Cublington. In forming this opinion we were well aware of the objection to the Cublington site because of its proximity to Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard and to the high amenity areas of the Vale of Aylesbury and the Chilterns."
I submit that the arguments against Hockcliffe can also be used against Cublington. Cublington, if it were selected, would prevent the sensible—I emphasise that word—development of

2005
Luton and Dunstable and would aggravate the labour shortage in the area. Cublington would spread into the high amenity area of the Chilterns. Cublington, too, is near G.L.C. development, and it would involve the diversion of the A5 and probably the M1.
I should stress that the county of Bedfordshire is not a dreamy little rural backwater which somehow needs an airport as a super-generator of employment. The housing and industrial expansion that has occurred in the county in the last 10 years has thrown a great strain on both schools and social services and it would be wrong to place an even greater strain on these vital services. There is one further point. Many of my constituents work in factories in an atmosphere of continuous noise. It is, in my view, asking too much that when they come home from the noisy factories they should be asked to put up with noise from an airport.
For 30 years the Government and local authorities have accepted that there should be a green belt immediately around London and an outer country ring. To place the third London airport at Wing would destroy this policy for good. In the middle of that outer ring we should bulldoze flat an area three and a half times the extent of Heathrow Airport. A total of 50 square miles would suffer from severe noise nuisance, something that is intolerable to live with, and 350 square miles would be subject to outer noise nuisance.
We must not forget the genuine anxieties of Milton Keynes Development Corporation. It has undertaken one of the major social tasks of the century; namely, the building of the largest urban project this country has yet seen—not the building of an airport city. An enormous amount of intensive preparatory work has already been done, and if Wing were chosen it would mean that the estimates of the employment based on this new urban Eldorado would be completely altered—quite apart from the obvious dislike of the new inhabitants towards living near a major airport.
Since the war Governments have tried, with varying degrees of success, to reverse the trend from the regions to those parts of the Midlands and the South-East which are not in need of more development. To select Wing would undo 25 years of
2006
effort, for it would become a sort of London-Birmingham airport, which is desirable neither on social nor on economic grounds.
The central issue before the Government is how to keep the balance between industry, housing and countryside in the already overcrowded London and South-East area. We are manifestly short of land in the South-East, and, therefore, we should not use what we have for airport construction. We are short of countryside, and we should not destroy what remains. We are burdened with excessive noise nuisance at all existing inland airports in the South-East. We can only reduce it by constructing an airport where the noise nuisance is mainly over the sea. We do not manifestly need new employment or development near Wing. More than ample development is already in progress.
If it can be proved that we need another South-East airport rather than another national airport, then everything points towards a coastal site. But one thing is certain: we have spent a great deal of time and effort in the past 30 years trying to remove the grime, muddle and decay from our cities that we inherited from the last century. The selection of Wing as a site for the airport would be a giant step backwards, for we want the next generation of South-East planners to concentrate on new and socially responsible forms of development and not spend their working lives clearing up the mess of an inland site.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison: I am grateful for the opportunity of intervening in this debate. While my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) may have had Foulness in his constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has it in his constituency, at the next General Election it will be in the Maldon constituency which I have the honour to represent.
I am appalled at the ignorance of a number of Members who have spoken in the debate about the effect which an airport at Foulness would have on people—and it is people who matter. The Roskill Report points out that
"The roads required in the south Essex corridor are likely to do damage to urban areas on a scale which will not occur in the

2007
corridors between London and either of the inland sites …"
It goes on to explain that if roads have to be pushed through the Rochford Hundred, not only will considerable quantities of Class 1 agricultural land go under concrete, but more homes and houses will be disturbed than would be the case with any of the other sites. This must be considered.
The trouble is that we have been shilly-shallying about another airport for too long. The original choice was Stansted, but it is alleged that a Member of Parliament who was also a member of the Cabinet refused to have this possibility discussed. For that reason consideration of Stansted was dropped as long as that hon. Member for Saffron Walden was in the Cabinet. Subsequently the matter was investigated by an inter-departmental committee which recommended Stansted, and Stansted was accepted as the right answer.
A decision was made by the Labour Government—and credit should be given to them for at least making a decision. But what happened? There was a bit of a furore and they backed down when all the vested interests raised their ugly head. The case of vested interests and special pleading have been put forward in this instance. We have had public relations firms organising Press conferences in London and there have been emotive campaigns throughout the country to move the noise to somebody else's area rather than accept the recommendation of a very skilled Commission.
It was accepted that the right answer to this problem would be found by the Roskill Commission. Millions of pounds were spent on the Commission and—[Interruption.] The sum of £1·2 million has been used by the Commission. Considerably more has been used by other authorities and people in putting evidence before it. The total expenditure is well in excess of £2 million. Therefore, I stand by my statement that millions of pounds have been spent on adducing evidence.
Is all that money to be used merely to make people make up their minds in the opposite direction to that recommended by a very intelligent and highly skilled Commission? We want to have
2008
our heads read if we get important people to spend several years working on this problem and then, out of hand, we reject their recommendations to the biggest pressure group that we have in the community for a particular area.
Another matter on the subject of finance is the additional money which will be required if we go against the Roskill Commission's recommendations and if Foulness is used, which will run into tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions of pounds. It is my opinion—I have been right every time so far in the 15 or 16 years that I have been in the House—that when we have had an estimate of round about this figure, we can put a multiplier of at least two, and sometimes five, on that. There is the additional cost of building an airport at Foulness, involving the runways, the stabilising of the sand, the stopping of the floods, and the additional work required to keep the Dengie Hundred and the Rochford Hundred safe from the floods. After all, the sea came over the wall on the night of 1st February this year, and that wall will have to be raised. If we are to block a great lump of the Channel and the Thames Estuary, we shall have to put two or three feet on the walls in that area and a bigger barrage in the Thames around London. The cost would be enormous.
I make one plea. Having spent all this money and employed a number of extremely intelligent men to give us a recommendation, let us accept that recommendation, cut the cackle and get on with the job of building the new London airport.
8.37 p.m.
Mr. John Tilney: I was much interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) said about the floods. In 1953 a cousin of mine was drowned in the great flood near that area.
I am opposed not only to the Foulness site but to the other three sites as well. I am possibly odd in the Chamber in wanting the third London airport, or half of it, anyhow, north-south runway as well, near my constituency.
I was much interested in reading the very moving prose of Professor Buchanan. He refers to Sir Patrick Abercrombie, whom I so well remember as Professor Abercrombie, when he was Professor of

2009
Civic Design at the University of Liverpool. He, more than anyone else, started the decentralisation of London. I hope that the Government will take another step towards that decentralisation. Professor Buchanan goes on to say that a site at Foulness would
"… undoubtedly represent a severe environmental loss."
But he admits the conviction of his colleagues that Foulness would not be a viable economic proposition.
These are prophetic words:
"When I look at a map … in the central regions, ranged round in the urban crescent stretching from Liverpool"—
that, I think, is the only mention of Liverpool in the whole of this Report—
"… to Birmingham there are some 18 millions. Of a long-term airport policy for this second area, which contains much of the industrial strength of Britain as well as a great deal of its poverty and dereliction, I can find no evidence."
He goes on to say
"… I think a case could be developed for not putting the so-called third London airport in the south-east at all, but for locating it in the central regions."
Liverpool Airport would be a temporary answer to the problems facing the Government so that they could at least check up on the statistics. The concept of a Liverpool but English National Airport depends upon the co-operation of British Railways. Our air conditioned trains, which now take only 2¼ hours from the Liverpool Airport site to Euston, would have to be speeded up. In those trains it would be necessary to have, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), the documentation and the customs. If the very fast railway track which now exists between London and Liverpool could at the near approach to the London terminal be switched on to the Central Line into the hardly used Marylebone Station, we should then have an air terminal in the heart of London.
When last summer I travelled on the footplate of one of our fast trains I noticed that freight trains go at only about 60 miles an hour, whereas passenger trains go at up to 100 miles an hour. If that freight could be switched from the North-Western line to the Midland line, all the trains on the North-Western line could go at three-minute intervals at about 100 miles an hour.
2010
Therefore, the concept depends upon telescoping the documentation and the customs, which every traveller must go through, with the travel to London. Passengers would arrive only between half and hour and three-quarters of an hour later than if they had landed at any of the other sites. They would have travelled in comfort and through a beautiful part of England. The other sites suggested by the Commission cannot be telescoped because the distance is too short. The cost of such special trains should be set against the very great savings on the buildings for customs and documentation. Other countries have customs trains. Why cannot we have them?
Liverpool has an air strip of 7,500 ft. Next door to it could be put an airport bigger than the present Heathrow on flat land which has less fog than Manchester, which in turn has less fog than London. Those who know South Lancashire must admit that there is less to spoil there—I say this regretfully—than there is in the Vale of Aylesbury and even Foulness.
At Hale there is a very nice church and a manor house both out of the flight path, but it already has an airport right up to its very doors. The landing and the take-off would be over the estuary. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about potential noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), in whose constituency Liverpool Airport is, tells me that up till now he has not received one complaint. Landing and take-off would either be over the broad estuary of the Mersey or over industrial or derelict land.
The fast electric train service has already revolutionised transport between Liverpool and London. The railway goes on the very edge of the site. Therefore, we have very good communications.
I thank the Minister for Trade for sending me, in a letter which arrived today, the Origin and Destination Survey. It is on these figures that the location of the third London airport in the South of England is based. The sample taken was under 1 per cent. for three months between 15th August and 14th November, 1968. Every fiftieth passenger for half a day was questioned about his or her origin or destination.

2011
Those who travelled on by air to Liverpool, Manchester, Yeadon, Newcastle or Scotland were not asked. The origin of anyone who said he would be spending more than 24 hours in the South of England was said to be the South of England. I therefore suspect the figures on which this airport plan is based.
If one draws two almost equal circles, one can see that within 76 miles of Heathrow there are 19,600,000 people. Within 76 miles of Manchester and Liverpool there are 18,100,000. On those figures, the South should not want three major airports while we in the North have to be content with less than one. I say less than one because I am told that the runway in Manchester will have to be resurfaced, and so that this can be done another runway will have to be built at a cost of £20 million. This is all the more reason why there should be a joint authority for Liverpool and Manchester.
In our part of the world the air is not congested and little time is wasted by aircraft circling round waiting to land. My advisers calculate that the cost of an airport in Liverpool of the size of Heathrow would be about £116 million at present prices. This is a small fraction of the cost of the other proposed airports. There is a work force nearby. The infrastructure is there. There are homes, roads and the railway. If the noise is bad, even though the aircraft fly over the estuary, the cost of double-glazing by the State would be minute in comparison with the immense savings there would be. There is one runway in operation, but this could be made international at a cost of only £6 million. It could be in action within a few years because we own the land for extension to 10,500 feet.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that Thorne-Waste, or even the Bristol Channel if it is reclaimed, would be much more expensive. We have the infrastructure already there and the most up-to-date instrument landing system. There are refineries opposite so that the fuel could be pumped under the Mersey, so having the clutter of tankers on the roads. The old site of Liverpool Airport could afford an admirable area for maintenance and the light industry which so often comes with any big airport.
2012
When Liverpool was a great passenger port, no one had to sail from London to get to America or Africa. They came by train up to Liverpool. Time rather than distance is what is important. Although trains are slow as compared with aircraft, one could consider a bonded train, such as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough, as a continuation of the aircraft.
I should like to call in aid the Roskill Commission itself which said
"We recognise the force of the argument of British Airports Authority and of the airlines that existing assets should be used to capacity."
That is exactly my argument, namely that we should use this country's assets. By adopting my suggestion we would cut the costs by several hundred million pounds, provide jobs where they are wanted, and fully use what is now only half used. We should take full advantage of the infrastructure, the homes, the roads and railways we now have.
I appreciate the Prime Minister's assurance, which has been backed up by the Minister, that this idea will be looked at. Surely it is better to spend several million now to test demand and to carry out experiments in Liverpool so that we might be able to save hundreds of millions of pounds and avoid spoilation of the countryside. The Conservative Party believes in infrastructure and we have said time and again that we are against giving money to companies, rich or poor, in development areas or elsewhere. What better infrastructure can South-West Lancashire have than the first national airport?
8.52 p.m.
Mr. William Clark: It is a pleasure to take part in a debate in this House on a subject on which there is no party difference, though there would seem to be a constituency difference. I do not intend to discuss the details of the Roskill Commission, which did a wonderful job of work. My only conclusion is that its conclusion is wrong. This has been proved because the general public are sick to death of being pushed around. We all know what happened at Stansted, where there was an upsurge of public opinion against the imposition of an airport. We must realise that the general public has its rights. We surely all want to live comfortable, quiet lives. We do

2013
not necessarily want great concrete blocks all round us.
One of the arguments against Cublington is that it will mean loss of agricultural land and, consequently, loss of amenity I do not imagine that any Government would possibly impose on the nation an airport at Cublington. There would be such an uproar of public opinion as to make such a suggestion impossible. I believe that this applies to any other inland site in the county.
Some hon. Members opposite have said that there has been a great public relations exercise by protesters. It must be remembered that this is all a voluntary effort that started up by people who have gone round collecting money from various residents. They have pitted their strength against the great strength of the British Airports Authority and the Roskill Commission by getting the best barristers, the best advice, and all the rest. We should not deride such efforts.
One thing proved by the Roskill investigations is the sad lack of a national airports plan. I understand that in the Ministry there are what are known as "terrible twins", such as Birmingham and Coventry—which would be a nonsense as a concept if we were planning intelligently—Southampton and Bournemouth, and Liverpool and Manchester. It is such proliferations which worry the general public. The possible deferment of a decision on the third London airport brings in the situation of Gatwick, which to a certain extent affects my constituency in East Surrey. If we are to have this proliferation, it may be suggested that Gatwick should be extended by the addition of another runway. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that Stansted has a greater air traffic capacity now since training flights have been transferred to Thurleigh. However, if we play about like this, we shall make our existing airports even more of a nuisance to their surrounding residents. The lack of a national airports plan is a disaster and, before setting up the Roskill Commission, the Government of the day should have tried to plan our airports.
As a consequence, in order to avoid proliferation, be it at Gatwick, Stansted or anywhere else, a decision is urgent. In view of our shortage of good agricultural land, to say nothing of our beautiful countryside, obviously we should be con-
2014
sidering a coastal site. However, in doing that, we must not spoil our coastline. If we can reclaim land, there can be no objection.
A great deal of research has gone on into the possibilities of Foulness. I have no financial interest in the Thames Estuary Development Company, although I give it financial advice from time to time. Its proposals make up a very exciting scheme. The Maplin Sands development and its accompanying communications centre will solve a number of problems. We have to remember that the Thames Estuary cannot take the huge oil tankers which will continue to come from the Middle East. Rotterdam is taking them, but we cannot. We have to decant oil from Rotterdam and bring it here. The Port of London Authority is closing a number of its docks in the Thames, and it will have to find a deep water berth. The Roskill Commission provided an opportunity to deal with a complete complex. By reclaiming land, we could set up a communications centre, establish a port in the Thames Estuary and at the same time provide reclaimed land for two, three or four runways.
The evidence over the past few months has proved that the only way in which we can get any viable scheme for such a huge complex is by means of a partnership between private enterprise and the Government. I site as an example the partnership with B.P. In the Maplin Sands area, 18,000 to 20,000 acres of land could be reclaimed. That would be sufficient for an industrial complex, a deep water port and as many runways as we required. The sands belong to the State, but I am sure that private enterprise could provide the necessary capital for the reclamation work. That would mean that the taxpayer would not be burdened with the expenditure until the airport and the seaport were viable.
When choosing a site for an airport, people's amenities must be taken into account. If the Roskill Commission proved one fact above all others, it was that no London Airport should go to an inland site. It also proved that the necessary air traffic capacity will not be made available by extending existing airports, because that only increases nuisance to people.
I hope that the Government will make an early decision. I hope, too, that they

2015
will decide to put the airport on a coastal site, whether it be Foulness or somewhere else.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I do not live in, nor do I represent, any area which was considered by the Roskill Commission. This may be a point of weakness or of strength. However, I must declare a vested interest. As an architect and town planner I should count it a privilege to be able to defend and, indeed, support the dissentient to the Report, Professor Buchanan, who said that to site the airport at Cublington would be nothing short of an environmental disaster.
Three factors govern the planning and position of a modern airport: economic, technical and environmental. With respect to Mr. Justice Roskill, I think that too much emphasis was put on the economic and the technical and too little on the environmental.
We must recognise, in the last third of the 20th century, that the functions of airports have become more complex as the years have gone on. In the old days aerodromes were sited near cities to be near the potential passengers. Modern airports do not need to be, and, indeed, should not be, sited near areas of high population. The size and the noise of modern aircraft and the inherent danger which they cause should be subjects of the gravest concern. I hope that I do not sound a killjoy, but I believe that our whole attitude towards the siting of airports would, and, alas, will, be changed when a jumbo-jet crashes into the middle of a town or city. On the law of statistics, it is bound to happen. Therefore, we have a clear duty to site modern airports away from urban areas, if possible.
We must recognise that the modern airport has three distinct functions or requirements: first, for scheduled flights; secondly, for charter flights; and, thirdly, for freight.
For scheduled flights, airports should, within reason, be sited as near as possible to the people they serve, but it should be nearness in time rather than nearness in distance, a point which was well
2016
brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney).
It is interesting and relevant to the debate to note that New York is considering sites for its fourth airport 60 to 75 miles away from Manhattan, and that Paris is considering for its third airport a site 100 miles away, near Le Havre. We should not be afraid of siting airports well out of urban reach.
For charter flights it is not necessary for airports to be near where people live. I go so far as to say that the person who goes on a charter flight probably enjoys the charabanc trip to the airport as much as the flight itself—probably considerably more.
The third function of a modern airport is as a freight depot. Therefore, it should be as near as possible to manufacturing areas.
I do not believe that it is necessary for airports to fulfil all these functions. Indeed, I think that it would possibly be harmful if they did, as unfortunately most airports do today.
There is a need for a national airports policy. It is a pity that two and a half years, over £2 million and 8 million words were devoted to the possible siting of a third London airport instead of to an inquest into a national policy for airports.
Some of my hon. Friends may disagree with me, but I think that there is a need for a new international airport in this country to take the long-distance large supersonic aircraft and the jumbo-jets. I am forced to the conclusion, though it can only be a general proposition—I share the indignation of my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison), and others—that any new airport must be on a coastal estuary or—I hope that it does not sound as stupid as it may initially—a sea site. I do not mean that the only consensus which we have in this Chamber tonight is that it should be on the Dogger Bank. But, recognising that we are an island, it is not so stupid to site a large international airport on the sea, if not on the coast or in an estuary.
One other point over the planning of a modern airport which has not been brought out enough is that it means, in effect, building a new town. It would

2017
provide the livelihood for families who would total up to a quarter of a million people. So its siting should be part of an overall national Government strategy.
Many of us may quarrel with the Roskill Report on one or two points. It goes to town with great effect on cost benefit analysis but it made a market approach to this rather than a planning approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said that cost-benefit analysis is all right for putting figures on items which it is possible to evaluate in money terms. My complaint is that one cannot quantify handsome landscapes or buildings. I would wax lyrical over the Norman church at Stewkeley. But it is not so much the buildings: their setting is equally important, and one cannot quantify or evaluate noise nuisance or intrusion for the many hundreds of thousands who would suffer if the airport were sited at Cublington. One cannot make human value judgments of that sort.
I hope that I will not get into trouble with my hon. Friends, but I do not believe that the Cublington site is the most beautiful of our countryside or even the best part of the Vale of Aylesbury, from my limited knowledge of it. The critically important thing is that Cublington is countryside where countryside is most desperately needed.
I would go so far as to say that the airport should not be put at Cublington, not just because of the 12½ square miles of countryside which would be destroyed, not just because it would affect people in 400 square miles who would suffer from noise nuisance, but because it would put paid to any idea of keeping any green or pleasant land between Birmingham and London. That part of the country, incidentally, does not in any case need what is euphemistically called "economic stimulation".
Fifty years ago, the preservation of the countryside was a matter of importance only to those who were fortunate enough to live in the rural areas. Today, thanks to the relatively increased wealth of our nation, and certainly because of the increased mobility of the nation, it is just as important for the townspeople to preserve our countryside as it is for the countrysiders themselves. Therefore, to
2018
site the airport at Cublington would be a curse for the people of this country. I do not believe that any Government would be lightly forgiven for allowing an airport to be put on that inland site in particular.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), I have a close interest in the development of airports, for practically every 'plane which flies in and out of Gatwick goes over my constituency. That does not mean that my hon. Friend and I disagree. On the contrary. I agreed with everything he said. However, I speak from a more limited point of view—some may say a more parochial one. I do not wish to add to the Government's difficulties, but it would be unwise for the Minister to leave this debate without an hon. Member speaking on behalf of people who are already affected by Gatwick.
I realise the important decision which the Government must make and I sympathise with them in their difficulty. I urge them, therefore, not to be tempted to make a decision which, in my view, would be tantamount to running away from the problem by inviting increased airport capacity by allowing the present airports in the London area, including Gatwick, to expand. I have no doubt, however, that increased capacity is shown to be needed by the Roskill Report.
Using Gatwick as an example, I will demonstrate why such a decision would be wrong and how it would be as appalling, if not more so, than the construction of a major new airport at Cublington, not least because such a policy of expansion at Gatwick or at any other London airport would condemn even more people than is at present the case to intolerable levels of noise, and certainly more than the level envisaged at any of the proposed new airport sites.
In stating this opinion, I want my right hon. Friend to be absolutely clear that I am not just expressing a personal view. This general proposition is shared by all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the vicinity of Gatwick. We are united on this point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) had been able to speak, he would have confirmed this, as would my

2019
hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), in whose constituency Gatwick is located. Unfortunately an important and unavoidable family commitment prevents his attendance. Had he been here and been called to speak he would have sought to emphasise the misery which Gatwick already creates and the important environmental problems which have resulted from its development; and he would have argued for the development of a coastal site.
When considering the possibility of allowing Gatwick to expand—and no doubt this will be put to the Government from many influential quarters—I ask them not to under-estimate the strength of public opinion that exists over this issue. This is one matter about which we all accept that public opinion merits special attention by the Government. There has undoubtedly been in the few years that I have been the hon. Member for East Grinstead a hardening of public opinion towards the development of Gatwick.
It is not good enough for the Chairman of the British Airports Authority to suggest, as he has, that people exaggerate the misery that has already been caused. In New Society for 22nd October, 1970, the Chairman of the B.A.A. was quoted as having said:
"I feel that opposition is being whipped up by a few kindly—one might say sensitive but I'd use another word—people. I do have every sympathy with those people who are especially susceptible to noise, though."
And the commentator in the article writes:
"But he is mildly contemptuous of people who, he says, 'parade round … womens institutes … seeking for signatures for a petition.' The real issue, when people say, 'What about building a third London airport instead?' is that we've run out of time. So the faster we get on with it, the better. Heahrow's saturated, Luton's saturated, Stansted, as far as that is possible, is saturated. There is only one other place. We must expand Gatwick or we lose air traffic. People have had 16 years' advance warning we would expand there".
It is shameful that that sort of comment should be made by the chairman of a public authority. No wonder people wax cynical about this sort of development when a man in that position makes such a remark. I hope that the Government will not be deceived by Mr. Masefield's
2020
blandishments about the people in the vinicinity of Gatwick having had 16 years' advance warning.
In 1946 the Ministry of Aviation gave an assurance that Gatwick would be restricted to charter flights and private flying. That is why we went ahead with the planning of the new town of Crawley, which now finds itself on the edge of a big and important airfield. In 1949 the Labour Government decided to develop Gatwick as an overflow airport for Heathrow, and in 1954 a White Paper published by the then Conservative Government gave an assurance—what a mockery it has become—that
"Gatwick will not be used intensively all the year round. Its principal purpose will be to receive aircraft diverted from Heathrow Airport when visibility is poor there, and this purpose could not be achieved if too many regular services were based at Gatwick".
So much for official assurances. It is a shocking story of a piecemeal betrayal in the light of some of the proposals which were put to Roskill by the British Airports Authority, and some of its own ideas put forward elsewhere for the development of Gatwick which would make it larger than Heathrow is today.
It is this history of the betrayal of the public almost as much as people's present experience of living within the shadow of this airport which has done so much to embitter public opinion. This is why I strongly advise my right hon. Friends not to dismiss the protest with the contumely with which the present Chairman of the British Airport's Authority has treated it.
My second argument against the development of Gatwick is based on more technical and planning considerations. The Roskill research team forecast that the earliest date by which the additional capacity would be required—I think that we can all agree on this—would be 1981, and the Report stated clearly that,
"there is no reason to anticipate that the capacity of Heathrow, Luton. Stansted and Gatwick with one runway will be exhausted before the earliest date by which the first runway of the third London airport could be operational".
So the Report rejected the assumption that a second runway was necessary at Gatwick from a purely technical operational point of view. But it is when we

2021
consider a second runway at Gatwick and the development of such an airport there from an environmental point of view—many of my hon. Frends have emphasised this—that the case for a second runway is seen to be not only a technical monstrosity but a planning obscenity.
I have no time to develop this point, but I urge my right hon. Friends to study the views of the Surrey County Council, that West Sussex County Council and the East Sussex County Council. There is a joint report by their planning officers. In a nutshell, one can say that all those councils are of the firm opinion that two runways at Gatwick are unacceptable because of the impact of noise and because of the urbanisation which such a development would entail for the surrounding sub-region.
There are conflicting demands already in this part of Britain. There are the present demands of the airport, which, if allowed to expand, would conflict with the present plans for the development of the area as a whole. It is a fast growing area, like some others in this country. If a second runway were to be developed at Gatwick, it would entail an increase in population of 100,000 by 1981. It would double the already fast rate of growth of population between now and 1981.
It is not right that the local authorities should be asked to perpetrate that type of development, with all the problems of urbanisation which it would impose, on a part of Britain which is still a pretty place to look at and a very fine place in which to live.
There are other problems, too. In Crawley, a new town which many people regard as one of the most successful in Britain, there is a growing demand for labour from the prospering industries there, and this, too, would conflict with the growth of a large international airport. There is also the need to house people from Brighton, the overspill from there, and the need to conserve, not destroy, the natural amenities of a beautiful part of Britain, not to mention the need to preserve and sustain the value of agriculture.
The case is overwhelming. What appears in the Roskill Report, the views put forward by people with local knowledge, by people not only with local
2022
experience but with fundamental responsibility in planning the development of the area—it all points inescapably to the conclusion that the Government should not seek to dodge the problem by allowing the expansion of this or the other London airport.
People will say, "We must use our investment. We are not a very rich country." Some hon. Members have said that if we have airports off the beaten track people will not come to Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth went a long way to answering that point. Some people have used the American example. People should go to Washington and see Dulles Airport, which is 40 miles out, or a 40-minute drive. It is quite a way. I have come into Washington from Dulles Airport. It is said that not many people use it. That is true, but one can go as I did last year to the Lincoln Memorial, one of the finest public buildings in the world, in a most beautiful setting, and find that the harmony of that setting is utterly destroyed by the procession of aeroplanes, one after another, at rooftop height. That is the miserable condemnation to which people have been subjected by the modern technological advance of the aeroplane. It is not an example for us to follow.
Perhaps there could be differential charges between one airport and another. Surely that is one way in which we could control the use of airports and at the same time not sacrifice the quality of our environment?
9.21 p.m.
Mr. James Allason: The essential lessons from the Roskill Report are, first, that Foulness is a practical proposition, and, second, that the third London airport is necessary.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) suggested that it is necessary only to look for two runways, but he asked Roskill to seek four because of the possibility of expansion. That is a very real possibility, and it is why it is necessary still to look for a four-runway airport.
Therefore, we must see what is available. Cublington has received universal condemnation because of the damage to the environment and particularly because

2023
of the noise factor, which is measured in the very inadequate terms of the 35 NNI contour as 29,000 households being disturbed.
My constituency is neatly balanced some five miles from Cublington and some five miles from Luton. Whatever happens, we are bound to suffer considerable damage to our amenities, as indeed we do now. The Roskill Report envisaged that if the Foulness site were chosen Luton would expand, provided that the Government permitted it. That was why, when it was suggested earlier tonight that it was inevitable that Luton would expand, I pointed out that the Government must not permit it.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby today rather shied away from his Press handout in which he had said that we must make more use of existing airports. That was a speech he made some time ago, which resulted in a Motion to which he objected.
Mr. Crosland: I must make the position absolutely clear. If the hon. Gentleman will read that Press statement, which I sent to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who put the Motion on the Order Paper, he will see that it said that that solution is acceptable only—I repeat, only—on the condition that there is a new technological break-through with STOLs and quieter engines.
Mr. Allason: My name was second on that Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman did not send that statement to me. I took it from what appeared in the Press that what the right hon. Gentleman said was pretty definite. It is reinforced by his noble Friend, Lord Greenwood, who was also quite definite in another place when he said that we must
"develop the use of existing airports to the very maximum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 22nd February, 1971; Vol. 315, c. 824.]
Therefore, it is reasonable that the House should consider what developing Luton to the very maximum entails.
At present Luton is capable of 30,000 movements a year, and this has an effect on 13,000 households as compared with the 29,000 at Cublington. Simply putting in a taxiway would almost double the number of movements to 54,000 a year. That would increase the noise nuisance
2024
by 50 per cent.—from 13,000 households to 20,000. That is the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made, but I am happy to say that, on this occasion, he has withdrawn from it. Nevertheless, Lord Greenwood in another place has not withdrawn from it. Nor has Roskill.
There is worse to come because at the moment only aircraft of comparatively small size use Luton. The runway will not take jumbo-jets. If it is to have a full-length runway, the runway must be realigned and Luton Corporation is already prepared to do this. The realigned runway would take even jumbo-jets. But it would point neatly at the new town of Hemel Hempstead, five miles away; so every aircraft would have its flight path over Hemel Hempstead. Roskill says that at the moment only 25,000 households are affected, but with even one runway at Luton we are getting into the range of the Cublington nuisance which is so unacceptable.
If one wanted to develop Luton to maximum capacity, one could put a second runway down, which would mean that 108,000 movements would theoretically be possible. Roskill was so merciful as not to calculate the number of houses affected then, but it would, clearly, be intolerable. I make this protest—that even a very small increase at Luton would provide almost as great damage as four runways at Cublington.
It is a matter not just of noise but also of damage to amenity. We have heard lyrical terms about the Vale of Aylesbury and the National Trust property there. What about the Chilterns and the National Trust property at Ashridge, which is far more beautiful country and which equally would be destroyed—indeed, is being destroyed at this moment by Luton Airport?
Therefore, I ask that we should have no expansion at Luton as is envisaged by Roskill. I believe, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) said, that we have to provide for expansion quickly. Therefore, we need a coastal site as soon as possible. I ask the Government to take an early decision against Cublington. I ask them to announce even immediately after this debate that Cublington is now no longer under consideration. That would help considerably, because many

2025
planning decisions are blighted at present because of the threat hanging over Cublington. For example, the bypass to the A41 cannot be announced until a decision on the airport has been taken. It would be intolerable to have to wait until the Government had made up their minds finally about what they want to do about the third London Airport, for, obviously, that may take months.
I ask the Government to take a very early decision against Cublington and to decide on a seaside site with four runways—and we know only one at the moment. A very early start to that should be made so as to relieve the pressure on existing airports. Immediately that airport is available, there should be the transfer of the most objectionable services, by which I mean the night jet flights, to that airport. Thereafter there should be a steady run-down of the existing inland sites. There should be no development of Luton as envisaged by Roskill, and, while we are at it, we may as well have the abandonment of Luton Airport since it is just as much a menace to environment as Cublington would be.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I qualify to speak in this debate on the basis that one of the sites is Thurleigh. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) say that he would recommend that the airport should be on that site. In this at least he is consistent in that he accords with what was said by his noble Friend Lord Greenwood in another place. We have listened to and read the speeches in another place, and out of 41 only one recommended Thurleigh. All the rest recommended that it should go to Foulness.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Skeet: I am quite prepared to defer to some of my hon. Friends who will be able to carry the analysis a little further and suggest that something should be done.
I wonder whether the right hon. Member realises what the implications would be for Thurleigh. The villages within the 50 contour NNI would include Lavendon, Turvey, Stevington, Carlton, Pavenham, Felmersham and Milton Ernest. These
2026
have not been assessed by Roskill in his excellent Report because he says that village life and such things could not be assessed in any cost-benefit analysis. This is understandable, because they are intangibles.
It is even harder for those actually on the apron or involved on the site. Villages such as Bletsoe, Thurleigh, Colmworth, Bolnhurst, Kesoe and Little Staughton would be eliminated completely. To put this into realistic terms—because we have to be practical when making constituency points—taking first the area within the airport site of 12 sq. miles, there would be no fewer than 600 households involved. Within the 50 contour NNI, an area of 73 sq. miles, there would be 4,800 households, and those affected by noise would be included in an area of 350 sq. miles, involving 25,600 households. Is the right hon. Member for Grimsby suggesting that these should be eliminated?
Let me give a thumbnail sketch of the situation. An area of about 12 sq. miles would need a population growth of about 65,000 people to operate the terminal, and the total population by the end of the century would be no less than 1 million. This is a major airport, three or four times the size of Heathrow.
Anyone who has given the Report a thorough examination realises that if the airport should be placed anywhere the only location is on the coast. I am quite prepared to accept the view that so many of my hon. Friends have put forward that Foulness is the place. There may be other locations which will conciliate some of my hon. Friends who would like the site to be a little further up the coast or down the coast—or in the country. It might just as well go to France.
I should underline an important point which the right hon. Member for Grimsby mentioned. I will give him the reference so that he can look it up. On page 139 the Roskill Report states:
"We can only affirm that we have examined the redeployments said to be required if the airport were to be at Thurleigh and have been persuaded that to avoid them would compromise the defence of this country. It is the fact that such redeployments are necessary rather than their cost which is in our view a substantial disadvantage of Thurleigh".
It was said that the question of defence was looked into very carefully and that

2027
it had been possible to persuade the defence experts that changes could be made. That is what emerges from the Report.
It is said on page 52 of the Report:
"Agricultural considerations clearly do not point to the Thurleigh area as a desirable location for the airport".
Even the University of Cambridge would be in a bit of a jam. It is pointed out on page 40:
"The University was concerned about the pressures on that city which would build up not only if the airport were to be at Nuthampstead but also if it were at Thurleigh".
We should also bear in mind the scientific establishments of some importance. The Royal Aircraft Establishment at Bedford would have to be closed and the wind tunnels would have to be transferred. The Lord's Bridge Observatory which caters for radio astronomy, would also have to be closed. Several departments of the Cranfield Institute of Technology would have to be moved. Major manufacturers would have their operations interfered with. The Cardington balloon station would have to be moved. Unilever's research station at Sharnbrook would have to go. All these establishments would be tossed into the melting pot.
It has been said that we have not looked at the matter in a European context. The nearest that we are likely to get geographically to the centre of Europe is by siting the airport at Foulness. That would be the centre of the Common Market, whether we join the E.E.C. or not. It would be the nearest English centre that we could get. An airport at Foulness would add to communications and expansion of freight across the Channel.
Mr. Crouch: I would rather that we had a Channel tunnel.
Mr. Skeet: We may have a Channel tunnel as well. But if we want to go to Paris we might as well go part of the way by a cheaper form of transport; namely, rail. The vast expansion which is taking place in Europe is on the littoral of Europe—the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Here we are reluctant even to place an airport on the coast in an area where vast expansion would greatly contribute to this country's wealth. It would lead to a vast reclama-
2028
tion of land. It would probably provide a new province for the United Kingdom. It would be a great mistake if we were to overlook this opportunity.
I appreciate what Members representing Liverpool constituencies have said about a regional airport. As for Birmingham, if they are going to find their business travelling south, they will be disfranchised over the course of time. Why not put an airport in the central region of the United Kingdom where there are no fewer than 18 million people? Why make them travel right to the South-East, where about 17 million are located?
I should have thought that to apportion an airport to the north would be a sensible objective. Locating a third London airport, or any major airport, is like placing a steel magnet. It would draw industry to itself effectively, like iron filings are drawn to a magnet. Therefore, to avoid over-heating in the London-Birmingham region, it would be advisable to ensure that the airport goes to that area where expansion could be accommodated over the course of time. Foulness has been sanctified not merely by the South-East Survey—the South-East Survey examined this matter—but by many other reports. I support an airport on the coast.
9.41 p.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Unusually, I start by commenting on one or two of the other speeches we have heard today, principally on that of my right hon. Friend the Minister. He spoke of taking a gamble on the possible development of STOL. He implied that we should not take gambles. But surely it is an incredible gamble to assume that STOL will not happen and start pouring concrete, which would be an irreversible decision, all over the place or over most of the place.
The Minister's thoughts on the growth of air freight are not quite correct. The major growth in air freight has been in the bellyholds of passenger aircraft until now, but this will not continue as specialist freight aircraft come more and more into use. If one looks at the timetables, one sees that freight aircraft originate their services in Manchester, because that is where the freight is.

2029
I comment on the splendid speech of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). I could almost call him a right hon. Friend today. I found myself agreeing with him very much. The only point on which I disagreed with him was a major one, on which I also disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), and that is the question of hazard caused by birds at coastal airports.
It is most unwise to start this scare going. It is highly likely that we shall finish up with coastal airports. It will be most unwise for hon. Members to suggest that there is something inherently hazardous about this. All of us who have flown to any extent around the world have flown into and out of many coastal airports. They are no more hazardous than others. Indeed, it has been shown that the main hazard from birds to aircraft is caused either by very dense flocks of small birds, such as starlings, on take-off, and there is no evidence that there would be a particularly great hazard of this sort at Foulness. Certainly there is no evidence of this, and indeed, the probability of bird strikes there would be lower than at Auckland airport, which, as hon. Members will know, could not be more of a coastal airport.
The other hazard is from striking large birds such as swans, birds on migratory flights, and this does not happen in this part of Europe. This is a hazard in parts of the United States and has caused accidents, but it is not a hazard here.
I should like to add a little more on the general issue of what Roskill said. It seems that we should at least be grateful, as politicians, to Roskill for one thing. One often hears suggestions, "Why not leave it to the experts? They always know the way. Politicians muck it up." We got a bevy of experts, and then we all turned to the politicians to un-muck it because nobody liked the report which the experts provided. That is what might be called the spin-off these days.
Roskill is unacceptable to the public at large. That is obvious from speaking to constituents and listening to the speeches today. Part of that unacceptability comes from a deep feeling of unease about some assumptions made early in the growth of the argument in that Report.
2030
The assumptions I question are threefold—first, the traffic estimates; second, the capacity of the existing London airports and the degree to which technical changes, either VTOL some time ahead or STOL more shortly in the future, and improved techniques and better passenger handling will enlarge that capacity; and, third, the extent to which even before radical new developments, aircraft can be expected to become quieter.
Essentially the traffic estimates can be calculated in two ways. Roskill tried it both ways. They can be extrapolated from past trends without additions of opinions of one's own. I have described this in the past as the tadpole method. One looks at a tadpole on the second day of its life; one looks at a tadpole on the seventh day of its life and extrapolates and concludes that one will have a whale in six months' time. The other way to do it is to look at the past trends and say, "I know that it will not be a whale. You know that it will not be a whale. It will be a frog, will it not?" One could be caught out; it might be a newt, so even that is not infallible. It is a very subjective judgment and Roskill tends to warn us against subjective judgments. Either way, in the end the conclusion was that traffic would continue to grow at about 9 per cent. compound because that was what had happened in the past.
Similarly, the guess was that the size of aircraft would expand in such a way that the average passenger load on aircraft would be doubled in a period of approximately 12 years. It is on those estimates that so much of Roskill is based, together with the estimates of existing airport capacity.
Are those estimates right? Hon. Members have raised the question of the influence of the Channel Tunnel and of advance passenger trains. I utter this warning. In the last 25 years, during which this trend of travel expansion has been established, air fares have fallen sharply. At the same time the product has improved enormously in quality. An example is the journey to New York, which 25 years ago was one of perhaps 20 or 30 hours, via two or three stops, and is now one of 7½ hours direct.
We should be optimistic if we thought that we were in for another such period

2031
when the price would fall and the quality of the product would improve at that sort of rate. Indeed, the only improvements I can see to the product for the customer is the growth of supersonics. The only improvement that I can see for the community is the quieter engine and probably STOL not too far away. Technology will be asked to make air transport, not more attractive to the customer, but more acceptable to all those of us who live in this small island.
Nor should we assume, as Roskill did, that the great base of expansion will be in the South-East. So much of the future expansion will be holiday traffic. The north of England has for years traditionally lagged behind the South in economic development. We have seen the explosion of holiday traffic from the South. I hope that we shall see it before long from the North.
So we begin to wonder if the estimates of where the traffic will come from may not also be in doubt.
How many passengers? How many aircraft? How much can the local residents put up with? This is the key to how much we can get out of our existing airports. The number of passengers can obviously be expanded rapidly. The North American experience shows us that we can get more aircraft into and out of our airports in a given time. There will be delays at peak times, but should we assume that air transport of all industries is entitled to an absolutely free run, to have ideal conditions provided for it at public expense? I do not think that we should. We also hear the argument that operators would rather expand their frequency of service than the size of their aeroplanes. That may have been true in the past, but we are now getting to the stage where, if an operator has four or six services a day to New York, or an hourly service to Paris, he is more interested in expanding the size of his aeroplane than the frequency of the service.
There are many other points I would like to raise but I know that many hon. Members are wanting to take part in the debate. I close by suggesting that the Government should take certain actions. They should agree very shortly that there will be no new four-runway airport for
2032
London so far ahead as they can see. We should allow traffic to expand at Heathrow, and we can do a great deal to make it less objectionable. I am sorry to disagree with some of my hon. Friends, but I think that we should allow the second runway at Gatwick. This would be less of a disaster than the pouring of concrete all over the countryside. We should also encourage regional airports. Some of the money we receive could go to promote vertical and short take off and landing research which might save our churches and our coastline and possibly also do a great deal for our aircraft industry.
9.51 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My interest in this matter is as a Member representing a London Constituency, Acton, whose constituents suffer a great deal of noise. I am also interested in this subject from a non-partisan viewpoint. I saw this matter originally as an anti-Stansted situation, and ever since that time I have been in favour of an airport site at Foulness. From that point of view I want to comment on some of the deficiencies of the Roskill Report.
First, it lacks an essential dimension, the dimension of history. The provision of air terminals is the fourth stage of a continuing process in London in which different techniques have required a different geographical response. The first stage was river terminals—Queenhithe and Billingsgate. The next was stage coach terminals. The third and most lasting stage has been the great railway stations. The fourth stage is air terminals, and there are already nearly as many air terminals as there are major main line stations.
This is not a new subject for the House of Commons. In 1846 the House appointed the Metropolitan Terminals Commission which was confronted with a similar situation to that which exists today. The same elements were present over 100 years ago. Land, on which houses had been built, was required for terminals. The new railway engines produced noise and smells. The railways brought people into the centre, disgorged them and required servicing areas, marshalling and storage and this inevitably attracted industry and provided opportunities for employment. From

2033
the railway stations there was foot traffic, passengers required hotels and interchange to a new mode of transport to get them to the West End or the City. Although those modes were horse cabs and horse buses, and later the underground, the principal is the same.
The situation today is similar, but with this great difference, that, while many hon. Members have been thinking of the damage a new airport would create, we are not just thinking of the next 10 or 20 years, any more than the Metropolitan Terminals Commission was concerned with the period between 1846 and 1856. We are thinking of putting in an installation which will be there for posterity. Therefore, we must be well aware of its implications.
I have said that I do not believe that the dimension of time was written into the Roskill Report. It had a biased attitude in favour of the mode. In other words, the Report's attitude is like that of people in 1846 who said that railway stations must come to the centre to attract traffic. We have had reliance on mathematics. We all know that mathematics will work where one can quantify and where the position is foreseeable, but can we see beyond the next five or 10 years? Yet we are planning for centuries ahead. That is the first deficiency I find in the Report.
The second deficiency is on the question of users. We have not figures in the Report on which to base a real positive judgment. The airlines say that they must meet the needs of the users. That is quite right, but what are those needs? We know that 30 per cent. of air travellers who pass through Heathrow are travelling for business purposes. We also know that charter traffic is on the increase for all sorts of different reasnos, people travel for different reasons, fares are paid for in different ways and travel is organised in different ways—often through various types of transport wholesaling organisations. These figures are just as important as the global figure.
Roskill in all its 30 lbs. of published evidence does not give any split in the number of air passengers as between British nationals wanting to go out and other people wanting to come in. One gathers that the split is roughly fifty-fifty. I suggest that the characteristics of
2034
that traffic are different. This matter has a great significance for the location of an airport.
Most important of all there is no estimate in any detail in Roskill as to the growth between scheduled and chartered traffic. In Paper and Proceedings, Volume VIII, Part 2, Section 1, paragraph 4.7.1. we read:
"The division between scheduled and charter traffic is different and again growth rates for these two kinds of service are different."
But nowhere in this mountain of documents can I find where these growth rates are projected. It is a major omission from the research. Therefore, we have to look at the fundamental needs of passengers, why they want to travel, how it is being paid for, and so on.
I said that the global figure was misleading. It has not been mentioned that the monthly figures of passengers going through Heathrow vary by a factor of three from February to July. But that covers something much more significant; namely, the question of the weekend peaks, and particularly summer weekend peaks. Therefore, when talking about the need for an airport it is acknowledged that we are concerned not with global totals but with the peaks. When we talk about saturation at London Airport that refers to the top peak of the summer months. The situation is much more complex than that. The need of passengers is not the need for an airport. The airport need is based on air traffic movements. That brings in, as Roskill points out, the size of aircraft.
Therefore in these projections we get the tadpole example which has already been mentioned. A most extraordinary mathematical situation pertains when we look at volume VIII, part 2, section 1, paragraph 4.4.3:
"The forecasts are derived by dividing the passenger forecasts"—
which are somewhat variable—
"by the estimated average aircraft loadings …"
so that we are dividing hypothetical figures by other hypothetical figures.
In talking of need the Report does not deal with the matter in terms of the character of the traffic, nor even in terms of the figures that we already know. I believe that this has great significance for the sort of regional case which some

2035
hon. Members have been making in this debate. Sites such as Thorne and possibly further north can be within two hours of London with bulk rail traffic, particularly in regard to excursion holiday traffic. This puts a different complexion on the whole situation. I suggest that, whereas the Metropolitan Terminals Commission was thinking of London and Britain, we must think of the whole of Britain as the Commission thought of London, and of the whole world as the Commission thought of Britain, because I submit that this is the historical parallel.
I want now to turn to Foulness. As I have said, I have a bias in favour of it. The Report, on the other hand, has a bias against it—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Third London Airport may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Monro.]
Question again proposed.
Mr. Spearing: I will begin by suggesting that the name Foulness is a misnomer. The site is not on Foulness Island but on the Maplin Sands. As a name, Maplin is not only more attractive but geographically more accurate. Therefore, I shall refer to Maplin, because I think that it is better in every respect.
The Report, for some reason, links expansion of Luton with Maplin, and the two are linked in the statistics in terms of noise and all sorts of other factors. That is an example of the Commission's bias.
People have said, "Nowhere but here"; but we read in paragraph 6.2.3. that the Essex County Council favours Maplin for planning reasons. The Report does not make it clear whether it is in favour or not, although I hear from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that it is. We also hear that Southend, which is the biggest urban complex in the area, has put local government money into a development on Maplin. In other words, far from everyone saying, "Not
2036
here", at least the major planning authorities are saying, "Put it at Maplin".
There has been some confusion about the land take. We are told that the major land take for Maplin is involved in roads and railways. If the opponents of Maplin have come down to that level, we are getting somewhere. The land take for the airfield is nothing. All the land take that there is is for the town. We have no figures for this. The nearest that I can get is in volume VIII, part 2, section 3, page 83, where we are given a table of agricultural land which would be used. We are told that at Cublington there is a take of 29,000 acres of agricultural land, whereas at Maplin it is 18,000 acres. But nowhere do we find a split of the figures between the airport site and the urban take. However, we know that at Maplin there is no agricultural land taken for the airfield. In fact, as the Report says, there is a gain, because the War Department land which is already in use would be put back to agriculture. We know that the estimated take for a Maplin Urban development in South-East Essex is 18,000 acres. That is town development. I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who says that that is impossible.
That brings me to another main factor which is not sufficiently emphasised in the Report and has not been sufficiently emphasised in today's debate. It is that this is a debate less about an airport terminal and far more about regional planning. If it is not, it should be. We are told in the Report that the Commission's instructions and calculations were that there would be "an airport city" numbering between 200,000 and 300,000 people. That is what we are discussing. We are discussing not an airport but a large new complex, and that is not just for 50 years ahead but for ever.
I take issue with some of the assumptions behind it. Admittedly the urban multiplier shows that, on the Heathrow model, this would be the sort of airport city with which we should have to deal. But it all depends on the function that the airport is designed to serve. If we take the Heathrow model, it could produce X number of jobs. But if we say that an airport at Maplin or Thorne will be a specialised airport for a particular

2037
purpose, then it may not be anything like that number, because the number of people given jobs there will be related directly to the function designated to that airport. This can vary a lot.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East is here. We may say that we will or will not have servicing for aircraft and that it will be a mere transit camp where people go through quickly. We may or may not allow industry directly involved with air traffic and freight, or we may or may not allow industry indirectly concerned with the airport. This is of fundamental significance, because the hon. Member for Essex, South-East said that there was not room.
We have already what amounts to a double linear city between Southend and London. We must not forget that this is a London airport in many ways. We already have two rail lines operating an intensive suburban service. There are three if we count the Tilbury branch. There is spare capacity and reverse flow.
The question of urban take and the number of people involved is open, particularly in view of the points which I have raised about the functions of the airport.
We have heard about a motorway. I shall be radical. Do we need a motorway to a site at Maplin? We may need local roads. But do we need the kind of motorway which would produce an urban sprawl and a lot of traffic for London? We cannot have a lot more traffic pouring into London in individual units.
It might be possible to have a rail conveyor belt. On this matter, too, it has been assumed that there would be one terminal in London. Why? We have not been told. There is no reason why railway lines, by the extension of existing lines or new ones, should not go straight through tunnels to perhaps three or four different terminals, thereby giving a choice. We might even have one going right through to Heathrow to give a direct interchange.
I turn to the noise situation at Maplin. Hon. Members have mentioned runways and their alignment, but on the maps the flight paths for some flights turn abruptly parallel with the coast and some go over Sheerness and Faversham. Why not turn the lot? Why must aircraft heading towards the Atlantic go over land? Why
2038
cannot they go round, as has been suggested? If so, the numbers affected by noise on the Maplin development would be reduced, as the maps show.
This is an historic situation, which the Report has not grasped; nor, I suggest, has the House. We must have a look at journey purpose, the type of demand, the proportion of expansion between charter and scheduled traffic, the projections of peaking and what peaking is likely to do. I believe that it is likely to increase rather than diminish.
We must look at the national distribution of overflow airports at certain times. For that reason, I believe that the Maplin development is a necessary first stage for an overflow. We should have a national airports policy in which Maplin plays a part in providing a safe, efficient means of access to London.
I believe that the Commission has put too high a value on an assumed passenger convenience. Its mathematics and figures have tried to be accurate in a sphere where accuracy is not possible.
The Commission on Metropolitan Terminals, appointed on 8th April, 1846, which reported on 27th June the same year, stated:
"We have stated that the advantages to the public of such accommodation as would be afforded to them by bringing the railway stations further into the City appear to us exaggerated."
Then, missing out a bit, it goes on: "it is manifestly impossible"—[Interruption.] I could read it all. I miss out this part for the sake of brevity.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was going to take about 10 minutes; he has already taken about 19 minutes.
Mr. Spearing: The Report goes on:
"it is manifestly imposible to calculate the direction and extent of the traffic which takes place to and from the different parts of London and its suburbs, with the accuracy which is expected in dealing with ordinary lines of railway; but because the want of such evidence has compelled us to found our conclusions rather upon the judgment of persons of experience, and upon our own observation, than upon numerical returns."
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I should first like to welcome the Labour Party back into the debate. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) may

2039
have spoken at some length, but he spoke a great deal of good sense.
I was also interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit). For an ex-airline pilot to say what he said about the danger of air strike was a significant contribution to the debate. I was particularly interested in his comment that the very rare cases of air strike which have occurred have often been brought about by flocks of birds including starlings. The village of Aston Abbotts where I have a house which is 200 yards from the end of the runway is famous for the quantity of its starlings.
My constituency of Aylesbury runs up right against the proposed site of the airport at Cublington. The fine villages of Whitchurch, Weedon and Hardwick would be rendered totally uninhabitable if the airport came. The consequence of the airport would be a devastating effect on the Vale of Aylesbury. There would be noise, concrete and the appalling, endless stream of trucks carrying aggregate, sand, gravel and so on, while the airport was being built.
I need not stress that, or the fact that my constituents are inordinately concerned in this problem. There is a deep unanimity of revulsion against the proposal to site the airport at Cublington. This feeling is as strong in the area around Chesham as in other parts of my constituency. I have here a pile of petitions which I will not read out, which all come from the Chesham area.
These are the people who are at the moment affected very badly by Luton, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) spoke so strongly and sensibly. According to the Roskill view, their plight would be eased by siting the airport at Cublington, because Luton would go, but among them there is a very strong feeling against siting the airport at Cublington.
To suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) suggested, for example, that this was a mere pressure group speaking is far from the truth. This is a popular movement. Anyone who came to the mass meeting at the Wing Equestrian Centre at the beginning of this year, when 10,000 people turned up, would have felt their depth of feeling and could have
2040
sensed that the whole countryside, the whole population, was at one on this issue. This cannot be written off as a slick public relations campaign.
Like many others, I do not want to under-rate the report. When Mr. Christopher Foster said in The Times today that it was far in advance of anything that anyone else had done, he was making a fair point. It is an impressive report. The effort which has gone into it, the depth and seriousness of purpose, are deeply impressive. For the most part, I accept the Roskill material. It is its conclusions, above all its judgments, with which one quarrels.
I do not want to cover ground which has been covered so often already today, but there are one or two points to be made. First, there is the planning point. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman), who had no axe to grind, and who is an architect and town planner, spoke to remarkably good effect on this issue. I am sure that the House was impressed by what he had to say.
The Roskill conclusion was that Foulness may be preferable on planning grounds to Cublington or Thurleigh. I thought that that was a gross understatement, and the evidence in Roskill itself should have led to a much stronger conclusion than the word "may". It is partly that the sheer environment and beauty of the place is much stronger even than my hon. Friend understood, because one of the points about this district is that it is in a sense a concealed place. It does not lay out all its charms on a plate. One has to get to know it to get the best out of it.
That is perhaps arguable, but I am certain that, in assessing planning and environmental considerations, the Commission under-rated the sheer importance of the human side of the living communities which are there. Why this was so I do not know, but I think one reason was that the members of the Commission did not really get to know the sites as they might have done. This is understandable because quasi judicial inquiries do not normally spend a great deal of time on the spot. Usually they just receive evidence and pass judgments.
I have been trying to find out whether even all the members of the Commission

2041
visited the Cublington district. I have asked questions privately of Ministers and have even tabled Parliamentary Questions. I have also asked the Secretariat and have scoured the volumes of Roskill, but I have not been able to get an answer. Indeed, a stone wall appears to resist my inquiries. Clearly, Professor Buchanan spent a lot of time there, and we know what impact that had on him. I am not sure that all the members of the Commission fully understood what was at stake, and one message which I hope will go out from this debate is precisely what is at stake.
I do not want to go in detail into the noise question, though one point which has been made about Luton is extremely important. Roskill assumed that Luton was there to stay and would grow ever larger. There is no reason why we should accept this. If we do not like Luton and if we feel that it is doing a great deal of damage, there is no reason why we should not put this view into effect. For example, we could make it a condition of Luton's licence that it cannot have more than a certain amount of traffic. There are all sorts of ways in which we could intervene if we thought it proper to do so.
The crux of the Roskill case lies in its arguments about cost. The essential line in the whole of the Report is that which shows a £207 million disadvantage in passenger user cost in its cost benefit analysis. If one could get rid of that, the cost balance would be in favour of Foulness.
In any event, this analysis contained certain fallacies. For example, the attempt to cost passenger time has been legitimately criticised. Is it fair to say that businessmen travel only in working hours? I think not. I also believe—I hesitate to tread such complex ground—that there were fallacies in the gravity model that was used. For example, Professor Peter Self argued that they were counting the cost on accessibility three times over; the money cost, the time cost and the loss of potential passengers cost. I will not develop this point.
Even supposing that Roskill is right—and one must accept that it is right—in saying that Foulness would be more expensive, we must consider whether this is a price that we are prepared to pay. In particular, we should take into account the possibility of using Foulness to relieve
2042
the appalling burden of night flying, with its endless noise, at Gatwick, Heathrow and elsewhere. In other words, it is a reasonable argument for Foulness to say that we could channel there a great deal of the tiresome traffic which now goes elsewhere.
In short, Roskill was haunted by the fear of having a white elephant—of having another Dulles Airport—and perhaps it was right to have had that fear. However, it should have been haunted by something else, and that is the fear of destroying a marvellous place and its life.
In the past year I have come to know this area extremely well. As I explained, I now have a house at Aston Abbotts, and perhaps I should declare this as an interest, though it is only a rented house. I have come to know that this is a place which has vitality. It is made up of living communities, and the sheer force and effectiveness of their protest is contributing to the vitality of the place.
It is an area of exceptional beauty, including the road in my constituency which runs to Waddesdon, about which Professor Buchanan wrote movingly. Another road matches it, and that is the one that runs from Weedon to Aston Abbotts, where I live, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), with its views across the Vale of Aylesbury. This and other local spots are breathtaking. If one walks down the road to my house, and then down a muddy field, one suddenly comes across a vista spread out which really takes one's breath away. To my mind, it is heart-rending that this might be destroyed. But, in a sense, that is nothing, for I have been there only a short time. I can move and go somewhere else. But the people who have been there, they and their forebears, for centuries in this tight community have a stake in it which it would be totally criminal to destroy.
I hope that by our debate today and the recent debate in another place, the Government will be persuaded that it would, as Professor Buchanan said, be an environmental disaster to select Cublington, and I very much hope that when he winds up tonight my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will join in that well known slogan and say, "No to Wing airport".
10.20 p.m.
Mr. F. A. Burden: This has been a somewhat emotive debate because the environmental circumstances have in many instances overcome the practical considerations in this whole case. As one would have expected, we have heard some strong constituency political arguments against the selection of certain areas for the construction of the third London airport.
I shall dwell upon my own constituency, because the selection of Foulness has been strongly supported by several of my hon. Friends. I had the impression that, so long as they could get the airport away from their own back yard, they did not care one bit in whose back yard it was put.
For my part, I assert unequivocally—I know that several of my hon. Friends from North-East Kent agree—that we shall have no conceivable economic benefit from Foulness but the people of that whole area will suffer very much of the distress which many hon. Members who have urged the choice of Foulness now suffer or would suffer. I hope, therefore, that others will accept that we in North-East Kent are extremely interested in this matter.
We have heard little of the economic arguments in the case. My right hon. Friend's difficulty is to balance the environmental considerations with the pure economics of the matter. Let us be frank about it. What we are proposing for a third London airport is a huge economic concept. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, an international airport is a large economic concept. This is why the British Airports Authority is told that it must make a profit out of the airports which we have.
I have made inquiries about it, and there are matters here which my right hon. Friend ought to take into consideration. The international airlines and both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are firmly against Foulness.
Mr. Hastings: No.
Mr. Burden: Yes, they are. My hon. Friend has had to say. No one interrupted him. I ask him now to hear the other side. The airlines do not like the idea of Foulness because of the conditions and circumstances which will prevail there.
Mr. Hastings: No.
Mr. Burden: If my hon. Friend will keep as quiet while others are speaking as others kept quiet when he was speaking, he will help us to get on.
The Foulness site is about 50 miles from London. Road and rail communications are extremely difficult. It is in the most congested rail area in the whole of the South-East, and considerable new road construction will be needed. In view of what we are told, it is impossible at this stage to envisage how British Rail could possibly provide an efficient rail communication to Foulness.
I have been reliably informed that the cost would be in the region of £500 million. That is quite a reasonable assessment, if we take into consideration the necessary road construction.
We see from the Roskill Report that there is some doubt about what construction difficulties could be found at Foulness and what might happen there during construction. The Commission could not arrive at a firm decision on the cost of construction because of the circumstances. Moreover, because of the fog that is quite prevalent there it is almost inevitable that in addition to the normal fire services an air-sea rescue service would have to be maintained. I am convinced that the international airlines would insist upon that in any case. In addition, there would have to be constant supervision and in many instances repair of the sea wall. In view of all those factors, it is on the cards that the airport would economically be a permanent heavy-loss airport. Apart from the environmental considerations, the country now has to bear in mind the economic circumstances more firmly than it ever has done
I repeat the airline operators do not want the airport at Foulness. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) made it perfectly clear that his constituents and his part of the county are not in favour of it, and the county of Kent, which will have no conceivable economic advantage, is definitely against it.
Therefore, we should look into the whole question of whether a large new four-runway London airport is necessary. Circumstances have changed even since Roskill started to form its opinions. I

2045
hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the circumstances as they are today and as they will probably prevail in a few years' time. There is no doubt that STOL is one of the necessities of future aircraft development in the interests of the whole world. If my right hon. Friend permitted an additional runway at Gatwick—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit)—and another runway at London Airport, and could save the cost of a new four-runway airport, it might well be that the Government could afford to give assistance in the development of a STOL aircraft, which would be of great benefit.
Quite a number of hon. Members seem to say, "It does not matter where else you have a new airport, it does not matter who else is subject to a lot of noise, as long as it is not us." There is a great impetus among aircraft manufacturers to reduce engine noise. The 747 is much quieter than the 707. It might well be desirable and practicable to put more flights into existing airfields with a diminution of the noise of individual aircraft rather than to spread new noise over a vast new area. This should be given very serious consideration.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also give careful consideration to the establishment of a body to look into the whole question of a national airports policy.
I ask my right hon. Friend to do so because—no one has mentioned this today—general aviation has grown and is growing at the moment faster than the
2046
airlines' scheduled services. Corporate aircraft ownership is growing very rapidly in this country as well. 1 believe that this should also be taken into consideration in future planning. The Government should look at this point closely, and certainly in the context of the saturation of Heathrow and Gatwick. At the moment, both of them are used for general aviation, including corporate aircraft, and probably that would help to increase the availability of slotting scheduled aircraft into these two major airports. I ask him to look at the possibility of making available another airfield in London, perhaps Northolt, developing it perhaps for light, twin-engined aircraft which are having to use Heathrow at the moment for customs clearance when they go on international flights. That, I believe, would help.
Mr. Ernle Money: rose—
Mr. Burden: No. I am sorry but I want other hon. Members to get in as well.
I come back to the major point that there has been a lot of talk about Foulness because it would remove from the political difficulties of several of my hon. Friends the fact that other sites are being considered. I ask them to look at the disadvantages, not only to those who would be affected by the siting of an airport there, but also through the difficulties in operation and construction. They must also consider the impossibility of making it a viable economic prospect. If they do think in these terms, I am sure that they would think again.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Charles Simeons: For several weeks we have been concentrating our attention on ensuring that Rolls-Royce engines continue to power our aircraft. Today our thoughts have gone in another direction. Half the hon. Members here have said not that they do not want our aircraft but that they do not want them to fly over their back gardens. The other half have been totally honest and have said, "Send them to Luton". I have a vested interest. I live at the end of the runway at Luton.
My attitude is not just that I do not want noise but that I believe that there is immense danger in congested areas. Also at the end of the Luton runway is Vauxhall Motors, which employs 20,000 people. Again, it is not only the congestion which worries me, but the insurance especially, and this is a point which no one has mentioned but which is immensely important. It has a greater effect than anything else in deciding where our airports should be.
For the sake of the argument, I will take the figures Vauxhall Motors gave the inquiry on Luton Airport. The greatest number of people working there to be concentrated in one building is in AC block, at the end of the runway. Altogether, 5,500 people work in it. Next door is the canteen, which can house 3,000 people at once. Vauxhall Motors has insured its plant and equipment for £97 million. If there were to be an accident, what would the situation be? My right hon. Friend would rightly point out that the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, gives total liability to the insurers. What aircraft company or airline is insured for this expense?
In February, 1970, when there was a different "management"—although I have no reason to believe that the policy has altered—I put a Question to the Minister of State as to what the compensation would be. Suppose that 3,000 people were maimed, which is not a very high proportion out of 8,500. If we look at recent awards made by the courts it will be seen that £25,000 for an individual award is not out of the way. I have spoken to a friend in the insurance business today and he has confirmed that this is not unreasonable. It depends on age. To begin with, then, we have com-
2048
pensation of £75 million. If we add to that the consequential loss of profits, it would not be difficult to get to £100 million.
A letter I received about this said:
"I can confirm that Section 40(2) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, imposes an absolute and unlimited liability upon the owner of an aircraft in respect of damage caused to persons or property on the ground. This applies to United Kingdom and foreign registered aircraft alike.
United Kingdom legislation does not require an airline to insure against this liability or against its liability towards its passengers. The Air Transport Licensing Board, however, is required by Section 2 of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, to take into account the provision made against these liabilities by a United Kingdom airline before granting it an air service licence.
The requirements imposed upon foreign airlines by their own governments vary in this respect, but so far as United Kingdom legislation is concerned a foreign airline could operate into Luton Airport without insurance against the absolute liability imposed upon it by Section 40(2) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949."
Imagine a foreign aircraft seeking permission to land. There might be an emergency. The town clerk is in no position to ask: "Are you insured?" One gets out the fire tender and copes with the consequences at the end.
It would be easy for me, in terms of the Roskill Report, to say that I support Cublington because this would shut Luton down. I believe that would be quite wrong. I believe if for no reasons other than the ones I have mentioned—and not because I am at the end of the runway—that all airports should be based on the water's edge. We shall immensely reduce the hazard that I have mentioned if that is done. I hope that my right hon. Friends will look into the matter very quickly.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. Roger Moate: I am a little puzzled by the different reports we get about Luton Airport. Earlier someone said that Luton Corporation had all the plans ready to put in a runway able to take jumbo-jets if necessary. Presumably there is strong feeling in the Luton area about the expansion of the airport.
There seems to be some sort of an unholy alliance building up—which I find difficult to understand—among those

2049
who are seriously affected by existing airports and those who are saying that the airport should go to Foulness rather than to Cublington. It seems that if we are to take any notice of the Roskill Report at all, and a large number of hon. Members seem to be ready to ignore it, then we must look at what is said about the likely expansion of air traffic at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton. It is important to choose the site of the next airport in such a way that, if possible, we can reduce the burden on the people living in the vicinity of these airports.
The Commission is quite clear on this. It says:
"An airport at Cublington or Thurleigh would effectively bring to an end air transport operations at Luton. An airport at Foulness would encourage further growth of such operations at Luton."
It may be that one or two hon. Members will say that they do not like Luton Airport but we cannot alter the commercial fact of life that it seems that Luton Corporation wants it to go on expanding, and presumably the airlines want it to go on expanding, too. This authoritarian note creeping into the Conservative benches strikes me as a little out of place. They are saying that we should prevent the airlines from using Gatwick, Heathrow or Luton and force them to go to an airport they know to be uneconomic. The fact of life is that this new airport is designed and intended for commercial reasons.
The figure mentioned in Roskill is that we could have up to 100,000,000 passengers by the year 2000—an enormous figure. If we make a mistake on the siting of the airport, we shall be discouraging large numbers of people from travelling to it and large numbers of airlines from using it. No matter how many Government edicts are issued, the commercial facts of life are that people will not go where they do not want to go.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House talk about increasing exports, invisible exports and prosperity. We cannot do that unless we ensure that we have airports in the right places which will continue to attract tourists and commercial visitors.
I have so far referred only to Luton. But it was equally clear that Roskill regarded the Foulness site as the site least likely to help the people in the Gatwick, Luton and Heathrow areas.
2050
We cannot ignore blithely everything that Roskill has said. For instance, it said:
"The choice of Foulness would undoubtedly increase the already powerful attraction of Heathrow and Gatwick to air traffic and to airlines."
Hon. Members who represent those constituencies and some hon. Members who advocate that the airport should be at Foulness are doing some disservice to their constituents. There is this unusual unselfishness appearing in the debate. But if we are talking of creating a national airports policy, which obviously sounds logical and attractive, it does not alter the fact that we have to make unpalatable decisions; namely, whether we have a second runway at Gatwick, and where we locate the next London airport. A national airports policy cannot alter that fact and would probably be based on those two decisions.
If people accept the logic that there should be a national pattern, they must also consider the logic that when one considers the noise impact of a new airport one should take into account the consequent effects on other airports as well. This is where Roskill is absolutely right to add the noise impact on people at Luton together with those who would suffer from an airport at Foulness. The total of those two airports would mean without a shadow of doubt that Foulness would be as near as environmental disaster to the people of Essex and Kent as any of the other short-listed sites.
I refute the point made by the hon. Member for Action (Mr. Spearing) when he suggested that the Roskill Commission was biased against Foulness. That is, clearly, unfair, and unlikely, because the one thing Roskill would have liked to do would have been to pick a site which commended general and widespread support and did not invite an immense hostile reaction. It was clear that people generally—for a long time I was one of them—had the idea that the offshore estuary site would be a no-noise airport. Roskill would have loved to commend this to the country but the facts of life were absolutely against it. There is a saying that "Nothing in life is more tragic than the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts." That is exactly what happened.

2051
Roskill established, beyond doubt, that the Foulness airport was unacceptable, not just in terms of distance but because of the massive additional construction costs—a second motorway, new rail links, and so on; because it would have heavier initial construction costs, would cause just as much environmental damage as the inland sites, and would be unattractive to passengers and airlines. On all those grounds the Commission made an effective case. That is why I deplore the way in which those who understandably are loth to see the airport go to Cublington have said that, regardless of all these considerations, the airport should go to Foulness. They do not do their case much good by posing this as the alternative to Cublington.
A large number of hon. Members have avoided this battle between the two sites and have tried to look outside Roskill for a general solution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would certainly increase his popularity in the country if he could find a solution outside Roskill. However, the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade gave me the impression that it would be one of these four sites. If it has to be one of these four sites, then the Roskill recommendations must be accepted.
It has been 10 years since the Estimates Committee said that it was urgent that we had a third London airport. There have been White Papers and reports, millions of pounds have been spent, and tens of millions of words have been uttered. We are still in a state of total confusion and uncertainty. The mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has hardly been helped by the number of different opinions which have been advanced today. We have had this objective Report. Yet the views which have been expressed are: we should have a one-runway airport; we should have a two-runway airport; we should have a four-runway airport; it should be any one of the four sites; or it should be none of them.
The only objective opinion that exists is one that has been obtained at enormous cost. It is the only objective opinion that we are likely to get. In
2052
these circumstances the only politically sensible exercise to perform is to accept the judgment of the Commission.
As the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, the question of noise is crucial. Many hon. Members have said that we must stop night flights at inland sites and transfer them to Foulness. I remind those hon. Members that thousands of people on the North Kent coast and in Essex would suffer just as much from noise. This problem is not solved by transferring an environmental disaster from one county to another. Therefore, we should accept the Commission's recommendation, if it is not possible to find a solution outside it.
10.48 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him; nor am I in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).
Rather surprisingly, I found myself in agreement with the speech of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). The right hon. Gentleman's views seemed to be quite different from those which he expressed, or which he was reported as having expressed, some time ago. I was glad to hear his speech today and surprised that he is the only representative of the Labour Party present now.
One of the main difficulties facing the Government is that the worst, most damaging and most expensive decision of all is to allow any further delay in reaching a conclusion on this issue. That is why I heartily welcome the tone of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. If they meant anything at all, they meant that he has decided that a third London airport will be constructed as soon as possible and that he will announce where it is to be built as soon as he has had a opportunity to consider the debate. That is at once the best and the most important decision to make.
From it flow a number of consequences which are well brought out by the Roskill Commission, and which I believe are irrefutable. First, the Commission did not accept the British Airports Authority's high forecasts of the growth of traffic, which were, clearly, based on a number of unjustifiable arguments. It is also clear, incidentally, that the Airports Authority is in any case moved by

2053
a desire to make the best use of existing assets, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham referred, and the Government search for the best long-term solution cannot be governed by that consideration.
Secondly, the Commission clearly found that the earliest date by which additional capacity—that is beyond Heathrow, beyond Gatwick with one runway, Luton and Stansted—would be required would be 1981, and that the first runway of a third London airport at any of the four sites, including Foulness, could be operational before then. The Commission was, therefore, unable to accept the view that in estimating the timing of the need for a third London airport it should accept the construction of a second runway at Gatwick—and quite right, too. The conclusion on this point is quite plain in Roskill.
I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in his eloquent defence of the countryside round his constituency, but the Roskill Commission made the point that existing airports are in general less well sited in relation to residential areas than are the four recommended sites. It is this point which I wish to develop for a moment.
My constituents already suffer as much as, if not more than, anybody else from aircraft noise at night. If a second runway were built at Gatwick the noise shadow would pass over a large section of Crawley New Town, and the noise levels round Horsham, particularly at night, would be intolerable. The noise problem is already well known. What is not so well known is the effect that the building of a new runway at Gatwick would have on my constituency and on the general environment of West Sussex.
Six months ago the County Councils of West Sussex, East Sussex and Surrey published the Crawley/Gatwick Sub-regional study. This showed that existing plans allowed for an increase of 113,000 people between 1966 and 1981, or 30 per cent., simply to allow for the growth of service and manufacturing industry already present. But if the British Airports Authority's draft land use plan which incorporates a second runway at Gatwick were allowed, an extra 90,000 people would be superimposed by 1981.
2054
Such expansion is quite unthinkable for two reasons.
First, the character of my constituency would be completely ruined for all time. It would no longer be a rural countryside, but a great bit of ugly noisy agglomerate, or series of agglomerates, and the effect on West Sussex would be far more profound than on any of the other sites mentioned in the Roskill Report.
Secondly, the natural growth of Crawley would be brought to a halt. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government to stunt the development of Crawley industry, with its good record of growth and in exports, but there is no question that that would be the effect. Gatwick would be competing for the same labour force at Crawley, and the existing constraint on growth at Crawley would mean a firm limit to the expansion of Crawley's industry. It cannot be the Minister's intention to make such nonsense of his strategy for the new town.
For once, reason, logic, evidence, proof and the natural inclination of the Minister to carry out his principal duty—that is, to preserve the environment—all march in the same direction, that there should be no second runway at Gatwick, and that an early decision should be made on London's third airport.
10.54 p.m.
Mr. Carol Mather: I have the utmost sympathy for those people who are defending Foulness, and making a very brave show of it, because I live near London Airport and know exactly what this problem amounts to. I speak for the people who live round London Airport, and, in particular, for my constituents.
The decision not to build a third London airport would be an absolute disaster for all those millions of people affected by London Airport. On the other hand, I agree with Professor Buchanan that to choose Cublington would be "an act of madness". I do not agree with several hon. Members who said that we should now have a great inquest on whether there should be a national airports policy.
I believe that in the public debate which has taken place in the last few months following the Roskill Report, there is now a consensus that there should be no new development of inland sites, either

2055
by new construction or by the development of traffic at existing sites.
I went to Cublington to look at the site there. The first thing that struck me was the hilly nature of the countryside where the airport would be sited. I cannot believe that any member of the Roskill Commission, apart from Professor Buchanan, actually went on the ground and saw this site. There are 200 ft. differences between the tops of the hills and the bottoms of the valleys. Of all four sites, this one is the "little Switzerland". It seems inconceivable that whole villages of 1,200 and 700 inhabitants, with Norman and Saxon churches, should be bulldozed away to make way for this airport. Never, not even in wartime, did we suggest or carry out any works of this sort.
We read a great deal in the Press about saving great pictures and other works of art. The greatest work of art in this country is the English landscape, which is one of our most treasured possessions. There is nothing like it in Europe. We in our generation have destroyed a great deal in two world wars, including much of beauty in the major cities of Europe. I believe that the saving of this area of countryside between London and Birmingham can be our moment and that future generation will say "This at least they saved."
If I may take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), it can be seen from looking at the map that the Foulness site is more or less an island or at least peninsula—certainly as much of a peninsula as is Hongkong in relation to mainland China. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend's point of view. On the matter of bird strike, I would bet him that I have more sea gulls on morning and evening flights between the gravel pits and rubbish heaps than my hon. Friend has Brent geese between the mud flats and potato fields.
I believe the time has come to regard human needs as of as much importance as economic needs, and, indeed, more so. We need a reassertion by human beings of our basic rights for a reasonable life and for survival. If the decision goes the right way, it will be a triumph for man over materialism and perhaps
2056
the dawn of a new and more hopeful era.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Robert Adley: Although I have been preparing this speech for three months, I shall try to condense it into three minutes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that we cannot force an airline or airline passengers to go where they do not want to go. Are we not approaching the time when we shall have to start thinking of telling airlines where to go? My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) mentioned the situation in Washington, which highlights the appalling situation in a great city with two airports. One airport in Washington which is a long way from the centre is not much used, and the other, which is near the centre of the city is much used and creates appalling difficulties. The time is coming when the national airport there will be closed and Dulles will be used and those concerned will have to provide a swift form of land transport.
The question of airport location involves the whole matter of zoning. If the British Airports Authority has its way, the third London Airport would be in the middle of Hyde Park. We must put the B.A.A. in perspective. It is people who count, and they should have a chance to have their say. The choice of an airport must be made where people want it to go and not just where airlines want it to go.
I have been pursuing the Government for some months to try to find out the attitude to a national airports policy. I do not want to embarass any of my hon. and right hon. Friend, but a certain amount of confusion is in evidence. One answer which I received recently from the Department of Trade and Industry to a question about a Severnside airport was:
"It is, in the first instance, for local interests and authorities to consider whether a new airport is required to serve the needs of this area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1971, Vol. 809, c. 185–6.]
I am waiting for Mangotsfield and Chipping Sodbury councils to put in their claims for an airport. If we run our airports policy in this way, then every parish council can put in its claim.

2057
When I asked the Minister for Trade whether his Department would initiate a nationally co-ordinated policy for the location of airports, he replied:
"No, but preliminary economic studies are being undertaken by the Department in the light of which we can decide whether such action seems necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December. 1971; Vol. 808, c. 318.]
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said this is a question of a national airport planning policy, yet it seems as if the Department is only now beginning to think about whether it should be thinking about it. The thinking should stop and acting should start.
We all know that noise is a problem. In a somewhat disturbing answer which I received from the Department of Trade and Industry to another Question on 18th January about aircraft noise, I was told:
"Studies so far carried out do not show any definite link between aircraft noise and illhealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 171.]
More study is clearly needed there.
Four Roskill sites, three unacceptable inland sites and one unsuitable coastal site is my impression of what Roskill has come up with. I entirely reject an inland site, and Foulness seems ridiculous, since it would mean all the traffic from the rest of the country pouring through London. We know the attitude of the airlines to Foulness; it is not acceptable to them at all.
There is a fundamental difference in the attitude of people in the South-East to airports and the attitude of those in the rest of the country. It is significant that people in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the West Country want an airport: people in the South-East do not seem to want another airport. If we were to close down Heathrow and Gatwick, is it not possible that the millions of people who use the two London airports might find the journey to Manchester, as the nearest airport available for international flight, a little inconvenient?
If there is no inland airport, please can we get the right coastal site? Severn-side is a site which has been mentioned, not by myself, initially in this debate. The M4 and M5 motorways will interchange at Almondsbury. They will be opened in 12 months from now and will put Birmingham and London within motorway travelling distance of such an
2058
airport. British Rail will—not "may"—be introducing its advanced passenger train on the London—Bristol main line for operational service by 1978. As the first Chairman of the Brunel Society, I am proud to say that this is because of the foresight of Brunel, who built the line to the broad gauge. Thus, the trains will be separate on tracks, and will be able to move at speed. Severnside will be one hour from Central London in six or seven years.
As we in the West Country are building Concorde, we accept the responsibility for having an airport in the area where Concorde can be flown and aimed across the Atlantic.
I plead with the Government for only one thing. Let us not have the wrong site now when surely it is better to look for the right coastal site later.
11.5 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I make one short plea to my right hon. Friend. In view of the lessons which have been learned from London Airport, I ask my right hon. Friend to make an early decision to start constructing a third London airport. The lessons which we have learned from London Airport are absolutely conclusive. My constituency has been almost completely ruined by the flight paths of no fewer than 288,000 aircraft movements a year. If another runway were to be built at London Airport, that figure could rise to 400,000.
Windsor is in the green belt. Yet people find it almost impossible to live there without having their windows closed all day; they have no sleep at night, and they can never, at the weekends, have any form of relaxation without a constant stream of aircraft noise. My constituents genuinely feel that life is becoming intolerable and that many parts of the constituency are no longer a desirable residential area.
That being so, I suggest that my right hon. Friend should make some alternative arrangement to take some of the burden from my constituents. As soon as the new airport is constructed, I suggest that most of the night flights and all of the Sunday flights from London Airport and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) said, from Gatwick, should be transferred to

2059
the new airport I do not want to reiterate my hon. Friend's excellent argument for Gatwick. I think that our arguments are similar, but the case of London Airport is greater because the amount of traffic is greater.
In view of the lessons which we have learned from London Airport, I believe that unless a coastal site is chosen there will be the same noise problem created elsewhere. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's choice is limited to a coastal site.
I shall not go into the merits of Foulness or anywhere else. However, I believe that it is possible, with modern means of transport, with the existing two railways coming into London, by extending them and building a monorail and perhaps combining a monorail and road link, to travel from Foulness within a reasonable time to London. It is no use saying that international air carriers will not go there. If we provide good facilities and speedy travel from the terminal to London then the air companies will go there. I know that they cannot be forced to go there, but if we provide proper facilities they will go there from choice.
I think that what we want from my right hon. Friend is an early decision on a coastal site and, what is more, alleviation of the misery caused by aircraft noise to people living in areas surrounding not only London Airport but Gatwick and Luton. Let them see that the Government are capable of appreciating the misery and suffering which they are enduring and are helping to solve it now.
11.8 p.m.
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: A large number of hon. Members have, understandably, spoken from a constituency viewpoint. I shall be no exception. However, I shall perhaps be one of the very few who will give a qualified welcome to the prospect of the third London airport being settled on one of the two sites which are fairly close to my constituency.
It seems to me that hon. Members who have spoken so far are divided between those who just want the whole idea of a third London airport to go away—some-what like a bad smell—and those who, sensing that it will not go away, are trying to convince themselves that it will not, after all, be needed. I am sure that
2060
it is needed, unless life around existing airports is to become completely intolerable. I am equally sure that if it is needed, a decision must be taken by the Government at a very early date. For a great many years now we have had the continuing charade of, first, Stan-stead, then Cublington, now Foulness, and who knows where tomorrow.
My constituency is not far from Foulness. I regret that I must part company from my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who presented his case against Foulness in the rumbustious manner which caused me to recollect an eve of the poll meeting that he addressed on my behalf.
Like most hon. Members, I feel that if the third London airport comes to Foulness, I have to concede that life in my constituency and the surrounding area will not be, and cannot ever be, quite the same as it is today. Yet, taking a balanced view and trying to see it from a national standpoint, I believe that bringing the airport to Foulness would cause less upset to the life of the community in Essex and, dare I say, in Kent, though I understand their point of view, than would be the lot of people in the Cublington area.
From that angle, and from all the conversations that I have had, I believe that Foulness is acceptable by and large to many of the people in my area. In fact, one can see some marginal advantages in terms of better roads to London, and so on. But, while the amenity of the area is vital if life is to retain some quality, it is the prosperity of the area which is of special concern to me. I believe that southern Essex has to expand its industrial activity, no matter where the third London airport goes. But, if it is to be Foulness and if the deep water port and the industrial development area are part of the decision, the prosperity of the people in my area is more assured.
My views on the effect on my constituency are as follows. First, I do not believe that the effect on the amenity of the area is as great as Essex opponents of Foulness would have us believe. Secondly, the hastening of improved communications to London is to be welcomed. Thirdly, if the right site at Foulness is chosen, the noise factor, which is a real point to bear in mind, should be

2061
little greater than the present effect on the people of the area arising from summer holiday traffic. I base that on the best information that I have been able to obtain. Fourthly, the associated industrial development must be of great benefit to the people in the area and could bring to an end the situation whereby Essex has been the step-child of the Home Counties for far too long.
In wider national terms, I believe that the gloomy predictions that Foulness will not be used by the airlines and that it will turn out to be a white elephant are quite unjustified. There will be every reason to use Foulness airport if the communications to London are better from there than they are from Heathrow or Gatwick. It is up to the Government, if they decide to site the airport at Foulness, to make sure that they are.
From a local and national viewpoint, my vote, albeit in a qualified fashion, goes to FQulness. In saying that, I am probably the first hon. Member moderately to welcome the prospect of the airport coming to the area which I represent.
Finally, I urge the Government to end the uncertainty of years and give a decision at a very early date.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I suggest, having listened to the entire debate, that tonight's argument boils down to one question: who wants the noise of a third London airport in his constituency? Indeed, if nothing else comes out of this debate, I hope that the occupants of the Government Front Bench now appreciate how many of us feel about this sort of noise and that some of us believe that aircraft noise has not been treated with the seriousness it deserves.
Over the years we have tended to regard this question along with the whole problem of noise, as something we must put up with because there is no cure. It is now suggested that if only we can move this projected new airport away from an inland site, we can relieve ourselves of the noise burden. Let us not kid ourselves into believing that the siting of a third London airport will make any difference to the suffering of the people who now live near Heathrow, Gatwick, Lydd, Luton or any other airport. The
2062
situation will, I regret to say, remain as it is for another 10 years, for this new airport will not be operational until 1981.
Some suggest that we need only find a coastal site for this airport and this intolerable noise level will be diminished and all will be well. Roskill never argued that the establishment of a third London airport would solve the noise problem. I would draw the House's attention to some words used by Lord Kings Norton in the other place during their Lordship's debate because they relate to a factor which has not been mentioned in this debate. The noble Lord is an expert on aeronautics and is Chairman of the Air Registration Board, the body which will implement the Noise Certification Act which we passed last year. He said that the noise and number index which Roskill quoted was that used in Sir Alan Wilson's 1963 Report on "The Problems of Noise". After explaining the complicated mathematical formula which makes up this index he said and I quote
"if you already have a high frequency of occurrence of noise, the increase of frequency will be less and less noticed the more and more the frequency increases. In other words, where it is bad, you cannot make it much worse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd February, 1971; Vol. 315, c. 988.]
Set against that argument, our belief that existing noise levels at London airports will be greatly changed by an airport which will start coming into service in perhaps 10 years' time seems somewhat futile. I would rather be told that the £500 million—or is it really £1,000 million?—that will be spent on this airport will be spent on retro-fitting existing aircraft or in providing "hush kits" for the fleets of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., or at any rate on something that could make an immediate difference to the noise burden.
The next question which we must consider if we are to accept that Roskill's arguments for a third London Airport hold water is to ask whether the forecast of aircraft movements made by him for the 1980's is correct or whether it is based on an assumption which has clouded this debate, and that is that the environmental unpleasantness of noise and the attended evils of aircraft are such that the British Airports Authority or the Government will not have the courage to develop the existing airports around London to their full capacity.

2063
If we do develop these airports to their full capacity, Roskill's saturation figure of 480,000 aircraft movements by 1980, no longer holds good because B.E.A. has estimated that London's airports, assuming a second runway at Gatwick, could take in 650,000 movements. This means that we would not be reaching saturation level until 1985.
It is important to bear that date in mind because it is the date when a V.T.O. airliner could be operational. My right hon. Friend suggested that there were some special difficulties with developing a civil vertical take-off aircraft. Are there? Dornier has not found them, with its civil V.T.O. aircraft although I admit it is a test vehicle. Hawker Siddeley has not found them with its Harrier, or Shorts with its SC1. But apparently my right hon. Friend has found some insuperable difficulties.
I remind the House that Hawker Siddeley presented a brochure to the Roskill Commission in which it argued that there was no insuperable difficulty in developing a vertical take-off aircraft and said that one could become operational in the mid-1980's.
Again, on the short take-off and landing argument, my right hon. Friend must know that the French flew the Breguet 941 in about 1965—I flew in it myself—and that it is this aircraft which the Americans are at this moment evaluating.
If, as I believe, we stand on the brink of one of the greatest technological breakthroughs in aviation, namely, getting rid of the runway and making aircraft lift vertically, what is the use of wasting £1,000 million on an airport which for 10 years can make no difference either to the noise problem or to aircraft movement in the United Kingdom.
I put it to the Government that they have 10 years in which to decide whether Roskill's rather dubious forecast is true. If they have so much money to spend on what seems to me such a doubtful proposition, why not do something which will really change the environment of our land? Why not take a step towards the future, not by laying down miles of concrete runway and imagining that we can avoid the noise difficulties by choosing a coastal site, but by developing that technological breakthrough in which
2064
Britain now has a lead over every other nation in the world?
11.21 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is difficult to follow such a moving, eloquent and technically well argued speech as that just delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), but I wish to remind the House of Professor Buchanan's Note of Dissent and the fundamental point which he made in stressing the grave disadvantage under which the Commission laboured in not having a regional airports policy first.
Professor Buchanan emphasised that the North and the Midlands had been grossly overlooked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) pointed out, there is a larger population, a larger catchment area, from the industrial North than from the South-East.
Professor Buchanan argued the matter well. He said:
"… a good case could be argued first, for locating a new airport in an area where it will help to create equality of wealth and opportunity, and second, for ensuring that it does not tend to concentrate still more activities in the London area to the possible impoverishment of the rest of the country. By this reasoning I think a case could be developed for not putting the so-called third London airport in the south-east at all, but for locating it in the central regions."
I heartily agree, and I think that the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade bear that view out. My right hon. Friend said that for tourism we should need a new third London airport. I suggest not, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit). My hon. Friend pointed out, as did the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), that inclusive tour and charter operations should increasingly be concentrated on the regions. This is right. Tourism should not necessarily gravitate inexorably to London.
My right hon. Friend said that business traffic, export work and freight must inexorably gravitate to London. That is not so, either, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping said.
It has been an amazing feature of this debate that the more expert people are

2065
in aviation the more convinced they are that the third London airport is not necessary. The same was true of the debate in the other place. The noble Lords Lord Beswick, Lord Kinnoul and Lord Kings Norton all argued the same case. The Beswick case, if I may so call it, that
"Foulness, which some see as a solution without tears, would in fact be a gross misuse of public funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd February, 1971; Vol. 315, c. 939.]
is an admirable summary of the matter. The point was well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East, who emphasised the importance of channelling this great financial investment correctly. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Trade suggested that we must not think that we can stop the world and get off. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East said. He pointed out that we should be spending £500 to £800 million on technical developments to make a third London airport unnecessary. So did Sir Barnes Wallis in a cogent letter in The Times on 28th January. Over the past quarter of a century Sir Barnes has shown more expertise and wisdom in matters aeronautical than probably 500 Members of Parliament in half a century.
To summarise the point which Sir Barnes made in his letter, we should spend the money—which could be 100 times the amount to be spent on, say, family income supplement or as much as the cost of Concorde—on producing vertical take-off and landing aircraft, the silencing of jet engines, the planning of an ideal airport on a regional basis with short runways, or, lastly but not to be overlooked, on the further development of computerised methods of air traffic control, which is the key to the whole problem.
I ask my right hon. Friend not to overlook what I call the domino effect, so eloquently and movingly put by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies). If the airport is situated at Foulness, not only will South-East Essex suffer, but another wilderness like Foulness and Maplin Sands, where the Brent Goose lives, will be destroyed. The south-west coast of Wales is a far more beautiful and lovely place even
2066
than Maplin Sands. That the industrial population of Wales should lose their best outlet to the sea and recreation is a monstrous scandal. Therefore, we should not forget the domino effect. We should pay regard to the technical possibilities.
I remind my right hon. Friend that when he forbade the extension of the Leeds/ Bradford runway at a cost of £900,000 as opposed to the cost of £500 million to build a four-runway airport, he took pride in the fact that he was the first Minister to refuse an airport runway extension on the ground of noise. I am sure that he is not likely to take pride in having created a monstrous airport of four runways of inter-continental status.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. William Rodgers: We have had a very full debate. We have managed to get as many speeches—40—under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Lords got in during two days. Some speeches have been passionate. All have been very serious. But they have been good humoured as well. We had the most relevant and effective speech from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel.) We have become so accustomed to seeing him about this place that some of us were surprised to learn that he had not made his maiden speech before today. We hope to hear him speak on many future occasions.
I felt that when my hon. Friends spoke they were intruding on a private quarrel, because the debate has been marked by a great willingness by hon. Members opposite to do each other down. The main object of almost all the speeches was to demonstrate that, whereas there might be a case for a third London airport, it did not matter where it was provided it was not in one's own constituency. This is a very reasonable view to take, but it has meant that speeches have not been marked by their objectivity. We heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) interestingly called the domino approach—a contribution to the language of airport planning which I congratulate him on.
We have also heard some very interesting domestic details. We have heard of the mother-in-law of the hon. Member for

2067
Hastings (Mr. Warren), of the brother-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and of the cousin of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who, alas, died in the great Essex floods of 1953. The overwhelming wish, which was well expressed by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), was that the problem would go away altogether. We all wish that there did not have to be a third airport anywhere, and that is what we shall fervently pray tonight before we go to bed.
The hon. Member for Hastings thought that Northern France was the right place. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) talked of a noise-transference society, and the hon. Member for Wavertree made the most interesting suggestion that people might fly from Manchester to Liverpool to continue the journey to London by rail. If I may make a contribution, I think that there is a very strong case for Ronaldsway, Isle of Man, which is only half a day by surface travel from the centre of London.
It was only the hon. Member for Billericay late in the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who advocated Thorne Waste, which I thought was mainly marsh land in which jumbo-jets would quickly sink; and the hon. Member for Wavertree who showed any interest at all. But I would say to the hon. Member for Wavertree that complaints about noise vary directly with the growth of traffic to the point of stalemate. If he were to succeed, as the charge of Liverpool Airport on the rates declined so his correspondence would vastly increase, because the truth is that people do not like airports losing money, but they do not like airports being noisy, because they do not like airports—precisely the point with which we have been trying to deal tonight.
The position falls very much between something said by the Minister for Trade in opening and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). The right hon. Gentleman said that we cannot put the clock back and check the growth of aviation. I accept that wholly. It has been interesting today, whatever has been in the back of the minds of right hon. and hon. Members,
2068
that there has been some understanding that aviation is bound to grow and that it brings essential benefits. But my right hon. Friend said that we cannot predict the next century. As I think the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) implied, the decision must fall somewhere between the two—between not checking the growth of aviation but at the same time not trying to do more involving predicting the future and making decisions which are irreversible.
The decision, whatever form it may take, is one which the Government cannot evade. We cannot have the same debate on another Royal Commission in a year or two's time. It must be faced, however hard the decision may be.
There has been a very interesting vision of England today. It is attractive, but I wonder how true it is. England, as I understand it, is covered with Norman churches and ancient manor houses. They stand on the finest agricultural land. The country is surrounded by seas rich in rare shellfish and beautiful rare birds, and it is inhabited wholly by sturdy yeoman stock. Britain, in fact, has been miraculously preserved from time immemorial, and it is only the aeroplane which is causing any disturbance now. When I listened to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) I thought that the ghost of William Cobbett rode again. Although I wish that that vision were true, it is not quite like the England that I know.
Amenity, the expansion of people's lives, and the widening of horizons does not mean only the preservation of the Vale of Aylesbury but also people travelling to places where they have never travelled before. It is a very good thing that more and more people are free to go to other countries and enjoy things previously denied them.
I appreciate entirely the deep unanimity of revulsion, to use a phrase of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), felt in many of the areas which he thought were challenged and threatened by the recommendations of the Roskill Commission or any of the alternative sites canvassed. I have rather more time for Mr. Justice Roskill than for Professor Buchanan. I prefer him when he is not trying to write prose poetry. I think he is talking a good deal better sense.

2069
I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about Professor Peter Hall's comments on the Roskill Commission, and with what the hon. Member for Aylesbury said about the article in The Times by Professor Christopher Foster. Both have rightly pushed the balance back somewhat from where it swung during the discussion after the first announcement of the Commission's Report. I hope that as it swings—
Mr. Raison: Professor Hall came down against the Roskill Commission.
Mr. Rodgers: What my right hon. Friend said was that Professor Hall paid tribute to the Roskill Commission in that article and said that it had been challenged very unfairly on its analysis, which was a remarkable job of work. That is what Professor Hall said and it is that with which I agree. If the pendulum has been pushed back some way, I am glad. I think that Mr. Justice Roskill and his Commission have not always had justice done to them.
I express a personal opinion when I say that if—and I say "if" very clearly—the Government had to make a decision to have a four-runway airport on the original timetable, I should have accepted the Roskill Report. I should not in any circumstances accept Foulness as a way out. It is not an easy option and the passionate speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) helped to redress the balance against those who said that they did not want it for themselves and asked, therefore, whether it would please go somewhere else.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) that many arguments must be considered. I am not saying that the decision is simple. I am confirming all that was said in the Roskill Report and again today about the difficulty of the decision, but there is a case for Cublington, argued not only by the Roskill Commission, and it is certainly not right to rebound from Cublington and say that Foulness is the easy way out.
My right hon. Friend put it very clearly this afternoon. I was not in his Department, as I was later fortunate to be, at the time he made his decision to set up the Roskill Commission and, not in his Department, I was uncertain whether it was the right decision to make. I had become a little impatient with my Gov-
2070
ernment in a number of respects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Very wise."] I expected that. I thought that this might have been evading a decision.
But I was certainly wrong and I am sure that all hon. Members now agree that my right hon. Friend was correct in that decision some years ago. I should like to pay tribute to his decision then and to say that I wholly accept the solution which he put forward this afternoon as being the right one, given the timetable and the changed circumstances.
My joy is a little qualified. I am more sceptical about the prospects for short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing than many, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), who have contributed to the debate. Many hon. Members are again looking for the easy solution.
But even if I were prepared to see vast sums of money put into the aircraft industry, and some of us would have our hesitations about that at this time, I am far from sure that the goods would be delivered on time and at the right price. I do not think that we can rely on VTOL and STOL as providing a way out. Nor am I sure, and there has been only a passing reference to this, that high speed surface transportation such as we might expect to get would provide a solution, even a partial solution.
I would agree with much of what has been said about, for example, a national airports plan. But I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that it is not as easy as it seems. It has been the policy of consecutive Governments since 1945 often to let local authorities take over their own airports, and if we are to have a national airports plan, it means all the major airports in the country must be under a single authority, and I know what Manchester Corporation and Glasgow Corporation will think about that. This is the only way to solve the problems of Prestwick and Abbotsinch, Liverpool and Manchester, Birmingham and Coventry, and Newcastle and Tees-side. Again it is not an easy way out, but it is a problem to which I hope the Civil Aviation Authority will be able to give its mind.
The decision that is now required is as to a one or two-runway airport for the South-East which will be open as soon

2071
as possible. I cannot say what the site would be, since I do not know, but I do not think we need to be committed to any of the four sites mentioned in Roskill. It will mean some expansion at other airports. Whereas I hope it will not mean another runway at Gatwick, it is foolish to assume that growth of traffic will not involve a growth of nuisance of one kind or another. I do not envy the Government their decision, while still wishing that we were there to make it.
11.40 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I wish to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on his maiden speech. I do so as a former resident and indeed voter in his constituency. His speech was lucid, cogent and greatly appreciated on both sides of the House. Our former colleague and friend the late Roger Gresham Cooke would have been proud to have witnessed the speech of his successor.
I do not know which has concerned me most in Parliamentary terms—whether it has been to see the Tory Party divided in its presence or the Labour Party united in its absence. Both aspects have been a feature of this debate. There were four hon. Members in this debate who with some courage, bravery and skill advocated an airport near or in their constituency, namely my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), Bristol, North East (Mr. Adley), Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). We all witnessed with some admiration their cogent arguments. One thing I have decided at an early stage is that the third London airport will not be in Worcester.
The interesting feature of the debate has been that most hon. Members have paid tribute to Roskill and the manner in which it tackled the task and the interesting analysis of information provided. In terms of the study of a problem of this nature, it is a considerable step forward. The other interesting feature is that in the debate in the House of Lords not one person—and in this House only one hon. Member—advocated accepting the Roskill conclusion. It is remarkable that throughout the debate nobody, other than my hon. Friend the
2072
Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has specifically advocated that Cublington should be accepted as the proposal for a third London airport.
I do not regard this as any reflection on the skill and diligence with which the Roskill Commission tackled its task. It shows the Government were correct in stating that they would give a period of time for views to be expressed, not only in Parliament but in the country, on the findings of the report. The views which have been expressed have been more cogently expressed because of the considerable detailed analysis of Roskill than otherwise would have been the case.
As for the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), I would point out that one or two views expressed previously about his attitude to this problem were, in fairness, taken from Press reports of the speech he made. He was kind enough to send me a full copy of his original speech on this topic. The abbreviated Press reports of that speech give a rather wrong impression of his position. Today he stated one or two factors of importance with which I agree. His hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) was a little encouraging when he said he agreed with the solution provided by his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby. Although I waited for the nomination of the site he was proposing, no specific solution was forthcoming.
Irrespective of the problem of deciding our future strategy for airports we do need further facilities in the South-East. This is not in any way to suggest that in future we will not have to be careful with our planning in other parts of the country. At present there is no problem of capacity in other parts of the country, but there is a problem of fast-growing capacity in the South-East. In an interesting speech my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) mentioned that it might be that the tourist trade would lead to growth in other parts. What is also true of tourism is that the increase in overseas visitors will largely be centered on the South-East because the fact is that incoming holiday traffic particularly affects this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping, and others particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked

2073
why we do not encourage technical projects such as VTOL or STOL rather than provide for the possibilities of a third London airport. I agree with the right hon. Member for Grimsby that this would be a very serious gamble to take and, I think, an irresponsible one. While there is no discouragement to these developments, and people interested in the environment will do all they can to help, to speculate that they will be successful, that there will be a breakthrough, when all the world's airlines are currently committing themselves to heavy investment in conventional aircraft would be a mistake, landing this country with serious problems. It is something we would regret in a short time. I accept the problem in terms of studying our needs carefully and looking at the requirements on a rational basis.
The problem of the expansion of trade is a vital topic in relation to airport strategy. All available evidence held by the Government, and that produced by Roskill—and there has been no further technical breakthrough—shows that it would be irresponsible of the Government not to face the reality of the needs of South-East England.
In looking at the use of cost-benefit analysis it is always easy to be critical but that does not mean that we should not attempt it and try to use the figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) was correct to say that there are factors that cannot be put into a cost-benefit analysis but he would agree that the figures were interesting and it was perfectly correct for the Commission to try this technique. In fairness to it, it did not argue that the cost-benefit analysis was the sole reason for its conclusion. I agree that in a position of this kind such a technique is not sufficient on its own. The Commission agreed that to deal with the problem of environmental quality in such terms is an almost impossible task. Historic buildings, Norman churches, wild life sanctuaries—all of these matters are incredibly difficult and important topics.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) expressed the very important land-use argument which must be taken into account. Certainly in the talks that my Department will have with the Department of State for Trade and Industry
2074
we will naturally weigh carefully the total land-use factors. But it must be the total land-use factors, it is not just the site of the airport, it is all the communications to the airport and all the infrastructure which must be taken into account.
In terms of communication I must give a warning about the high hopes of some hon. Members for various forms of railway communication. I apologise in that I was absent during the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) who asked what is happening to the hovertrain. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned the possibility of the airport's location near his own constituency, where we would go and land, and jump on the train, and the Customs and immigration officials and our luggage would all be there and we could quickly depart from the aeroplane.
I passed a comment to the right hon. Member for Grimsby. It would be rather difficult for his constituents, who, to get to Grimsby, although it is only a few miles away, would have to go to London to get their luggage.
There was a time when, looking at the future of British Rail in terms of London, I carefully examined the possibility of a terminal in London, where everything was done there and one would be taken to the place where the aeroplane would take off. There are difficulties in this for immigration officials. Once one is on the train one is in the country. I can see one or two people jumping off at various signal stops.
There are considerable problems in developing this concept of a train which will solve all the problems while travelling at a fast speed. The right lion. Member for Hillsborough said that the train traffic to London would be slightly more. My word it would be, because, on any calculation, with a third London airport there would be a train about every one and a half minutes. There would be a need for new buildings and railways. He said that we could by-pass the odd town on the way down, but the amount of land used in this concept would be considerable.
In looking at this superficially attractive solution to our problems, we must

2075
recognise that the locality chosen for any major airport will have to have considerable communications, both by road and by rail. That is a very important factor. One must not look just at roads in isolation, in terms of putting an airport in a particular place and the cost of roads to that airport, but what roads would have been needed for that locality or region in any case. Part of the Government's consideration must be to look at the road pattern that would be necessary whether or not an airport was built in a particular locality, and to compare the cost with the additional factor.
Other very important factors, I assure my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, will be taken carefully into consideration. The safety factor has been mentioned. On this problem, I am slightly confused as to whether Aylesbury starlings are more dangerous than Brent geese. I have always thought that ducks were more the concern of Aylesbury than starlings. I take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that Aylesbury is in a starling-infested county, and that we must be careful there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) pointed out the dangers of siting airports near to major complexes where people were working or gathered together and the gigantic damage which could be done by having failures here. This point is of considerable importance.
I differ somewhat with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby—perhaps I am wrong in interpretation of his speech—when he rather suggested that at least we should eliminate two of the four potential sites and look at alternative sites. I emphasise the important topic of trying to make a decision with as much speed as possible. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are a number of reasons why a speedy decision is necessary. I do not mean by "speedy" that we shall announce a decision next week.
It is important that we take into consideration all the factors raised in the debate and elsewhere in the country. But within that context, it is important that the Government reach a speedy decision, for a number of reasons.
First, it is important—not immediately but in the foreseeable future—to relieve
2076
some existing airports in the South-East to see that people do not suffer too much from noise.
My hon. Friends the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) raised this topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) mentioned fairly strikingly that it was a little tough for his constituents that they suffered from noise all day in their factories and were suffering from the noise of aircraft at night.
One of the tasks of the new Department of the Environment is not just to try to conserve the rather good environments that already exist, but to improve the environment for those that suffer from a particularly bad environment at present. This point was cogently made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), by my hon. Friends whose constituencies are adjacent to Gatwick, and by many of my hon Friends whose constituencies surround Heathrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East and the right hon. Member for Grimsby laid great emphasis upon the importance of noise in terms of our total environmental and pollution problems. I agree with this. It has been one of the great areas of neglect, because this is one of the forms of pollution to which people can become accustomed without recognising the full extent of the damage caused to people in terms of both physical and mental health.
There are many problems created by noise. This is a topic in which Governments must take a close and constant interest. I am glad that the Noise Council is doing a great deal of work on this question. It is a topic to which Governments must pay far more attention. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East that we are concerned to look at every possible technical method by which the situation can be improved.
Another important reason why I am anxious that there should be a fairly speedy decision on this topic is the appalling problem of blighting. So long as there is indecision, whole areas are blighted, not just in terms of the adverse effect upon those living in these localities, but also in terms of government. Many

2077
major decisions as regards roads and regional planning have to be made.
The South-East Strategy reasonably tried to take into account all possibilities for a third London airport. My Department is frustrated in making numbers of important decisions because of the importance to those decisions on coming to conclusions on the problems of the third London airport.
Nor do I want the blighting to be extended. To leave for a long time even two of the four sites in uncertainty and at the same time to be looking at various other sites, each one of which would become blighted as it was considered, could cause considerable problems for the South-East. This is another reason why the Government should try to reach a speedy and sensible conclusion.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: How speedy is "speedy"? Is it not next week but the week after, or is it before Easter, or what?
Mr. Walker: This is difficult, because obviously the Government want to look in detail at the various factors which have been raised in to debate. I emphasise that we want a speedy decision and not a great deal of indecision.
Another reason why there is a need for speedy decision is all the preparation which is required for a third airport, wherever it may be sited. There are considerable procedures to be gone through in terms of planning for the increased provision of transport and housing. There are all sorts of factors, depending on the site chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) said that, if a site was chosen at Foulness, he and all his constituents would be very interested in such problems as potential flooding and arrangements for compensation. Almost every site which is a possibility would have problems which would have to be examined by the Government and overcome in the best possible way.
For all these reasons, there is a need for a speedy decision. Of course this is a difficult decision. I believe that the new Department of the Environment, because it co-ordinates planning and transportation under one roof, can help to make a
2078
better quality of decision than would otherwise be the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), in a very moving and important speech, rightly said that the economic aspects are obviously one factor but that it is important for the decision to be a decision based upon good planning reasons. That will certainly be the Government's object. I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate for the constructive and varied suggestions that they have made to help us in reaching our decision.
Mr. Speaker: That concludes the 41st speech in this debate, according to my calculation. I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who by their self-denial have made it possible for so many speeches to be made.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Roskill Commission on the Third London Airport.

LIVINGSTON NEW TOWN
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
12 midnight
Mr. Alex Eadie: This Adjournment debate is of great moment to my constituents in the new town of Livingston and the western part of Midlothian, for the answers I get tonight will determine their immediate economic and social well being. I speak with the willing authority and co-operation of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) who has a part responsibility for the new town, part of which is in his constituency.
The new town is the child of a previous Conservative Government, and the reasons for setting it up can be found in the Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Draft New Town (Livingston) Designation Order, 1962. It conceived an area of 6,700 acres with its boundaries spreading into Midlothian and West Lothian. The designated area was to provide for a population of 70,000, with the necessary services, and it was to be part of The

2079
Lothians Regional Survey and Plan, which anticipated a planned growth of population based on natural growth and immigration of 200,000 by 1986. This total was made up of 70,000 in the new town and 130,000 in the build up of selected settlements. The labour force target was 87,000 employees, 29,000 of whom would be in the new town and 58,000 outwith.
The Secretary of State set out in his memorandum that one of his reasons for designating the new town of Livingston was the dilemma of the 100,000 families in Glasgow who were living in bad housing conditions and who would be displaced by comprehensive redevelopment schemes in the city. Because it would be undesirable to build to the same density, no more than 40,000 of these 100,000 families could be rehoused in the city. The Glasgow redevelopment programme would, therefore, displace 60,000 families, who would have to be found homes outside the city.
The Secretary of State argued that a fourth new town at Livingston was needed to help in this rehousing. His memorandum set out the reasons for the geographical choice of Livingston. Its communications with Glasgow were good, and it was desirable that location of a new town in the already congested Clyde Valley should be avoided.
In a severely edited statement I have outlined the then Conservative Government's case for Livingston. My constituents in this area want to know whether, by excluding Livingston from the new area incentive development scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th February, the Government have ditched their plan for Livingston and have lured people to Livingston on false promises. The population growth is behind that envisaged in the plan, but there are 13,500 people in the new town, some of whom came there on the Government's prospectus. They were prepared to invest their lives in the Conservative Government's promise, and when one considers the tremendous capital spent and earmarked, it would be economic and financial lunacy to contract out, even partly, now.
I want to give some financial examples. Government spending in the new town to date has been £28 million and—I men-
2080
tion it because the Cameron Iron Works has been in the news recently—the investment there is about £12 million, of which £8 million is Government money. Midlothian County Council has supplied me with figures of projects under way or completed to date which it has carried out. There are: education, £1¾ million; drainage, £3½ million; roads, £1·4 million; lighting, £0·1 million; water, over £3 million. The estimated totals for the new town are: water, £7·1 million; drainage £13·3 million; refuse disposal, £0·2 million—a total of £20·6 million. This does not include the final totals for education and roads.
The choice of Livingston by the then Secretary of State was motivated by another consideration. Western Midlothian and parts of West Lothian had been severely hit by the contraction of the shale and coal mining industries. The designation of the new town gave new hope and aspirations in employment prospects for work people in the surrounding area. To amend that conception flings many of the people in the surrounding areas back into the depressing atmosphere of the early 1960s.
The existing population of the new town deserves encouragement, not setbacks, for they have been a willing choice as an area for the ecumenical experiment. The Churches believed the Government. Two new churches have been built and one is being built. Others are planned. It is not without significance that all religious denominations in the town have sent a joint letter to the Prime Minister protesting against the exclusion of Livingston from the new special incentives area.
The hon. Gentleman is perhaps aware that I tabled 16 Questions when I heard of Livingston's exclusion from the new special incentives area. In reply to one of them, he was far from clear about Livingston, which might be considered for special incentives for incoming industry. The reply was not considered satisfactory enough. Eighteen per cent. of the male population are unemployed. How could a Minister, in such a situation, reply with such ambiguity?
To deal with a situation which could surely develop into a crisis of morale, the Government need to announce quickly, first, the commencement of construction of the Livingston Road and

2081
Calder section of the M.72; secondly, the inclusion of Livingston New Town in the special incentive development area. The announcement of the latter would stop the poaching of likely new industries which had almost been earmarked for Livingston.
This is one of the most disgraceful aspects of the Government's announcement of 18th February, and it is in the interests of my constituents that I lay these bare facts before the House. I believe that my constituents have a powerful case, one that was backed by a previous Conservative Government. Failure to listen to and to meet the case means that the Government declare what was, after all, their own child, an orphan and thus place the families of the working population in a position in which they are continually teetering on the brink of uncertainty. I trust that the hon. Gentleman's reply will be favourable to my constituents.
12.10 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I would first apologise to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for having to take the place of my hon. Friend the other Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has lost his voice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would prefer someone who is not quite so familiar with the topic as is my hon. Friend to an Under-Secretary who had no voice with which to reply to this very important matter. However, I visited Livingston in, I think, October, and I was most impressed with the town I saw. I therefore share the hon. Gentleman's great concern that it should develop into a great success story.
The hon. Member based his case on two main arguments. The first was that this new town was the child of a previous Conservative Administration and that we were abandoning it. The second was that it needed special development area status. I agree that this was the child of a previous Conservative Administration, and I think that the hon. Gentleman and everyone would agree that it was right to designate Livingston a new town. The prospects there are very favourable. It does not have the inheritance of older industries and the older social problems of some of the big industrial conurbations. It is a highly attractive location
2082
for industry, providing as it does, a new infrastructure specially designed to exploit its growth potential. Land and factories are available in a high amenity area, with ready access to both East and West Scotland.
At the moment, about 2,400 jobs are reported to be in prospect in the next four years from approved industrial projects, and 1,500 of these are for men. This figure takes no account of other jobs which could be expected to arise in the service sector or jobs of which we do not have knowledge. So in the present climate of industrial activity, that can only be described as a success story. There is also very good management in the new town, to which I should like to pay tribute.
I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should not use terms like "a crisis of morale". I do not believe that the prospects for Livingston are as bad as he has painted them. But I do agree, and very much sympathise, with those who think that Livingston at present has problems. We should get them into perspective, because the problems of this part of Scotland are nothing like as serious as those of West Central Scotland and those of the Clyde Valley, in particular.
There are in West Central Scotland 57,000 unemployed, of whom 47,000 are men. That is an average of 8·2 per cent. Although the average unemployment in the Bathgate exchange area is also in the same region—8 per cent.—it amounts to only 2,400 people and that includes a high number of men who are temporarily stopped, in particular due to the Post Office strike and other temporary causes. But even if one accepts the figures—and the percentages are very similar—in terms of the total, 2,400 unemployed in Bath-gate is a very different matter from the 47,000 unemployed in West Central Scotland. One must get and keep the problem in perspective.
Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is talking about Bathgate. Livingston has an exchange of its own. I gave the figures for the new town as 18 per cent. of the male population. Does he dispute that?
Mr. Ridley: I was coming to that. It is true that there may be a higher unemployment percentage in the new town itself, but our figures are computed in

2083
terms of travel-to-work areas and the group of local employment exchange areas is, of course, the Bathgate group, where the figure is 8 per cent. I do not know whether the 18 per cent. is true, because there are no official statistics for Livingston New Town. The hon. Gentleman and the Ecumenical Council must accept that in this matter we have to take account of a wider area, because a lot of the people who work in the factories do not live in the town. The only figure which I should give the House is the 8 per cent. which we are certain is right for the group of employment exchange areas as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that this part of Scotland should be made a special development area. I challenge his expression that Livingston has been ditched by not being made a special development area. We must look at the philosophy underlying the recent creation of extra special development areas in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th February.
We ought to look at the scale of the problem. West Central Scotland has 57,000 unemployed and Tyneside has 34,000 unemployed. We are here dealing with 2,400 unemployed. Moreover, those areas have the heritage of the Industrial Revolution. They were the first areas to be developed. As a result, they have old housing, dereliction, poor infrastructure, and old and declining industries in many cases which make their prospects very much more difficult than those of an area like Livingston where there are new communications, new factories, new houses, and very little of the declining industry which makes the problem so intractable in the older areas.
Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman talks of the poaching of incoming industry, I cannot help feeling that we must accord priority to those areas because there the problem is not only much bigger but is probably going to be more difficult in future. I think that it is right to concentrate the aid on areas like West Central, Scotland, where clearly the prospects are not as good as for Livingston. After all, the jobs in prospect in Livingston are not far away from the present total of the unemployed. I wish I could say that that were true of Glasgow but it is not.
Mr. Eadie: I hope that I have not misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Is he suggesting that it is right and proper that jobs almost earmarked for Livingston should, as a result of the new special development area incentive, be poached away from Livingston?
Mr. Ridley: I did not quite say that. I said that it is right and proper that priority should be given to those firms which are going to relieve the problem in the worst affected areas. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to a particular case of which both he and I might have knowledge. If so, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that no decision has been made in that case. From the viewpoint of the strategy of the Government, I believe that it is right to concentrate the advantages on places like Clydeside, where the problem is much more intractable.
That brings me to ask: what contribution can Livingston make to solving the problems of West Central Scotland? I believe that this is part of the reason that the new town was set up and was given the special advantages which new towns have. Glasgow's problems cannot be solved entirely within its own city boundaries. Everybody has accepted that to solve the problems of the Clyde Valley there must be new towns and that they must take the overspill from Glasgow. I look at the problem of Livingston in that light.
When it was set up, it was expected to take 80 per cent of its new population from West Central Scotland or, indeed, from Glasgow, as the hon. Gentleman said. But, so far, only 592 families have come from Glasgow out of a total of 4,326 new families who have moved in. That means that under 15 per cent of them have come from Glasgow, whereas the target is 80 per cent, which is a long way off the mark. It has reached a population of approximately 14,000 out of the 70,000 which it is expected finally to take.
It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the satellite new towns on Merseyside have received the same treatment as Merseyside itself because, and only because, they are busily and actively engaged in taking overspill from Liverpool and Merseyside. If Livingston could make a contribution to the same tune, it could attract the same status as

2085
West Central Scotland. But I emphasise that, if Livingston is to enjoy the benefits of special development area status, it will have to make a very substantial contribution to helping with the Glasgow overspill problem. At present, and on the figures that I have quoted, I do not believe that it has the same claim for priority of Government assistance as has the Clyde Valley.
I think also that it has great advantages under the present system of incentives. Not only is it a new town with all that that means in the way of new town status, but it is still in a development area. I firmly believe that free depreciation over the years will produce great advantages which are not shared by large areas of the country as a whole. This free depreciation is extended over a wider range of assets than before. The Government have increased Local Employment Act assistance, and they have, moreover, increased the building grant considerably to 35 and 45 per cent, which will be a great attraction to firms wishing to move to Livingston. The cost of the Government's measures are the same, as, and in some parts of the country possibly higher than, the costs of the previous Government's measures. I am confident that this new package will be attractive to industry and will bear closely and more effectively on the needs of the development areas as a whole.
In short, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs to take such a pessimistic view of the situation in Livingston. I have undertaken to consider whether the new town could make a sufficient contribution to relieving the problems of West Central Scotland to justify the provision of special development area incentives available there. But, even if Livingston's contribution is insufficient to allow the extension of S.D.A. incen-
2086
tives, its prospects are by no means unfavourable. Since its designation in 1962, it has successfully attracted a diversity of new industry, mostly from outside Scotland. Some firms have already expanded, and further development, including the introduction of a number of projects already in the pipeline, is continuing. Some firms suffer setbacks, and I know that the Rolls-Royce affair has taken its toll in Livingston as in other places. I am sorry that that is so. But, on the whole, the area can offer very substantial incentives to new projects and to foster existing local enterprise.
Differentiation between areas in need of new employment involves some painful decisions, but in Livingston its diverse industrial structure and its many natural advantages combine to make its prospects more promising than those of the worst-hit areas. While I appreciate concern about current levels of unemployment, the hard facts of the case are that the supply of mobile projects is limited and must be concentrated where it is most urgently needed. However, we are determined to keep the coverage of assisted areas under close review to ensure that it fully reflects changing circumstances, so that areas no longer in need of assistance can be downgraded and those whose position is seriously deteriorating may be given additional assistance.
The hon. Gentleman may be assured that the position in Livingston will be closely watched, and I thank him for doing the House the service of drawing attention to the problems of the area, although I believe that he will not be too pessimistic about them in the light of what I have just said.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery School Places (Waltham Forest)
  Nursery School Places (Waltham Forest)
  University Lecturers (Working Conditions)
  University Lecturers (Working Conditions)
  Arts (Sponsorship)
  Arts (Sponsorship)
  New Polytechnic (Lancashire)
  New Polytechnic (Lancashire)
  Educational Priority Areas (Projects)
  Educational Priority Areas (Projects)
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Derbyshire
  Derbyshire
  Food (Date Marking)
  Food (Date Marking)
  School Pupils (Leicestershire)
  School Pupils (Leicestershire)
  Old School Buildings
  Old School Buildings
  Independent Schools (Fees)
  Independent Schools (Fees)
  School Meal Charges (Decimalisation)
  School Meal Charges (Decimalisation)
  Family Income Supplement (School Meal Charges)
  Family Income Supplement (School Meal Charges)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Social Sciences Research Council
  Social Sciences Research Council
  Nursery School Places (Costs)
  Nursery School Places (Costs)
  First Aid Teaching
  First Aid Teaching
  Community Relations Courses
  Community Relations Courses
  Direct-Grant Schools (Comprehensive Reorganisation)
  Direct-Grant Schools (Comprehensive Reorganisation)
  Independent Schools (Selective Employment Tax)
  Independent Schools (Selective Employment Tax)
  Free Milk
  Free Milk
  Students (Hostel Accommodation)
  Students (Hostel Accommodation)
  Circular 8/60
  Circular 8/60
  Art Galleries and Museums (Admission Charges)
  Art Galleries and Museums (Admission Charges)
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Advanced Further Education Pool (Expenditure)
  Advanced Further Education Pool (Expenditure)
  Downside School, Dunstable
  Downside School, Dunstable
  Stage Training Schools
  Stage Training Schools
  Handicapped Children (Educational Needs)
  Handicapped Children (Educational Needs)
  Youth Centre, Hatchard Road N.19
  Youth Centre, Hatchard Road N.19
  St. Faith's School, Winchester
  St. Faith's School, Winchester
  Grafton Primary School, Islington
  Grafton Primary School, Islington
  Educationally Subnormal Children
  Educationally Subnormal Children
  Bideford
  Bideford
  Secondary Education Provision (Mansfield)
  Secondary Education Provision (Mansfield)
  Cornwall Technical College, Pool
  Cornwall Technical College, Pool
  Mental Disorders (Research)
  Mental Disorders (Research)
  Royal Mint
  Royal Mint
  School Leavers (Education Certificates)
  School Leavers (Education Certificates)
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Huddersfield (Placing of Child)
  Huddersfield (Placing of Child)
  Mentally-disturbed Children
  Mentally-disturbed Children
  Portsmouth (Old Schools)
  Portsmouth (Old Schools)
  School-leaving Age
  School-leaving Age
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
DEFENCE
  Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd.
  Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd.
  Army Advertisements (Union Flag)
  Army Advertisements (Union Flag)
  H.M.S. "Belfast"
  H.M.S. "Belfast"
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  H.M.S. "President" and H.M.S. "Chrysanthemum"
  H.M.S. "President" and H.M.S. "Chrysanthemum"
  Linesman /Mediator Project
  Linesman /Mediator Project
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Northern Ireland (Constitution)
  Northern Ireland (Constitution)
  Prisons (Manufacturing and Assembly Contracts)
  Prisons (Manufacturing and Assembly Contracts)
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Courts (Medical Reports)
  Courts (Medical Reports)
  Passports
  Passports
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Workers
  Unemployed Workers
  Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello
  Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello
  Home Holidays (Post Office Dispute)
  Home Holidays (Post Office Dispute)
  Glynwed Fastenings Ltd.
  Glynwed Fastenings Ltd.
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Hull Training Centre
  Hull Training Centre
  Consett-Stanley-Lanchester Area
  Consett-Stanley-Lanchester Area
  King's National Roll
  King's National Roll
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest Payments (Decimalisation)
  Interest Payments (Decimalisation)
  Pensioners and Persons on Fixed Incomes
  Pensioners and Persons on Fixed Incomes
  Decimal Currency Board
  Decimal Currency Board
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Mrs. Desramault (Child)
  Mrs. Desramault (Child)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Simonstown Base (Employees)
  Simonstown Base (Employees)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Nursery Places (Single-Parent Families)
  Nursery Places (Single-Parent Families)
  Post Office (Dispute)
  Post Office (Dispute)
  Workers, Glynwed Fastenings Ltd. (Unemployment Pay)
  Workers, Glynwed Fastenings Ltd. (Unemployment Pay)
  Tylosin
  Tylosin
  Homeless People, Wandsworth (Temporary Accommodation)
  Homeless People, Wandsworth (Temporary Accommodation)
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Pre-School Children (Attendance at Clinics)
  Pre-School Children (Attendance at Clinics)
  Farleigh Hospital (Inquiry Report)
  Farleigh Hospital (Inquiry Report)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Staff)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Staff)
ENVIRONMENT
  Commissioner of Complaints
  Commissioner of Complaints
  Standard Rent Books
  Standard Rent Books
  Hull (Derelict Land)
  Hull (Derelict Land)
  Construction Work (Metric Design)
  Construction Work (Metric Design)
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  Railway Commuter Services
  Railway Commuter Services
  Railway Services (Profit and Loss Figures)
  Railway Services (Profit and Loss Figures)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (Prosecutions)
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (Prosecutions)
  Chamber of Shipping (Representations)
  Chamber of Shipping (Representations)
  London Airports (Traffic Origin)
  London Airports (Traffic Origin)
  Romania (Agricultural Products)
  Romania (Agricultural Products)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  British Consultants Overseas
  British Consultants Overseas
  Overseas Projects
  Overseas Projects
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968
  Trade Descriptions Act, 1968
  Donaldson International Airways
  Donaldson International Airways
  Linesman Mediator Project
  Linesman Mediator Project
  West Cornwall
  West Cornwall
  PRICES
  PRICES
  POPULATION POLICIES
  POPULATION POLICIES
  PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES (REVIEW BODY)
  PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES (REVIEW BODY)
  PRIME MINISTER'S QUESTIONS
  PRIME MINISTER'S QUESTIONS
  ROLLS-ROYCE LTD.
  ROLLS-ROYCE LTD.
  CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE
  CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Research and Development Establishments
  Research and Development Establishments
  Central Union for Scientific Photography
  Central Union for Scientific Photography
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
WALES
  Derelict Land Clearance
  Derelict Land Clearance
  Bangor-on-Dee Bridge
  Bangor-on-Dee Bridge
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)

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

OCEAN SPACE DEVELOPMENT: PROPOSED COMMITTEE
3.6 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: 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 have considered the proposal to establish a Select Committee of the House of Lords on Ocean Space Development which was made during the debate on a World Ocean Régime on November 25 last year.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, my Lords. Following your Lordships' debate on November 25 last the Government have given most careful consideration to the proposal to set up a Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the Sea Bed. They have, however, come to the conclusion that this is not a subject on which they could recommend the establishment of such a Committee.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl the Leader of the House for his Answer to that Question and for the courtesy of informing me beforehand what that Answer would be, may I ask a further question of which I have given notice to the noble Earl? In view of the great complexity of the issues involved in legislation on ocean space, and the anxieties expressed in the debate on November 25 last over the Government's policy, would not the Lord Privy Seal consider it desirable to set up some other body to seek wider advice on the inter-connected research, legal, economic, pollution and national security aspects involved, to see
1480
in perspective what is at stake, both for our own nation and for mankind, and to report?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his courteous remarks and also for having given me prior notice of his supplementary question. However, I am afraid that again I am not going to be able to give him as positive a reply as he would like. As he knows, there is a tremendous amount going on at the present time in this field—if that is the right word to use in connection with the ocean. There is at present the United Nations Sea Bed Committee meeting in Geneva; there is the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference which is due to take place in 1973; there is the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment due to take place in 1972 which will be dealing, inter alia, with questions of marine and oceanic pollution; and, indeed, there is a specifically marine pollution conference which, under the auspices of IMCO—the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—is likely to take place in 1973.
With so much activity in progress on the international front, to which the United Kingdom is making a contribution—and I have no hesitation in claiming that it is a constructive contribution—I feel that there will be plenty of opportunity for ventilating in public these important issues and a very real risk that an additional Committee in this country would duplicate unnecessarily the work which is going on. It is because of that danger of duplication that I am not able to return as positive an answer as the right reverend Prelate would like to have to his supplementary question. But I can assure him that we should be very glad to take advice from him and from any other experts in your Lordships' House—and there are many in this field—who could help us in our consideration of these matters.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question, without going into whether this is a subject for a Select Committee? Would the noble Earl not agree that, irrespective of the complexion of Governments, Departments and officials never like Select Committees? Secondly, would the noble Earl

1481
not agree that there are special Committees in the House of Commons and therefore there is no reason at all why your Lordships' House should not have similar Committees? Would the noble Earl look again at the point that I made in regard to a Select Committee on the Colonies? There are also other subjects in regard to which I think a Committee would be of great use, not only to the Government but also, in the end, to officials.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can say "Yes" to the noble Lord's first two questions without casting any reflection on Departments, and I should be glad to look again at the specific suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about a Committee on Dependent Territories—as I think it might be more appropriately termed. There is a great body of experience in your Lordships' House which could possibly be mobilised in this and other spheres, and personally I am sympathetically inclined; but we must hit on the right Committee.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would it help the noble Earl, in view of what he has said, if we could join with him and put pressure where it is needed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am always grateful for pressure—on occasions—from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, may I press the Lord Privy Seal further in respect of the reasons that he gave for not having any new Committee set up in respect of these interrelated matters concerning legislation on ocean space? While recognising and appreciating the great contribution which is being made from this country and by the Government towards the separate aspects of this subject, is there not all the more reason why there should be a body to consider them collectively and inter-relatedly, and particularly that the Government should be open to advice on such matters in connection with the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea, when a wide range of issues relating to the sea bed will undoubtedly crop up?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, of course the right reverend Prelate can press me further on this matter, but we
1482
have given it very careful consideration. I would remind him that we have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which has just reported and stated that its priority job next year is going to be the study of the pollution of coastal waters; it will be dealing specifically with marine subjects. We feel that to set up another body now would involve duplication. Moreover, I think that so much of this work is moving so fast at the present time that such a body would always be rather behind in the hunt.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since we may not have the benefit of the right reverend Prelate's advice for very much longer as he will be retiring shortly, I am wondering whether the noble Earl would consider making further approaches, as a sort of leaving gift to a Prelate who has given such admirable service in so many directions.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained why the Government are not able to set tip the sort of Committee that was suggested in the right reverend Prelate's supplementary question, but may I ask him why the Government are not prepared to set up a Select Committee of the House on ocean space development, which is a much more restricted topic and is not dealing with the whole problem of environmental pollution? That was surely what was requested in the debate initiated in this House by the right reverend Prelate.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I always have some qualms about differing from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, but it seems to me that ocean space development is an enormous subject. Ocean space, as he knows, covers something like 70 per cent. of the area of this terrestrial globe.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would the Government consider extending the terms of reference of the Committee for Marine Technology, so that it can take into account the legal and economic issues as well as the research and development issues?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is a slightly different question. Certainly I will look at it, but at first blush I am not certain that that particular suggestion will

1483
commend itself to Her Majesty's Government, given the constitution and the composition of that particular Committee. I am not certain that it would be wise to extend its terms of reference as my noble friend suggests; but certainly we will look at it.

THIRLMERE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
3.15 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 when recreational facilities are going to be able to be enjoyed by the public on Thirlmere.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I understand that none can be provided until additional treatment plant is installed some time after 1975.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords I thank the Minister for that reply, but it is rather similar to the replies we have been receiving from successive Governments for the last quarter of a century. Is it not possible to expedite the date? There is an increasing need for recreational facilities on stretches of water all over the country, particularly in the Lake District. It seems quite wrong that, not only on this Lake but other stretches of water, and catchment areas around them, public access for recreational facilities, camping and boating and so on, is still denied.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords; my right honourable friend is very conscious of the need to make multiple use of reservoirs both for water supply and recreation, and has asked for reports from selected authorities with reservoirs about the recreational use that can be made of them. My noble friend raised the question about the use of the gathering grounds, and in this respect the Manchester Corporation has made considerable progress. There is a wide range of
1484
recreational facilities now available on them. As the list is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They include, among other things, conducted tours round the waterworks.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that 1975 is a very long time ahead? A great deal of information is already available as to the type of use that can be made of these waterways. Manchester has been very "sticky" about Thirlmere over a very long period of time. They relented slightly, and certain walks were agreed, but I would ask the noble Lord to press his right honourable friend to expedite the installation of plant from 1975 to 1973. Surely there is plenty of time, in view of the information already available.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord is making, as I am sure will my right honourable friend. But in defence of Manchester perhaps I should say that although this is a programme provisionally arranged for Thirlmere, the noble Lord will bear in mind that they are making considerable progress with another reservoir, Hawes-water, and that the public will have access there when new treatment works go into operation in late 1972.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, would not the Government agree that the real purpose of Thirlmere is to supply the inhabitants of Manchester with wholesome water, rather than supply recreational facilities for a few people who might want to go there?
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, are we to understand from that reply that, in view of the water now extracted or to be extracted from Ullswater and Windermere, recreational facilities are going to be denied to the public on those two lakes?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; on those two lakes work is already in hand to provide treatment, and I believe that the recreational facilities there are to be unaffected.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, would it not be possible to do something much more urgent than is now being suggested to make available access to the gathering grounds? There is an enormous area on the Western side of the Pennines

1485
and the Eastern end of Lancashire, an area which I believe is comparable in size to the whole of the Lake District, which has been totally destroyed as a potential recreation ground because of the demands, many years ago, for totally uncontaminated water. Farms have been allowed to become derelict, walls are falling down, and I think something ought to be done to make this enormous area available to the citizens of Manchester and of that part of Lancashire. Further, may I ask whether it would not be possible to arrange for some preliminary treatment of this area (for example, by reafforestation on a much larger scale than is at present contemplated) so that when it can be made available it will be a more pleasant place to go into than it is at the present moment?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we are dealing with Thirlmere at the moment, and I have promised to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a long answer on what Manchester Corporation are doing about the gathering grounds there. Gathering grounds all over the Pennines is a rather wider question.
Following is the list referred to by Lord Sandford:
Facilities at present offered by Manchester Corporation in their Thirlmere gathering grounds include:

(a) Unimpeded public access for fell walking, rock climbing, etc., on some 8,000 of the 12,000 acres owned by the Corporation;

(b) Forest roads and forest trails—the latter attracting about 5,000 visitors a year;

(c) Car parks and laybys;

(d) Small camping and caravan sites in three places;

(e) Access for skiing on the Helvellyn slopes above Thirlspot;

(f) Access for hunting, mainly by the Blencathra Foxhounds, and hound trials;

(g) Facilities for accredited ornithologists within the lake enclosure;

(h) A recreation hall and football field for the local inhabitants;

(i) Conducted visits around the waterworks themselves.

AIR FARES: PACKAGE TOURS ON SCHEDULED FLIGHTS
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question
1486
which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have approved or intend to approve package tour holidays by air on day-time scheduled flights in 1971 apart from winter months; and whether they will give details of the extent of this approval, or under what regulations such approval is given.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I assume that the noble Baroness is referring to the wholesale arrangements for the disposal of seats on scheduled service flights to inclusive tour operators. I have no reason to expect that the Secretary of State will not approve, in the context of our air services agreements with the other countries concerned, the proposals of the International Air Transport Association regarding the carriage of inclusive tour passengers on scheduled service flights next summer, whether by day or by night, as he has done in previous years. Under Section 2(5) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, the Secretary of State has confirmed a standard tariff provision known as Provision I by virtue of which any tariff that he approves becomes binding upon any British airline whose licences contain that provision.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, not having the privilege accorded to the right reverend Prelate, I was not aware of that Answer. May I ask the Minister whether I am correct in assuming from it that, as from April 1, on daytime scheduled flights to Spain and Portugal, with the exception of Madrid, seats are to be available to tour operators to the extent of 50 per cent, capacity? Secondly, in addition to that, are the B.E.A. "Drivabout" holidays available now on scheduled daytime flights? Finally, may I ask the Minister whether the Government approve of this decreasing by 50 per cent. of the capacity available to the standard fare traveller in the summertime on daytime scheduled flights?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have deduced from my Answer that the Secretary of State has not yet given his permission, and therefore I deduce from that that the

1487
flights are not yet available in use. Although I did not tell the noble Baroness the Answer to the Question, I have written to her extensively in a long letter about this operation in general, following upon the Unstarred Question that she raised in the House. I have no information that is at variance with that letter to give her to-day. I cannot, therefore, confirm the figure of 50 per cent.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding, but am I correct in gathering that at a Press Conference recently the statement was made about these flights from April 1 to Spain and Portugal with the exception of Madrid, which would be available to tour flight operators? If I am correct in that, is not the seat capacity limited to 50 per cent.?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like notice of that particular question. I am afraid I do not know the answer to it. If I may, I will write to the noble Baroness and give her the answer.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to keep on with this matter. The previous letter has taken a fortnight to arrive, and it has not come through the postal service. Am I not correct in assuming that at a public conference which was addressed by the chairman of the Air Transport Licensing Board, these facts were announced? Indeed, this was announced on radio, because I heard it myself. Can the Minister confirm that?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot confirm what the noble Baroness heard. Certainly I will take her word for it.

POLICE AND RACE RELATIONS APPOINTMENTS
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: 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 Scotland Yard A7 Branch still has, in addition to a Commandeer, chief superintendents responsible
1488
respectively for juvenile bureaux and race relations.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, yes; but the post of Commander is temporarily vacant.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, am I to understand that a chief superintendent is solely responsible for race relations?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords, that is so. There are two chief superintendents in this particular branch one has specific responsibility for race relations.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on the postal workers' dispute at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.28 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is quite a short Bill, but none the less important for that. It introduces no new principles that do not already apply in the coal industry or elsewhere. It has two main purposes: the first is to provide for continued support for the National Coal Board in dealing with the problem of the reduction of manpower in the industry. The second is to provide for an appraisal of the Board's non-colliery activities—as is quite appropriate a quarter of a century after the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act—and for any action that may be thought proper in consequence of the appraisal. The opportunity is also being taken to raise the limit on the National Coal

1489
Board's accumulated deficit and to empower them to borrow in foreign currency and provide technical services overseas.
While coal has no longer such a vital place in our households, in our industry, in our transport system and in our exports, it still accounts for roughly half of our total energy consumption and provides nearly three-quarters of our fuel for the generation of electricity. In the past ten years coal production has fallen by nearly a quarter, and the numbers employed have dropped by more than half—by four-sevenths, in fact. Yet the industry is still our largest employer in the industrial sector. In the past two years or so the importance of coal and our dependence on it have been underlined by the way in which a surplus of supply has changed to a coal shortage.
During the next three years, with which the Bill is especially concerned, it is not expected that manpower in the industry will continue to decline at the high rate it was falling in 1968 and 1969. Nevertheless, we must expect some further reduction as the long-term process of contraction and concentration continues. To help to deal with the human problems of contraction of employment, a continuance of Government support is needed. This Bill is designed to meet that need, along lines similar to those in the Act of 1967. We all recognise the immense difficulties that the contraction of the industry involves for those affected by it. The fact that these problems have resulted in so little friction reflects great credit both on the management and on the mineworkers themselves. In this connection, I would like to pay a tribute to the retiring chairman of the National Coal Board the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, whose foresight, tact and energy we have all so much admired. It is wonderful what a warm heart, coupled with ability and single-mindedness, can achieve. The industry's loss will, I hope, be our gain in this House.
The first two clauses of the Bill provide for further Government support for alleviating the social problems which arise from the industry's concentration and reduction of manpower. In the later 1960s the rate of pit closures and of decline in manpower was rapid; in 1968 some 70 pits were closed, and manpower fell by 58,000. Recently, the demand for coal in the United Kingdom
1490
has outstripped production. In 1970 only 10 pits were closed. Even so, earlier in the winter our coal supplies caused anxiety. However, we have so far had a mild winter and so we have not been as badly off as we might have feared. The outlook for next winter remains somewhat precarious. But the decision to relax restrictions on coal imports last December, coupled with the expectation of more coal from opencast sites, and the grant of applications to convert more power stations improved the prospect. Even in this period when we need coal, and when the Board have been trying to get recruits, there has been redeployment and outflow of manpower. This is likely to continue, with its attendant social problems, during the three years, though at a slower rate than in the later 'sixties.
Clause 1 will extend for a further three years, to the end of March, 1971, the power to contribute towards expenditure incurred by the National Coal Board as a result of the closure of uneconomic or worked-out pits and the re-deployment of manpower. This expenditure includes payments on account of redundancy, loss of prospects and premature retirements, and of removal and resettlement expenses. The Government contributions will be on a tapering basis, reflecting the Government's view that, by the end of the period the rate of reduction in manpower should be lower and the industry should be in a positron to carry its own costs. The provisions are almost exactly the same as those proposed in the previous Government's Coal Industry BII introduced in another place last spring. The only substantial change is that the overall limit on expenditure has been raised by £2 million to take account of increased costs.
Clause 2 will extend the power to make schemes for payments to mineworkers who become redundant during the three years to the end of March, 1974. For an initial period—up to March next year—the existing scheme as it stands will be extended by means of a Statutory Order which will not require further authority from Parliament. During the period of this extension a review is to be made of the scheme in the light of many factors—manpower prospects, regional developments and consultation with both the board and the unions, and

1491
so on. The result of this review will be incorporated in a revised scheme, which will be submitted for the approval of each House of Parliament in time to come into force not later than the end of March next year. These proposals do not differ in substance from those contained in the Bill introduced by the previous Administration last year. I should add that the Coal Industry Act 1967 provided for reimbursement of the extra costs incurred by the Board in contributions to the industry's pension schemes where mineworkers receive superannuation benefit on retiring before pensionable age. Those provisions will continue to apply under Section 4 of the 1967 Act and do not need to be extended in this Bill.
While we are renewing two of the support measures proposed by the previous Government, we consider that two others are not needed now. With demand for coal exceeding production there is no need to provide powers for the Government to pay for coal to be used at power stations and gas works where it would not otherwise have been used—what is called "extra coal-burn"; though, should coal again move into surplus, the Government will consider reintroducing this power. There is even less justification for compensating the Board for deferring pit closures. With the present supply and demand positions, mines are likely to be closed only when they are worked out or quite uneconomic.
Clause 3 will raise the limit on the Board's accumulated deficit from £50 million to £75 million, and enable the Secretary of State to reduce the limit by Order or to increase it within a ceiling of £100 million. The Board's deficit has accumulated sharply in recent years. At the end of March, 1969, it was £8 million, but a year ago it was £34·5 million—due to a combination of higher costs (including wages and materials), slower rise in productvity and the unofficial strike of October, 1969. This financial year, too, there was a strike, and a further deficit is inevitable. We hope for better results next year. When stability is restored, the limit will be reviewed and, if appropriate, reduced. To avoid any misunderstanding, I would repeat the assurance given in another place that the increase in the limit is in no way in preparation
1492
for hiving-off profitable activities. It is simply to enable the Board to keep within the law.
The next two clauses closely resemble provisions in the previous Government's Bill. Clause 4 will enable the Board to borrow at medium and long term in foreign currency. This will incidentally enable them to take advantage of the loan facilities offered by the European Coal and Steel Community, should the negotiations to enter Europe be successful. Foreign currency borrowing by such bodies as local authorities and nationalised industries can also improve the structure of the nation's overseas debt, by the replacement of short-term with longer-term debts. Clause 5 empowers the Board, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to provide technical assistance overseas; many developing countries have established or potential coal industries which would benefit from the Board's expertise. The Government will, however, have to take account of any other United Kingdom sources which may be able to provide the technical assistance in question.
My Lords, I turn now to Clauses 6 and 7, which relate to the Board's non-colliery activities. At the time of nationalisation a number of non-colliery activities—such as brickworks, coke ovens, and housing—were transferred to the National Coal Board, but these were of relatively little consequence in comparison with the Board's main activity, the getting of coal. As demand for coal declined, these diversified activities have widened and expanded. They now extend to builders' merchants, district heating, retail coal distribution, chemicals. North Sea gas, and hotel reservations. They are carried out in various ways—through Divisions of the Board, wholly or partly owned subsidiaries, partnerships and equity interests in private companies.
Now—a quarter of a century after nationalisation—the time has surely come to assess and appraise these developments coolly and calmly. After all, the Government have a legitimate interest in them, both as trustees of the shareholders and, on occasion, as bankers. Clause 6 will enable the Secretary of State to direct the Board to review and report to him on their non-colliery activities, or any of them, which cover assets the book value of which totals about £137 million.

1493
The review will be carried out by the Board, and will enable first the Board themselves and then the Government to appraise the value of these activities both to the Board and to the taxpayer, and to map out the best course for the future.
What should be the scope of the review? Is it possible to draw a precise line between the getting of coal, which is the primary duty of the Board, and other activities? "Colliery activities" are defined in the 1946 Act fairly narrowly as:
"searching or boring for, winning, working or getting, coal, bringing it to the surface, treating it and rendering it saleable, and includes depositing spoil arising from working coal or from any other of the activities mentioned in this definition".
That is a fairly narrow definition. Obviously activities which are as closely bound up with collieries and coal mining communities as pithead baths, colliery canteens and colliery electricity generating plants would not be included in the review. As for the rest, it can certainly do no harm, and should do good, for them to be reviewed, so long as there is no disclosure of information that might be prejudicial to the commercial interests of the Board or any of their business associates. An assurance has already been given in another place that such confidential information will not be made public.
A review under Clause 6 may indicate that it would be undesirable for the Board or their subsidiaries to continue to carry on a particular non-colliery activity, or that they should organise such activities in a different way. Clause 7 will enable the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that a direction would not prejudice the effective discharge of the Board's duties, to give the Board directions to do what is necessary to achieve the most desirable course of future development. It may well be that he will not have to give such directions, because the desirable course will be apparent to both Board and Minister. Before giving any direction, the Secretary of State will have to consult the Board. And any direction, under subsections (1) or (2), such as discontinuance or restriction of any of the Board's non-colliery activities or the disposing of any part of their undertaking or of any of their assets, will be subject to Parliamentary examination. There is nothing new about these provisions in nationalised industry legislation—
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said that these proposals will be subject to Parliamentary examination. He said a moment ago that he was confirming the undertaking that had been given with regard to confidentiality. Is he saying that the proposals which he will be putting to both Houses of Parliament will be on the basis of information which he undertakes not to disclose to either House of Parliament?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. What I was saying in regard to confidentiality was obviously related to Clause 6 and the review. Plainly, all we are doing here is to say that Parliament has a right to know when the time comes to disclose.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am deeply sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he said that Parliament has a right to know. Will he therefore say what weight is to be attached to the undertaking, when the information could well be treated with full confidentiality and would not be disclosed?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this seems to me to be rather a dialectical point. Quite clearly, the purpose of the review is to enable an appraisal and subsequent action to be taken if necessary. So far as the appraisal is concerned, there will be no disclosure of information. When it comes to taking action, then of course matters will become public. That is bound to be so. May I put it this way? It was in response to pressure from the other side in another place that the assurance in regard to confidentiality was given. It was also in response to pressure from the other side in another place that the undertaking was given that Parliament would have the opportunity to examine any proposals under Clause 7. I see nothing but, at best, a dialectical disparity in this matter. However, I think the noble Lord will agree that this is perhaps a matter which should be further explored in Committee. It is rather a Committee point.
As I was saying, there is nothing new about these provisions in nationalised industry legislation. Labour Governments have introduced similar powers when nationalising other industries, although your Lordships may be surprised to find that there are no such provisions in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. Such powers, for example, as those to

1495
require reviews and reports on the organisation of activities were included in the Iron and Steel Act 1967, and the Transport Act 1968. Comparable powers to give directions to discontinue or restrict activities were included in the iron and Steel Act 1967, and the Post Office Act 1969, and were first introduced by the earlier Labour Government in the Transport Act 1947, only one year after the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act.
I conclude my remarks on this clause by stressing yet again that the Government have no preconceived ideas about the future of any of the activities that might be the subject of a direction under Clause 7. Certainly it is not their intention to require assets to be disposed of for purely doctrinal reasons, but only where it is judged to be in the best interests of the Board and of the nation. Clause 8 will provide for improvements in the form of the Board's accounts. The Board already provide more information than most companies and corporations about their activities, but it is still true that some recasting of their accounts will afford a greater degree of public accountability.
To sum up, my Lords, the Government believe that all the provisions in this Bill are sensible. Most of the early clauses are in keeping with the Bill introduced by the previous Government. And part of it is concerned with better accountability for the public money invested in the industry, and the need to have a clear understanding of the direction it is to take in the future. I hope that as a result of discussing both parts we shall be able to reach broad agreement about them. I hope, too, that your Lordships will be willing to deal with the Bill with due dispatch, for it is desirable that it should be enacted and an Order made under Clause 2 as soon as possible, so as to avoid any difficulties over the payments to mineworkers who become redundant from now on. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.47 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, my first pleasurable duty is to thank the noble Lord for having explained so clearly and shortly the main purposes of this Bill. I want to thank him also—and to join with him in it—for the tribute which he paid
1496
to my noble friend Lord Robens of Woldingham and to all those connected with the industry, from top to bottom, who jointly have achieved what is a near miracle in industrial relations in the way they have behaved in the face of a steady running down of their industry and a falling away of their possibility of making a living and of using the skills which they learned in their childhood. It is a tremendous achievement and compares starkly with the situation which we see generally around us in other areas. The noble Lord's tribute therefore was indeed well earned. A little later I shall ask the noble Lord whether he can give us any enlightenment on why, in these circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Robens, did not feel able to continue with his important and valuable work as Chairman of the Board.
I wish to shorten my speech as far as possible, because the noble Lord has made it clear that some of the clauses—in effect, seven out of the ten—were either in the earlier Labour Government's Bill, which did not find time to pass, or are consequential. Therefore, as those clauses have been previously discussed and the noble Lord has put the position perfectly fairly with regard to them, I do not think it would be proper for me to delay your Lordships on any one of them, although when the Bill comes to the Committee stage we shall naturally wish to examine them, as is our responsibility, and perhaps to suggest one or two improvements.
I appreciate what the noble Lord said about the desirability of passing this Bill with due despatch, but the trouble is that there is not one Bill in front of your Lordships: there are two Bills. There is the Bill which is broadly the Labour Government's Bill and which was essentially to enable the kind of industrial situation which I have described to continue. That was agreed on all sides and, but for the happening—I almost said, in my case, the mishap—of the last General Election, it would have been passed into law. It is essential, as I well understand, that that part should pass quickly; indeed, I believe that the present powers finish at the end of March.
But we find before us a Bill somewhat delayed in its introduction and considerably delayed in its passage through another place because to those original

1497
seven clauses there have been added three-other clauses which no Government could in any circumstances regard as other than highly controversial and which we regard as damaging to an unlimited degree. When the noble Lord said, in the second sentence of his speech, that no new principles had been introduced into the Bill, I thought he was really putting it in a way that, had it not been only the second sentence, I would have been bound to interrupt him. I hope to satisfy your Lordships that the noble Lord was using words in a meaningless way when he allowed those words to escape the barrier of his teeth, if it is permitted to be Homeric in your Lordships' House.
My complaint against the Bill, therefore, and our complaint, relates partly to the sins of omission; that is to say, clauses of the previous Bill which have been left out, and partly to the sins of commission; that is to say, the offensive clauses to which I have referred. And if I have not made it clear to your Lordships what my position is with regard to sin, I am on the whole against it. The sins of omission are two in number, but I will deal only with the major one at the moment. It is the lack of wisdom, if I may so describe it, in not continuing the power to compensate Electricity Generating Boards for burning coal, when it is more expensive to do that than make use of other fuels, in order to enable more coal to be used and in order to enable miners to know that when they are working harder and more efficiently they are not working themselves out of a job.
This power was essential and was used, and was one which it was thought necessary to continue. But, of course, because it is not within the capacity of man to forecast the future with accuracy, within a short period of years the position had completely turned round, as the noble Lord explained, and what was a surplus has become a marked deficiency—and not only in this country. For the moment, therefore, that power need not be exercised. But by the same token—that is to say, that we could not three years ago know what the position would be to-day; in fact, far more recently well-informed Ministerial statements on both sides were pointing to a totally different situation from that which exists to-day—it is surely right for me to suggest that it is beyond the capacity of even the noble Lord to
1498
say for certain that over the next reasonably short period of years he will not wish to use these same powers.
I cannot see, therefore, why, when his view, when the Minister's view, the view of the Minister for Industry, and when the view of my right honourable friend in another place are all the same—namely, that we should maintain complete flexibility in our approach to the use of alternative fuels—he does not arm himself with the powers, That is all I am asking, that the powers should be continued. I have had the privilege of being in Government, but I have never had the unusual circumstance of the other side inviting me to take on powers, and refusing to take them on. It is a most unusual situation. So I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about that.
I now quickly turn to the offending clauses, Clauses 6, 7 and 8. Clause 8 is consequential, so it is really Clauses 6 and 7 which introduce totally new principles, as I shill explain to your Lordships, and which we shall seek to oppose by every means within our legitimate and constitutional power. I of course know that your Lordships will have read the Bill from cover to cover with great care, but may I nevertheless read to your Lordships what is said about Clause 7 in the descriptive part of the Bill, the Memorandum? It says:
"Clause 7 empowers the Secretary of State to direct the Board to discontinue or restrict any non-colliery activities, dispose of any part of such undertaking and any assets held by them, call in any loan made by them, or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantees given by them, provided he"—
that is, the Minister—
"is satisfied that any of these matters are unnecessary for the proper discharge of the Board's statutory duties."
These are very fundamental, far-reaching powers of interference in management of a most profound kind.
Not satisfied with that, the Memorandum goes on:
"The Secretary of State will also be able to direct the Board to exercise similar powers over their subsidiaries."
Now your Lordships know that subsidiary companies are companies in which the Coal Board hold, for example, 51 per cent. of the shares, the other 49 per cent. being held by ordinary shareholding individuals. All these powers are to be

1499
exercised irrespective of the interests of the other 49 per cent.—a totally new concept of law so far as I have always understood it; certainly a new concept of business morality. Their interests are to be totally overridden and unconsidered because the Secretary of State will be taking powers similar to those I have read out over their subsidiaries, and, as the Minister so rightly said, that is so whether they are wholly-owned or partly-owned subsidiaries. It goes on:
"The Secretary of State is empowered to direct the Board to alter the way in which any non-colliery activities of the Board of their subsidiaries are organised."
That means, my Lords, that here, for the first time, we see the State taking power through Ministers who are no doubt very able people, who may have spent a lifetime in politics, in journalism, at the Bar or at anything totally disconnected with running a business, aided by the most expert advice coming from civil servants. Most of them will have got a Double First before they come into the Minister's room; they may be experienced in all fields of Government and before they went into the Government service, they may have been experienced at the Bar, but they will be almost all wholly lacking in experience at running a business. Here we see a Government taking power through these twin agencies, the Minister being advised by his civil servants,
"to direct the Board to alter the way in which any non-colliery activities of the Board or their subsidiaries are organised."
My Lords, I am not overstating it; I am understating it, because, of course, a subsidiary could be a company in which 99 per cent. of the shareholding is owned by the outside world of individual shareholders and in which the Board merely has the right to appoint and remove more than 50 per cent. of the Board. So there could be 1 per cent. of the nation's money and 99 per cent. of private individuals' money involved.
It is wrong, with respect, for the noble Lord to shake his head unless he were meaning, "What a terrible state of affairs we find ourselves in!". In that case I agree with him. But, with respect, if he is disagreeing with what I have said, he will at some appropriate time direct my attention to that part of the relevant section of the Companies Act which is
1500
used as the definition and incorporated in the Bill now before us and which differs from the words I have used. I notice that the Minister is not disputing what I am saying. So, my Lords, I repeat: I am understating it in making it clear that a subsidiary company is one in which either the Board has more than 50 per cent. of the shares or it has power to appoint the majority of the Board. So that situation is going to apply, and there will be much more than interference: there is going to be instruction as to the way in which the business is run.
The noble Lord said that this does not represent a new principle. I find it difficult in your Lordships' House to use words which are both appropriate to your Lordships' traditions and also necessary for the occasion—because, of course, nothing could be further from the situation which the noble Lord has described than the position under this Bill. The whole of the nationalising Acts, the whole of the nationalising procedure, has been on the basis that it is right to acquire assets and companies for the nation. It is right that the nation, which is paying the whole of the money should be entitled to lay down the broad principles of the way in which these nationalised industries should be run. But it is essential, in order to obtain good and effective management, that those who are running the industries should have freedom to carry out their day-to-day affairs. This has been the principle enshrined in every single Bill. Now, under this Bill, and for the first time, a totally new situation is proposed.
Under the Bill, the Minister, aided in the manner I have described, will be able to direct the way in which either the Board or a subsidiary company—being wholly owned, or partly owned, or a company in which 99 per cent. of the shares belong to outside individuals—is to be run. I am seeking to make clear why I think that this is a totally unwise way to proceed; and I find it difficult to see what has given rise to it, unless I look (I am loath to do so, but I have to look for a reason) at the Manifesto of the Conservative Party at the last General Election. There I find the sentence:
"We will progressively reduce the involvement of the State in the nationalised industries."
My Lords, it is perfectly clear from that statement that what the Government have

1501
in mind is to give effect to a piece of outworn philosophy which was no doubt of benefit in winning elections but which I should have thought by now, faced with the realities of the situation, they would be the last to wish to continue. I should have thought that, having achieved in less than twelve months a situation in which we have the highest unemployment for years, the worst industrial relations for years, the lowest prices on the Stock Exchange for years, the biggest bankruptcies for years—indeed, for ever, I imagine: having achieved all that within a short period of less than a year by their economic policies, they would have cause to think again.
My appeal is based purely on this. For heaven's sake! do not let us be driven into making more and more mistakes because we have in the past had to accept certain dogmatic approaches in order to satisfy those who were unaware of the problems that arise when you are faced with the day-to-day events in Government. I have, of course, the responsibility of demonstrating to your Lordships that this would be a mistaken approach. Well, my Lords, is it in the interests of the Coal Board, and do the Government think it is in the interests of the Board, that these activities should be hived off, or that they should not be hived off? We have only to look as far as the Minister's own words—and now I should like to quote the Minister for Industry who was speaking in the other place, in Standing Committee "B" on February 2, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, at col. 408. He said:
"Honourable Members recognise the National Coal Board has extended its activities into fields that were never contemplated when the 1946 Act was passed. I do not criticise the Board for doing that. It is not for me to comment at this stage on the direction which it has chosen to follow. I do not blame it for taking full advantage of whatever opportunities came its way. That is what one would have expected of good management."
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said something very similar, and relating to that, when he made his opening speech. He paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Robens of Woldingham for the way in which he carried out the affairs of this organisatiaon, this huge nationalised company, which has had to face—and which knew from the very beginning that it would have to face—a falling away in its normal central activities.
1502
The Board knew that from the word "go". Therefore they had to deal with the human problem of the miners whom they would not be able to continue to employ. The Board had to deal with the problem of using their assets and skills, the skills of their men, the skills of their high-fliers, in the way in which every management, without exception, seeks to do; namely, by extending into fields related to—but not identical with—the central core of its activities.
My Lords, every management seeks to do that very thing. This management has done it in a way which has satisfied the Government, because the Government have said that this is what one would have expected of good management. And when, as Hansard records, honourable Members said, "Oh!", the Minister said, "That is right", I wish I had been there to hear what, "Oh!" really was, but I did not have that pleasure. The Minister was confirming what he had previously said: that this is what one would have expected of good management. So my Lords, there is no objection to the peripheral activities of the Coal Board on the ground that they are badly managed.
Is the objection that these activities are unprofitable? Let me deal with that. Let me remind your Lordships of what the Economist said on November 28 last year:
"It was made clear this week that, when the Bill"—
that was a reference to this Bill—
"gets through Parliament Lord Robens will be directed to list all the non-mining activities which the Government would like to put on the market. As chance would have it"—
a most entertaining phrase—
"these non-mining activities which account for £131 million of the National Coal Board's £840 million turnover are profitable."
Well, my Lords, that is a very fortunate chance. Then the Economist goes on to say:
"There are some attractive titbits"—
I hope that "titbits" is a proper word to use in your Lordships' House—
"in the National Coal Board's non-colliery cupboard. With a total capital of £122 million the non-coal activities"—
those of which the Minister is here seeking power to order the Board or their subsidiaries to divest themselves—
"show an average return on capital of 33 per cent. for the coke ovens, 10.3 per cent. on

1503
processed fuel plants, 2·7 per cent. on housing and 13·2 per cent. on 'other activities'. The Government would be wrong to compel a forced sale of any of these."
As noble Lords who are interested in this matter will know, those percentages are, on average, somewhat higher than the average return on all capital employed by the private sector over the last six years. So the Coal Board's return on capital is better than average. The activities are well managed; they are profitable. The Minister himself has said that they are profitable—I have the reference somewhere, but I am sure that the fact is not disputed. I think he said that they accounted for something like £13 million; and the interesting point is that this £13 million of profit was the figure which made the whole of the Coal Board profitable. Without that £13 million there would have been a loss on the other central activities.
We are getting to a situation where your Lordships are being invited, on behalf of the nation (the noble Lord did not make it absolutely clear, when he talked about mapping out the best course for the future, whose interests he had in mind, but I take it that he will not mind my saying that he must have had in mind the national interest), to agree procedures and powers which, if the Government have their way and continue on their dogmatic, outmoded approach, will result in their being enabled to sell off, at either convenient or inconvenient moments, property which belongs wholly, partly or only to a very small extent to them, and to interfere in the running of the business, merely, as I say, so that statements made in the heady atmosphere of Party Conference might abide. I do not think that that is sufficient reason in our present difficult times—industrially very difficult, economically extremely difficult—to try these pointless experiments, so far as the National Coal Board are concerned.
I invite your Lordships and everyone who has responsibility of a similar kind—and I know that there must be many—to consider how, against that kind of background a Board of able commercial men are going to be willing, or able, to continue their activities with energy and devotion if they have a Minister and the
1504
whole of his Department breathing down their necks, ready at any time to tell them that the agreements they have entered into in good faith with partners all over the world, in order to achieve a profit and to carry out useful activities in the national interest in accordance with their own statutory duties must be broken. It will be a sheer impossibility. There is not one noble Lord in this House experienced in management who would put that forward as a method of improving the organisation of his business.
One must work on the basis of appointing the right man, and giving him a reasonable opportunity to show that he can do his job and do it well. And there is no dispute that in the case of the Coal Board it has been done well. The noble Lord congratulated the Board; the Minister congratulated the Board: the profits are there. I do not know what has bitten the Government that they should wish to upset the miners, to add a further irritant to our already very irritated industrial relationships in order to put these powers on the Statute Book. After all, if the noble Lord is right in his estimate, these powers may hardly come to be used; and if they are to be used, they will be used to the disadvantage of the nation and will the whole time be a sort of Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every individual within the Coal Board who would wish to do a good job in the interests of the nation.
My Lords, I have not made the speech I had intended to make, but that is often my lot. I have said what is in my heart, and I hope that I have made some appeal. I have been as accurate as I could be about the facts of the situation. I find it quite impossible to understand why the Government should wish to proceed with those particular clauses of the Bill. Therefore I must make it clear that we on this side of the House are going to do everything we can to eliminate those clauses, to help the Government to come to their senses on this matter. If we fail in our endeavours, we shall seek to amend the clauses in the best way we can. We are a minority, a democratic minority. All of us on this side of the House recognise that the Bill has had a Second Reading in another place on the basis of a majority recently elected in a democratic way. In those circumstances it would be wholly wrong—and I understand that this is

1505
normal practice and the accepted constitutional position here—to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. Indeed, if I may say so, this is one of the most delightful practices that I have found; because all of us on this side happen to be members of a Party which is in a small minority here but which will shortly be in a large majority in another place. Therefore the last thing we should want is that any other constitutional practice should prevail.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I should hardly have thought that this constitutional issue was a matter closely relevant to the Bill before the Home. It seems to me to be a separate item upon which it might be inadvisable to "jump the gun".
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I never seek to "jump any guns". I am much too ancient; I have lost such agility as I once had to enable me to do such a thing with any success. I was only seeking to explain, and I do not entirely understand what my noble friend—
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not my noble friend referring to the possibility of declining to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which may come before this House in the future? Is it altogether wise or proper to state what may be regarded as a precedent acceptable to everybody on this side of the House?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I would never claim to make a precedent. If I did, nobody would pay the slightest attention to it. I have only cited what I understood to be the practice in your Lordships' House, a practice which I am compelled to make clear, for otherwise it would not be understood why I am now going to invite all my noble friends to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. Having explained how totally opposed I am to certain of its clauses and how sure I am that everyone on this side of the House (and I hope on many sides of the House) is opposed to these clauses, I must explain why it is my responsibility to say to the Government that, nevertheless, for the reasons that I have given we do not propose to seek to divide the House on the Second Reading of this Bill although as I have also made clear we shall do what we can to improve the
1506
situation when it comes to the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he confirm what seems to be my impression: that when the Minister has the extraordinarily detailed powers that he is taking under this Bill, he will then have to answer questions in the House on every single detail about any business in which the Coal Board has control?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, following the reminder of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, I must be very careful in what knowledge I claim to have of the procedure of your Lordships' House, but I can certainly say what I understand to be (and I can speak with some little authority) the situation elsewhere. Certainly the answer to my noble friend is that in the House of Commons every Minister must answer for all those matters for which he has any responsibility; and that the only way he can escape from answering a question once it has been accepted by the Chair and put on the Order Paper is to claim that it is a matter, like defence, which has to be kept secret in the interests of the Crown or something of that kind. So once a Minister is aware of what is going on, he will be compelled to give information to the House.
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of the exchange which took place a little earlier on. The noble Lord will have to look most carefully at the Hansard record of that exchange, because we are in a situation which is of fundamental importance not only to the Coal Board but to all the subsidiaries, and to everyone who would want to do business with the Coal Board in future, but who would say: "We cannot do business with you any more, because whatever agreement we enter into for exchanging know-how, secret processes or anything of that kind will have to be disclosed. If we enter into this arrangement with you, the Minster will have to be told by you what these details are and then if he seeks to come before the House with an Order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, the Minster will have to tell the House what these secrets are." Therefore, either the undertaking with regard to confidentiality was worthless, or the other statement was worthless.

1507
Those two undertakings, which the noble Lord said were given under pressure, were totally self-contradictory. I did not think it necessary to refer to them in detail because they seemed so obviously self-contradictory. I am only saying to the noble Lord that he will have to look at these matters most carefully before we come to the next stage of the Bill.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
4.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"I am glad to be able to inform the House that in discussions which continued at my Department until early this morning, agreement was reached between representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office on a basis for resolving the dispute.
"The Executive Council of the Union unanimously agreed to recommend the Union's members to accept the terms of the agreement and to return to work and are taking immediate steps to conduct a ballot for this purpose.
"The agreement provides, subject to a return to work, that the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office will set up a Committee to settle the dispute, consisting of a chairman, mutually agreeable to both sides, with a nominee of the Union and a nominee of the Post Office. My Department has been asked to provide the secretariat. The Committee will have the following terms of reference:
"'To inquire into the circumstances of the dispute between the Post Office and the U.P.W. arising out of the U.P.W.'s claim for pay increases and shortening of incremental scales. The inquiry to include the financial situation of the Post Office, its utilisation of manpower and the present relationship between the Post Office on the one hand and the U.P.W. and its membership on the other.
"'To assess the arguments advanced by both sides, to hear witnesses and finally
1508
to make recommendations for a settlement of the dispute. The parties agree to accept these recommendations.'
"In the event of a disagreement between members of the Committee on a recommendation, the recommendation will be made by the chairman.
"The Committee will report to the Post Office and the Union of Post Office Workers and the report will be published.
"I am hopeful that we can look forward to an early return to normal working in the Post Office and an end to this strike which has caused grave damage to both Post Office and Union and serious inconvenience to the public."
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. I think it unwise for me or anyone else in this House to express on the terms of the agreement an opinion which might be construed outside as either supporting or criticising the decision that has been taken. Certainly I deplore statements in the Press this morning presenting the agreement as a defeat for one side or the other. The Union branches now have an extremely difficult decision to take. It will have to be a responsible decision, and such statements as that to which I have referred are quite unhelpful in the circumstances. I can only express the hope that the outcome of the Committee's deliberations will prove reasonably satisfactory to both the parties involved, and that our vital postal service will soon return to normal working.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches, for our part, welcome the agreement which has apparently been reached, and we only hope that the ballot that is going to be taken will ratify the agreement: but I am not sure that that is certain. There is one question that I should like to ask. As I understand it, the vital recommendation regarding salaries and conditions of work will be made, if necessary, by the chairman of the committee, who will be mutually agreeable to both sides; and both the parties apparently agree that such a recommendation on the part of the chairman of the Committee will be completely binding and, I imagine, not

1509
subject to any appeal. Since the representatives of the two sides, judging from their behaviour in recent weeks, will be quite unlikely to reach an agreement, everything would seem to turn on the personality of the chairman. My question therefore is: What happens if agreement cannot be reached on a suitable chairman? Would the strike be likely to be resumed, or would the Post Office simply proceed to put its already announced increase of pay into operation?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, aware that I wholeheartedly agree with the expression of opinion of my noble friend Lord Champion, that nothing should be said at this stage which would in any way prevent this dispute from coming to an end? But I should like to ask this question. Do I understand that Mr. Robert Carr, the Minister for Employment, acquiesced in the setting up of an inquiry? If that is so, can the noble Lord explain why, when more than two weeks ago the suggestion was made in your Lordships' House, and indeed in another place, that an inquiry should be instituted, Mr. Robert Carr checked it? Would it not have been better to agree to the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry at that time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I start: by joining with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in associating myself entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, and by thanking him for the statesmanlike way in which he has received this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, expressed the hope that the outcome of the ballot would be as we should all wish it to be. I am sure we all join him in that hope. As to the question he asked—what happens if agreement cannot be reached on a chairman?—I think that he is attaching too little weight to the will of both sides to reach an agreement. I sincerely trust and believe that the difficulty which the noble Lord thought could arise will not in fact arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked me whether the Secretary of State acquiesced in the setting up of an inquiry. This was an agreement reached between the representatives of the Union of Post
1510
Office Workers and the Post Office. We welcome this agreement. Great stress has been laid throughout upon the need for the two sides to get together and work this problem out for themselves. That is what they are going to do. The noble Lord asked further whether an inquiry could not have been set up earlier. One deduces from what he said that what is being set up is an inquiry. However, this is much more akin to arbitration, as the noble Lord well knows, because the parties have agreed to accept the outcome of this—whatever you like to call it, settlement or arrangement. Therefore I do not think it would be worth while at this stage to go over all the old ground. This arrangement is obviously something which is acceptable, whereas other arrangements were not acceptable. I would only repeat what the Secretary of State said at an earlier stage: that at no time has either side pressed for a court of inquiry.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether it is part of the terms of reference of this committee, inquiry, investigation, or whatever it is called, to make some analysis of the economic consequences to the community of this prolonged and distressing strike; and, if not, whether any other body will be set up to do this? Because I suspect that many businesses will have suffered very grievously from the strike, and someone, at least, ought to have some estimate of the total cost to the community at large, as distinct from the Post Office and its workers, of this grievous and prolonged dispute.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to study the terms of reference for himself. For my part, I can find nothing in the terms of reference that would suggest that what he has in mind would be covered by the inquiry. We have to look at this stage to the future, rather than the past.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to a victory: could not this be considered to be a victory for common sense at last?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
4.31 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, returning to the Coal Industry Bill, first of all I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the explanation that he gave with regard to the Bill. He said that it was a short Bill; my submission is that it would have been better had it been shorter. I say that for this reason: much controversy would have been avoided, much time would have been saved, and the measure would have gone through with the wholehearted support of both sides of the House. I would make an observation upon one of the matters to which he referred—the omission of the clause which is commonly known now as the "coal burn clause". As he said, there may not be the same need for it now as there was a few months ago, but may I submit to your Lordships that it would have been a very good safeguard and insurance. I am sorry that this clause has been omitted.
I understood the noble Lord to say that retail coal distribution would be regarded as a non-activity of the Board. I do not think that that is right. It is traditional, it has been taking place for a long time. Even before nationalisation, it was customary for some of the old coal owners to retail the coal that they produced. Before I make a few observations on the Bill, with your Lordships' indulgence I should like to say one or two words about the timing of the measure. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, for the benefits of the 1967 scheme to be continued it is necessary for the Bill to have the Royal Assent not later than March 31, so we have not much time in your Lordships' House to go through the remaining stages of this Bill.
The part of the Bill extending the scheme of benefit to miners made redundant is not in disagreement at all. There is wholehearted support that the 1967 scheme should be continued. A Bill to do that had been debated in, I think, April, 1970, certainly before the General Election and the Dissolution of Parliament. Although there have been one or two probings and inquiries in the other
1512
place since the Election, there was never any satisfactory answer to why the non-controversial measure of April, 1970, was not being brought forward. It was not until December 3 that the Bill which is now before your Lordships had its Second Reading. I put forward the idea, very sincerely, that that delay was completely unnecessary.
In the criticism I am making about the timing of this Bill I absolve the usual channels of both sides of the House. It was only in the early hours of last Friday morning that the Bill was completed in another place, and it was not until Tuesday of this week that it was introduced into this House, and there has been only one full day between the introduction and the Second Reading which is now taking place. I consider that it is being less than fair and reasonable to Members of your Lordships' House that they should be expected to understand and digest the contents of the Bill in that time. Some parts of the Bill are highly controversial, as my noble friend Lord Diamond said. In the Standing Committee of another place there were thirteen Sittings, and at least 50 hours must have been spent during the Committee stage discussing some of the controversial proposals in the Bill. It is my view that the Government, by delaying the introduction of the Bill, not allowing it to come forward for Second Reading in another place before December 3, and, secondly, by mixing up the highly controversial parts with the extension of the 1967 benefits scheme, have been less than reasonable and fair to your Lordships' House.
Now, coming to the Bill itself, I ask, what is it? After reading it and endeavouring to comprehend its implications I have come to the conclusion that it is a real mixture. The components of this particular mixture may be the reason for the delay to which I have just made reference. It would have been much better for the mining industry and for Parliament if a simple, non-controversial Bill extending the 1967 scheme, which, as I have said, everybody was of the opinion was desirable, had been dealt with as separate legislation from the controversial parts of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. In saying that, I am not challenging the right of the Government to bring in any legislation they wish to;

1513
that would not be right or proper. My criticism in these observations is of the way in which they are doing it.
This Bill, as I have already said, is to me a real mixture. I have found it quite difficult to find an appropriate metaphor, but I can think of three. It is like the curate's egg, good in parts. It is like a dog's breakfast. And it is a bag of all-sorts. To indicate the mixture of the Bill, may I draw the attention of your Lordships to the Second Reading in another place? Some parts of it were welcomed, as was indicated by the noble Lord who introduced the measure. Other parts of the Bill were condemned out of hand, to the extent that in another place on the Second Reading it was divided against because feeling was so strong. I recall being told some time ago that the mining industry has always had its problems; and it has them now—social, economic, problems in the field of welfare, accidents, industrial disease. If I am not mistaken, the nature of this industry, with which I have been connected for so long, presupposes that it always will have problems. During the last fifty years to my knowledge, and even beyond that, the coal industry, which once was the base of our economy, has been the subject of many debates in both Houses of Parliament, and also of much legislation.
I hardly know whether I dare mention what I am going to say now, but I think I will take the chance. It was only last week that I was perusing the Coal Industry Bill 1926, which was debated in your Lordships' House. An Amendment was moved to reject it, and it was divided against, even in your Lordships' House. I mention this one incident only to indicate what must have been very strong feelings on the part of some noble Lords at that time, almost half a century ago. In 1967, when a Bill similar to this, at any rate so far as the first two or three clauses are concerned, was debated—it dealt with the social consequences of redundancy, to which the noble Lord in front of me has referred—I remember making use of words which I should like to repeat. I said that the coal industry for many, many generations was the cockpit of economic struggle. However, happily, during the past thirty years there has been less turbulence, not because the problems have been minimised, but for the reason that the problems are much
1514
different to-day. Not the least of the problems which confront the coal indutry, and one with which this Bill seeks to deal, is that of contraction.
May I say one or two words about this problem? First of all, so that the magnitude of the contraction which has been taking place in the coal industry is appreciated, may I make just this simple reference. To-day there are some 285,000 men only in the industry. I remember that when I started work as a boy at the pit the figure was 1,100,000 but that is a fair long time ago. The point I wish to make upon that now is that in less than twenty years, for one reason or another, more than half a million people have left this industry. I submit that that is a staggering fact and must indeed focus attention upon this problem of contraction. A moment or two ago I said that there were still problems in this coal industry but that they were of a different kind. May I mention only two? First, there has been a technical and mechanical revolution. Secondly, there has been the intrusion into the energy field of other fuels, particularly oil. I would observe now that all post-war Governments have made the mistake of putting too many eggs in the oil basket at the expense of the contraction of the coal mining industry.
The two points I have just made could form the basis of a most interesting debate, but not to-day. The only thing I will say is that during the last fifteen to twenty years those two factors have created the problem of contraction in the industry; and I do not think anybody would controvert that assertion. What has it meant? As the two noble Lords speaking from the Front Benches indicated, there have been social repercussions, pit closures on a very large scale, and reduction of manpower to the extent that I have indicated.
The first two or three clauses of the Bill, as was the case in 1967, are dealing with the social consequences of contraction. The proof of this—do not take my word for it at all—was provided when the Minister, Sir John Eden, was introducing the Bill in another place, when he said that Clauses 1 and 2 are to extend certain schemes for three years beyond March, 1971, to mitigate the social consequences of contraction in the industry. That was an admirable thing in 1967, and may I make this observation. Although contraction started towards the

1515
end of 1956, and gained momentum in succeeding years, nothing was done to deal with this problem until the late Government took action in the matter in 1967; and that was a very admirable thing indeed. I would also say that what was admirable in 1967 in this particular field is also admirable to-day.
It is sad when men of 55 and over are victims of pit closures. Not only are there social and economic effects but there is an emotionalism involved which I personally cannot find words to describe. These are no longer young men; at no time from boyhood onwards have they done any other work. From my own personal experience I know that they are very fine men. I regard them as the salt of the earth. It is not only sad, it is not only disturbing: for these men it is also difficult to find another job at that time of life, particularly when they have done nothing else but pit work. It is with this particular problem that Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill are concerned.
I would summarise the matter by saying this: it is a bit of ambulance work, dealing with the effects of contraction. But seeing that the benefit is limited, in the case of those aged 55 and over, to three years—and for those between the ages of 55 and 62 there is a hiatus—what about the man who is reaching the retiring age of 65? If he is still out of a job, will he continue on unemployment benefit? This hiatus could last for either one year or seven years. It is really a mathematical problem depending upon the age at which the man becomes redundant.
While I am on this point may I put three or four questions to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? First, what is the total number of recipients under the scheme of 1967? Second, how many of those recipients had the three years of benefit for which the scheme provides before reaching the age of 65? Third, what is the total cost, to the latest convenient date? Fourth, can the noble Lord give us an estimate of the number of men who will benefit under the extended scheme?
Happily, the rate of pit closures seems to have passed its peak. When the Minister introduced the Bill on its Second Reading in another place he said
1516
"I cannot see the rate again approaching the level reached in 1967–1968 and 1969–1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 3/12/70, col. 1489–90.]
My Lords, those of us who come from the areas where so many have been affected realise that contraction is a terrible thing. I would express the opinion that during the past 16 or 17 years pit closures have been too fast. Hundreds of thousands of men—imagine it, my Lords! net scores but hundreds of thousands of men—have lost their jobs in this process of contraction. I think the statistical experts concerned with the part that coal will play in the energy requirements of the nation have been terribly mistaken.
I remember that in 1950, in the very early days of this nationalised industry, a booklet was prepared, entitled Investing in Coal. It was then said that for some time coal to the extent of about 250 million tons would be needed annually; and every White Paper, every statistic and every estimate that came out after 1950 was altered in a downward direction. In respect of productivity the industry has a good record. Output at the face, output per man-shift, has increased. I could give some interesting figures, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships with figures now.
Let me summarise the position. In spite of fewer pits, productivity is up; and manpower, as I have estimated, is below 300,000. The position is this. It is ironical that if there is not a coal famine we have a situation in which contraction is now greater than supply. The tangible evidence of this is to be found in the Bill itself, because it removes the embargo on imported coal. On this proposal in the Bill may I say to the Minister that I hope the industry, with the lifting of this embargo, is not going to be burdened with paying millions of pounds, as it was 20 years ago. At that time £70 million was the burden on the National Coal Board through the importation of coal.
This is a very important point, and when the Minister, Sir John Eden, was pressed on it in another place he said that there was no question of subsidising the price of imported coal to the customer. My Lords, I do not think that this is sufficiently explicit. A statement of that kind can mean one of two things, and I should like the Minister to-day to make

1517
the assertion that if, in the event, the price of imported coal is greater than British coal to the customer the difference in cost will not fall upon the National Coal Board. There is a shortage of coal in Europe, and it we can get it the price may be greater than the price of British coal at the moment.
May I now hurriedly make one or two observations about what my noble friend Lord Diamond described—and rightly so—as the controversial parts of the Bill? I refer to Clauses 7 and 8, but particularly the former. This gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to begin what I call the hiving-off process of the more profitable parts of the National Coal Beard undertakings. Again may I quote Sir John Eden. He said in another place that, "on this point no decision has yet been taken by the Government on the activities of the N.C.B." I accept that. But it does not preclude the fact that a decision may be taken, and there are suspicions—at this stage I put it no higher than that—which are justified in the light of what this Government have already done.
I will take only two examples. The first is the hiving off of certain airline routes—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—to private operators. The other example I take concerns the State breweries in Carlisle. A Bill has already been published for the breweries and pubs in Carlisle to be denationalised. How can the Government expect us to be other than suspicious when these things are taking place at the moment right under our noses? I would reiterate what my noble friend Lord Diamond said. Is the possibility of this hiving-off the reason why the present chairman of the National Coal Board is leaving the Board? Some of us are very suspicious about this. I am sure that the clauses which I have mentioned, particularly Clause 7, will be the subject of much discussion during the next stages of the Bill. What I wanted to do to-day was to make my opposition to these clauses clear, and to say that they ought to have been the subject of separate legislation and not mixed up with the extension of the 1967 scheme giving benefit to redundant miners consequent upon the contraction of the industry.
5.2 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am glad to join with my noble friend, Lord Diamond, and my noble friend, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, in this debate. As is, I think, clear, this Bill differs very substantially from the one of a similar title put forward by the last Administration. There are some parts, it is true, which are common, there are some parts of the former Administration's Bill which have disappeared, and there are other parts of the present Bill which are quite new. On the parts which are common to the two Bills, I would refer to only one point, and that is to the provision which the Bill makes in respect of mineworkers' redundancy schemes. I should like to echo and perhaps carry a little further the point which has been made by my noble friend, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, in this connection. The purpose of the mineworkers' redundancy schemes is to compensate for expected earnings in the case of those who retire prematurely, and in framing the regulations and taking action for which Clause 2 of the Bill gives him power, I trust that the Minister will have regard to a number of factors including those to which my noble friend has already referred.
In particular, I hope he will have regard to changes in the wage pattern in the industry. The payments under a mineworkers' redundancy scheme are, of course, based upon earnings in the immediate pre-redundancy period, and once fixed those payments remain static for the three-year period for which the individual may be qualified for them. There are anomalies arising from this method of calculation, particularly in the case of those who in the period on which the pre-redundancy payments are calculated have suffered ill-health, perhaps suffered from the effects of industrial disease. I hope that these anomalies may be looked at sympathetically by the Minister in using the powers proposed. In addition, I hope that he can consider the point which my noble friend described as the possibility of hiatus, the hiatus between the period when the entitlement for benefit under the redundancy scheme ends and the individual maybe gets another job or maybe comes to the age of 65.

1519
At the moment, an individual may exhaust his entitlement before either of those events.
Finally, during the three-year period there are likely to be enhancements of wages among those still employed in the industry, and I hope that the Minister will be able to look at the possibility of adjustments being made in the redundancy payments to take account of changes in wage levels in the industry. There are some precedents for this, and I hope that the Minister, when he comes to exercise his powers under this clause, will consult carefully all the parties concerned, particularly, of course, the National Union of Mineworkers, and will seek to meet these points which I have raised and others which have been raised in connection with this matter.
May I turn to two provisions which were in the Bill envisaged by the previous Administration, and the Bill as it is now before us to-day: first of all, the provision which has been discarded and which relates to extra payments for coal burned in power stations. As I understand it, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says that this point will be reconsidered if necessary. It may well be that at the moment, in the immediate supply and demand situation which confronts us, it is felt that there is not a strong case for the existence of this power. But in the experience of the mining industry we have seen how changes in circumstances can take place, and it would be a sad situation if circumstances did change be a direction which made it reasonable for payments of this sort to be made and for the Minister then to be in a position to say that he had no statutory power to make such payments and that it was not possible to envisage getting Parliamentary time for him to have such powers conferred upon him. It would be perfectly reasonable for those powers to be embodied in the present Bill, even though it was understood that there might not be an immediate prospect of their being put into use.
Similar considerations apply to the omission of the provision for compensating the National Coal Board for deferment of colliery closures. Here, again, is a point to which my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield made reference. A colliery, as we all know, often represents the only
1520
source of employment in a specified area. It may be of crucial importance to the economy and the social viability of that area. Here, again, there would be virtue in powers being included in the Bill, so that should the situation arise where there was a need to exercise such powers—and I should perhaps feel a little less keenly on this point if I had a greater degree of confidence in the regional policies of the present Government—they would be there, available for use.
I want to turn to what the present Administration have added to the Bill—what they have thought is of importance and urgency in their examination of this great industry. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is always so disarming, and so rightly enjoys respect in all quarters of the House, that one is almost tempted to be persuaded by him that this is a mere minor piece of tidying up which is to be found in Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. But it is exceedingly hard for noble Lords to be convinced of that, as it was exceedingly hard for many Members in another place to be convinced of it, when they look at the background of opinion which has been expressed about the nationalised industries. Again my noble friends have referred to this point. When one thinks, for example, of the zeal which was expressed earlier this year by the Minister for Industry for the hiving off of activities from publicly owned industries, one is without doubt bound to be inclined, and is justified in being inclined, to see an exceedingly sinister intention in these clauses in the present Bill.
It is true that the activities of the National Coal Board are diversified activities. Some of these ancillary activities the National Coal Board inherited in 1947; some of them they have developed; some, indeed, they developed in the 1950s with, if my recollection serves me aright, the specific approval of the Conservative Administration of those days. It is difficult to know whether those who are critical of these ancillary activities are more critical of those which were inherited from the former coal owners, and into which presumably the former coal owners had themselves been led by normal commercial pressures, or whether they are more critical of those which have been developed since the National Coal Board has been in existence, in response to more immediate and recent commercial opportunities and needs and in proper exercise

1521
of the commercial judgment and initiative of the National Coal Board.
I should have thought that, whichever group of ancillary activities we are concerned with, they would be welcomed in a general sense by all noble Lords in all parts of the House. Indeed, if I understood the situation aright, before the Election the present Government were emphasising that the nationalised boards were to be free from pettifogging interference in the exercise of their commercial powers and their commercial judgment. They were, indeed, to be encouraged to develop their intiative and their confidence in their own judgment. If one looks to what surely must be behind the clauses which are now before us, and if one looks at that intention, one is led to ask how far the commercial judgment of the National Coal Board is to be respected by Her Majesty's Government.
I would ask the noble Lord when he replies to address himself to this point: Is it envisaged in the exercise of the powers which the Minister will have under this Bill that he is to insist upon the National Coal Board divesting themselves of activities which, in their own commercial judgment, they would wish to pursue; or is he going to be guided by the commercial judgment of a publicly appointed board, and one, of course, subject to considerable regular public accountability and scrutiny? I hope that the noble Lord will clear up this point so that we may know whether or not it is the intention to run counter to the commercial judgment of the Board. If it is intended to run counter to their commercial judgment, then this seems to me to be an extraordinary handicap to place upon the board of a publicly owned industry. If it is not intended to run counter to their commercial judgment, I for one cannot see the purpose of embodying these clauses or giving these powers.
Many of these activities, whatever may be said about them and whatever may be the effect of looking at them separately from a financial point of view, are closely associated in character, and certainly closely associated geographically with the main coal-winning activities of the National Coal Board. I will not list the very wide range of activities into which it would be open
1522
to the Minister under the clause as drafted to make inquiry, because in moving the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, quite rightly and wisely, assured us that it was not the intention to use these powers in some fields of National Coal Board activities where it would be manifestly absurd to do so. But, of course, he spoke only of those activities not covered by the definition of coal getting which are so obviously intimately associated with it.
There are other activities which, to my recollection, he did not mention. How can one really say that they are not very proper, indeed I would say necessary, activities for a well-run National Coal Board to be undertaking? Can anybody really say that the National Coal Board ought to be precluded from any activity in the field of distribution, especially when one thinks of the very wide gap that still remains between the pithead price of coal and the price that the customer normally has to pay? Chemical manufacture has a very natural association with the activities of the National Coal Board. Central heating is quite obviously a proper field in which any lively organisation connected with the production of a great source of energy would be concerned. Or are those activities which are concerned with using the waste products of the National Coal Board's main activities not proper? I should have thought that they most certainly were.
But quite apart from these matters, is not the essential point this? If nationalised industries are to have reasonable scope, they must be free to use their material resources and their human resources in a way in which they, as reasonable, experienced men, believe to be in the national interest and in the interests of the enterprise with which they are charged. Moreover, how far is there to be taken into account the importance of some of these activities in the provision of employment in areas which, in the past, have been so largely dependent upon the coal industry?
There was a time when diversification was preached as one of the greatest elements in a regional policy for those areas which are dependent upon the coal mining industry. If diversification was, and is, to be an important element, why should the National Coal Board be

1523
debarred from diversification? I am bound to say that I do not think that noble Lords opposite or their colleagues in another place, have at any time in their now nearly 25 years of history, given to the National Coal Board a tithe of the credit to which they are entitled for their successes and achievements. My noble friend gave the figures which measured the size of this matter in terms of manpower, in human terms.
The reorganisation of this great industry is hazardous and is an unrelenting job in regard to winning coal. The reorganisation of the industry to take account of social realities and technological changes has been an enormous achievement. Taking the history of the National Coal Board as a whole—and some of us can remember well the condition of the coal industry which the Board inherited, especially the material condition and the human situation—and taking as a whole the record of the Board, it has been one of great improvement in productivity, especially when we bear in mind that in the inter-war years the United Kingdom coal industry was lagging in progress in productivity behind almost every coal producing country on the Continent.
It has been a remarkable record, too, taken as a whole, in the field of industrial relations: not only in the negative sense of reducing the number of strikes in proportion to the size of the working force fairly continuously over a period of time, but also in the more positive sense of developing consultation with the workers in a way which I believe many other industries could well follow. It has been a remarkable record, too, in the field of improvement in safety standards and in reducing the dangers and the toll which this industry imposes. The financial records, the commercial records of the Board, taken as a whole over a period of time are a great testimony to the energy and the initiative of the Board. I should like very warmly to associate myself with what has been said by other noble Lords about the great contribution which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Robens, who has illuminated and inspired the activities of this Board and of this industry in almost every aspect, but who, in particular, has had this great qualification of never losing
1524
sight of the enormous importance of trying, in a difficult industry, to develop relations which took account of the human beings who were employed in it.
I am afraid that I must develop this point a little further by saying that noble Lords opposite—and this is a part of the background of our consideration of this matter, because it gives some clue as to the way in which Clauses 6 to 8 may be used—and the Party with which they are identified have, I am afraid, generally shown a certain degree of animus against nationalised industries as such. I believe that to be a great pity. On the first occasion on which I had the privilege of speaking in your Lordships' House, nearly four years ago, I made a plea for both Parties to be prepared to look fairly and objectively at nationalised industries; not one Party feeling that it must always defend what had happened, nor the other Party feeling that it must always criticise, condemn and belittle what had happened. I am afraid that when one sees the kind of comment which is normally made—there are, of course, honourable exceptions—as an organised body by those with whom noble Lords opposite are associated, one could hardly say that the attitude has been an objective one. I believe it is unhappily true to say that noble Lords opposite, and those with whom they are associated, are in danger of being chilly and distant friends of nationalised industries when they are in power, and unbridled, undiscriminating, irresponsible critics of nationalised industries when they are out of power.
I have had occasion recently to look at the situation in the countries of the Common Market so far as the various forms of public enterprise and joint enterprise are concerned. Although nobody would say that in the countries of the Common Market politics are any less lively than they are in this country, one does not find—and I do not believe that one finds this in any major country except the United Kingdom—a situation in which one of the great Parties regards it as a part of its attitude of mind to be so consistently critical of, and belittling towards, nationalised industries, as in general the Party opposite is. I concede again that there are honourable exceptions, but I do not think that any noble

1525
Lord opposite who reflects on the situation, and who reflects on the quality and quantity of comment upon nationalised industries which has emanated from the Party with which he is associated in the last quarter of a century, will seriously claim that it has been objective. This, I believe, is a tragic situation for this country.
I do not believe, as I said on an earlier occasion, that it is a situation which is fair to the nationalised industries. It is a situation which is, in particular, bound to be destructive of the morale of those in the nationalised industries—and they constitute, after all, a very large section of our fellow citizens and a very large section of the working population of this country. I believe that this has an adverse effect upon morale not only among the workers, the operatives, the craftsmen, but in very many grades of management as well. I believe that neglect of the morale of people in the nationalised industries—and I have not only in mind the nationalised coal industry at this moment—can be a very dangerous thing from the national point of view.
We are under some pressure of time with this Bill. As has been pointed out, there is a great need to get it approved by your Lordships' House very speedily. I think the shortage of time arises because of the excessive delay in introducing the Bill in another place, when the necessities of the time-table were really well understood. But may I, on behalf of my noble friends, make a proposal to the noble Lord? If he wishes to expedite business, I believe I can assure him, on behalf of my noble friends, that he can have all the stages of this Bill immediately if he will tell us that he has withdrawn Clauses 6, 7, and 8. In the event that he is not able to accept that generous and well-meant suggestion, I am bound to tell him that we shall seek to pursue this discussion further at the later stages of the Bill. We shall do all we can, as my noble friend Lord Diamond said, to seek the removal of these clauses, without prejudice, of course, to those parts of the Bill which we support. If, as alas! their performance in other respects sometimes suggests, the Government are disposed to go on to the bitter end, even though in their hearts they must have been convinced of the unwisdom
1526
of what they are doing, we hope that if these unhappy clauses finally appear in an Act, they will be a dead letter from the day that they are passed.
5.28 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I certainly cannot complain in any way of the temper in which this debate has been conducted, and I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in it. If I may deal straight away with the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has put to me, I cannot help thinking that, while it is entirely right that we should debate these clauses fully when we come to the Committee stage, and explore every aspect of them, he would hardly expect us willingly to discard them. If I may say so, I think that perhaps it is partly because of the suspicion (this was the word used) of the clauses that noble Lords opposite are so antagonistic to them. While we could go on for a long time to-night talking about these clauses, it seems to me that the appropriate time to do so is on the Committee stage. However, I should just like to make one or two remarks about them.
The first point I would make is that the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was the first of the great, or far-reaching nationalisation Acts, if you like to put it less colourfully, that was passed, and it was enacted in 1946. It was indeed at an early stage of the growth of the concept of nationalisation that was developed over a period of years. At that time I was a Member of another place, and I am bound to say that the boot was entirely on the other foot so far as criticism was concerned. We were perpetually hearing talk of the failure of private enterprise. Private enterprise does fail sometimes—all human enterprises can. But if noble Lords and right honourable gentlemen in another place had not placed such enormous insistence on those occasions when private enterprise fails, then I do not think that those on this side of the House would have looked so critically from time to time, as I quite agree they have done in the past, at nationalised industries.
Again referring to my own experience, when the Conservative Government came into power in 1951 it was perhaps almost a surprise to some Members on our side of the House that we had to make a success of the nationalised industries. The noble Lord talks of a "chilly friendship",

1527
but there is no such thing as a chilly friendship with the nationalised industries. It was the job and purpose of noble Lords and Ministers here and of right honourable gentlemen in another place who were charged with serving the nation to see that the nationalised industries served the nation in the best posible way; and I think that over a period of years the sharp asperity which existed at one time has been rounded off very much indeed. While it remains true that those who have founded something, because they have a paternal pride and interest in it, have perhaps also a paternal resentment of criticism—and this is sometimes proper—I think on our side we have rejoiced in the successes of the nationalised industries and we have particularly noted that they have been most likely to succeed when they are faced with competition, because we believe in competition and think that it is a good thing.
To take the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, there was one single central feature to it: the duty laid on the Coal Board under Section 1 of the Act to work and get coal; to secure the efficient development of the coal-mining industry and to make supplies of coal available at such quantity and at such prices and so on. These were the duties of the Coal Board, and to exercise these duties they were given a discretion to extend their functions in certain directions. These were called discretionary functions.
My Lords, what we are saying in this Bill is that over the period of years there has never been any full examination or even a partial examination of the ancillary functions of the Coal Board. They have been subject as a whole to scrutiny in a number of ways but there is a difference from some of the other industries—transport, iron and steel and, more recently, the Post Office—and I think the onus of showing why the Coal Board should not be subject to the same disciplines and the same degree of accountability as the other industries lies on the other side of the House.
It seems to me that after 25 years it is reasonable to look at various activities of the Coal Board, particularly the non-coal-getting activities, the non-colliery activities. The Bill itself does not impose any duty on the Secretary of State to have a review carried out. It merely gives a
1528
discretionary power to direct the Board—and it is the Board who are to carry out this—to carry out a review and to report to the Secretary of State either on non-colliery activities of the Board or such of these activities as may be specified in the direction. So what we are saying is that it is not unreasonable to give the Secretary of State the same powers in regard to the National Coal Board as Ministers have in the case of other nationalised industries, and to exercise these powers selectively as he feels it to be in the national interest. I find it very difficult to see why there should be any objection to that, and really one must confess that the objection lies, as noble Lords have said, simply in the suspicion they have of the motives of those on this side of the House—
LORD DIAMOND: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? He keeps on referring to suspicion. May I refer him to the exchange which took place on December 3 on Second Reading of this Bill in another place, when Mr. John Cronin (col. 1486) asked the Minister the following question:
"Will he bear in mind that his party's election manifesto made it clear that the Government's policy would be a progressive reduction of State involvement in the nationalised industries …"—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I think the noble Lord is quoting from a Member, not a Minister, in this Session of Parliament.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful for that advice, which I find as astonishing as it is acceptable. I was anxious not to say anything other than was verbally precise. I understand that your Lordships would prefer me to indicate what an honourable gentleman said in another place. He asked whether it was not clear that the policy of the Government was to hive off peripheral activities, and Sir John Eden, a Minister of Her Majesty's Government, said in column 1486:
"Yes, and the honourable Gentleman should not be surprised that we are taking these powers for the purpose of the coal industry."
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I entirely accept the noble Lord's interventions at this time and I certainly do not want to indicate that these powers are being taken to no purpose. There

1529
would be no object in taking them unless there were some possibility of their being used. But really this brings me to the next point: that when you have industries of this size and when they are so enormously diversified, the whole question of the efficiency of control is bound to be called in question; and to that one has to add that the normal disciplines of the market do not apply to the nationalised industries, in the sense that the money is forthcoming from the Government for the advancement of their enterprises except to the extent that they are able to finance them out of their own profits. In these circumstances, I find it difficult to see why noble Lords should so strenuously object to these powers being taken.
On the power to order a review, may I repeat what I have already said on the question of confidentiality. The assurances given in another place about confidentiality were in relation to information provided by the Board in a report to the Secretary of State, following a review under Clause 6. If the Board considered it necessary to disclose confidential information to the Secretary of State in a report, the Secretary of State would treat it as strictly confidential, and it would be used strictly on a need-to-know basis. When the review has been done—I come to the next leg of this matter—a decision has to be made, in consultation between the Chairman of the Coal Board and the Minister, as to what action should be taken in consequence of the review; and that is what Clause 7 is about.
It seems to me entirely possible that, having looked at this very wide array of enterprises that are controlled directly or indirectly by the Board, it may be thought, by both the Board and the Minister, that it would be a good thing to dispose of some of them. It may also be, given a natural reluctance on the part of those who run activities to give up running them, that the Board will feel disinclined to give up or even to alter an activity in which they are engaged. If, after long consideration—and there would be long consideration—the Minister decided that it was in the national interest and for the good of the Board themselves that they should divest themselves of assets or discontinue activities, it seems to me not unreasonable that he
1530
should give the Board a direction to do so, especially as there is the safeguard that at that stage he has to lay an Order before Parliament in regard to the direction.
The noble Lord will know that directions do not go into great detail, and the likelihood of any disclosure of confidential information at that stage would be very slight. It would be for the Minister to make sure that confidential information was not disclosed, however much he was taunted by the other side—whoever the other side might be at the time—in either House. I see no difficulty at all in, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, raised, and, given the fact that these powers exist in other nationalised industries, it is difficult to deny them in the case of the Coal Board. I have been asked some specific questions to which I shall try to reply—
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, is he really saying that the Minister might use these powers to produce a change which is contrary to the commercial judgment of the Board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should not exclude that. But I should also take the opportunity of saying that it might be the Board's own wish that, although they agreed with the Minister, this should be done by way of direction. That could also happen. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who always speaks with great experience and authority on these matters, asked me a number of questions which I should like to answer. He took a great interest in the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme, and on that I would say that there is nothing that is excluded from the review. All the points which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, raised, and all matters of consultation about which they showed some anxiety, can be covered. So I hope that with that assurance I need not pursue the subject any further.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about the number of recipients. The answer is 35,000 up to March, 1971. I am afraid that I do not know the answer had benefits in the last three years. The to his question about how many have noble Lord asked what was the total cost

1531
to date. The total ultimate cost will be about £34 million, with a further £7 million for premature pensions; that is, pensions for men who have qualified by now. Those who qualify hereafter will be covered by the Order up to next year, and we hope by that time to have the review. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, also asked how many men will benefit under the extended scheme. The answer is that it is thought that about 5,000 more men will benefit in the course of the next year, and if the present scheme were continued until March, 1974—and I must emphasise that this is very tentative indeed—it is possible that a further 9,000 would benefit.
I understand the reluctance of noble Lords opposite to see the disappearance of the coal-burn clause, but, as Mr. Wedgwood Benn said when the Bill was going through another House, that was regarded as an insurance scheme. One always has to consider whether or not it is worth while taking out an insurance policy. One has to consider the risk. The view of the Government is that the risk is really not sufficient to make it worth while to renew this clause at the present time. I would only repeat the assurance given in another place, that if the Government feel it is desirable or necessary they will reconsider this matter.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I suppose most people feel it desirable to take out insurance against possible contingencies, but does not their decision depend upon what company it is?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord really cannot have it both ways. The implication is that even if we on this side had the powers we would not use them when necessary. I really cannot accept that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, is it not rather the case that my noble friend was referring to the financial difficulties which have arisen in regard to a certain company, because the premium was too small? But is it not the case here that the cost of this premium is precisely nil? The noble Lord gets the insurance policy at no premium cost at all. All he has to do is to put the clause in the Bill, and through it goes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord's remarks are quite apt, but this is more a point of argument than a point of reality. It does not make sense, in the present position of coal shortage—and we are likely to be battling against a certain amount of coal shortage for, at any rate, the next two years—to retain these powers. Reference was made to the power to compensate for deferment of closures. As I said in my opening speech, mines are likely to be closed down in present circumstances only if they are entirely uneconomic or if they are worked out, and here, too, it does not seem worth while to retain the powers. I took special notice of what was said about the hiatus under the redundancy payments scheme, and certainly this will be one of the matters which is looked at. If there are further questions which I ought to have answered, I will, if I may, write to noble Lords. I do not want to be drawn in any way on the reasons for the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Robens. One always knows that such reasons are very complex; and I feel justified in saying that one should respect the personal nature of the reasons that he may have felt for not continuing as Chairman of the Coal Board.
My Lords, there is one further point I want to deal with, and that is the question of imports of coal, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, raised. There is no question whatever of the Coal Board's having to pay the higher cost of imports. These imports are now on open general licence. The price at which coal is being imported—and I believe some 72,000 tons were imported in December—is very substantially above the market price here. It is being imported because people need the coal and because, for that reason, they are willing to pay the price; and the full market price is borne by the purchasers. My Lords, I have done my best to deal with the questions which have been raised, and I hope the House will be prepared, with whatever reservations your Lordships may have, to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION AND NATIONAL NEEDS
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that present day university education is fulfilling the long-term needs of the nation as a whole, and whether they will set up a broad-based Committee to investigate this question and make recommendations. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question appearing under my name on the Order Paper. I think noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not propose to speak for more than about 12 minutes.
I gave considerable thought before putting down this Question, because I want to raise matters which I think are important but should be discussed without Party bias and without the emotional overtones with which this subject is so often associated. I put it down as an Unstarred Question because I did not realise the number of noble Lords who would be interested to speak. In fact, I did not know about this until comparatively late in the day. I also feel that at the present time some of the issues which I am going to raise are very live ones. People are beginning to think about these problems; and I should have been sorry to have had to postpone this Question or turn it into a Motion, which might have delayed the debate for a matter of perhaps months. Anyway, may I apologise to noble Lords that this is the wav it has turned out, and for the fact that the hour is now rather late?
My Lords, throughout my life I have been taught when considering any problem to define the object or the aim at the outset, and that is precisely what I think needs to be done in considering the future of university education. I believe that we are tending blindly to assume that all education, no matter of what kind, is per se good, and the more people who have it the better. I suppose that this is, broadly sneaking, true. After all, we are learning something new nearly all our lives. But it seems to me that this viewpoint is being extended towards the unacceptable proposition that all academic learning, no matter of what
1534
kind, is equally useful and acceptable to everyone; in other words, the qualitative aspect is not being given sufficient weight.
Before going on to suggest what I think the objects of higher education are, or should be, I should like for a moment to consider the historical reasons why our thoughts about education have developed as they seem to have done. In the Middle Ages, education was clearly allied to culture, and separated those who possessed it from the rather barbaric outside world. This sort of distinction found expression in more modern times in the differences between the educated and the uneducated people, and, of course, was one of the factors perpetuating our class system. From this stem the natural, logical but, if I may say so, slightly doctrinal views of the Socialist Party on such matters.
In earlier days, of course, the accent was on Classics, and this influence continued right up to the last war. The utility of Classics, my Lords, has often been justified on the grounds that it provided a better training of the mind and taught a logical approach to problems which other disciplines were not able to do so effectively. I hated Classics, but I think there may have been something in this argument, and it certainly supports what I am going to say later on.
During this period the older universities considered themselves first of all, and foremost, as seats of learning and of research. And the staff gained distinction not by their ability to teach the average student but by their academic achievement; also by their reputation in relation to those students who could obtain a first or high second-class honours degree and might be assumed to add lustre to the universities' academic reputation. Perhaps at this time this did not matter too much. Those with private means were said to gain many other things besides learning from their stay at "Oxbridge", and those without such means came mostly in the top academic bracket. Alongside our universities, but considered well below the salt, were the technical colleges, with a much more down-to-earth policy and role. In our recent expansion of universities, many technical colleges have been upgraded or absorbed, and instead of re-thinking the role of the new universities the tendency has been to

1535
concentrate solely on obtaining high academic reputation and to follow the former ideals of "Oxbridge".
Returning now to the main theme of this Question, I suggest that the aims of higher education can conveniently be considered under three broad headings: first, to train future academics and research workers; secondly, to give students training which will be useful in their work afterwards and is directly of benefit to the nation; thirdly, and perhaps almost more important, to develop intellectual ability and to make students happier and better potential citizens in the very broadest sense of the word. As I have already said, universities have concentrated on the first objective—that is, the training of future academics and research workers—and they do this, I think, fairly well, although I am sure there is room for improvement; for example, in Ph.D. courses. However, this sort of approach is valuable only for those capable of obtaining a first-class or high second-class degree, and these represent only a small proportion of the total student population.
The second objective is met to perhaps the greatest extent where the subject studied is directly concerned with some profession—for example, engineering—and particularly if direct contact is maintained with industry by attachments to firms during the Long Vacation or as a part of the course. I am not suggesting that industry are ideal mentors or that they know how to use highly trained and intelligent young men to the best advantage; but such attachments certainly help to keep a realistic approach to what is taught and the students' reactions to it. Nevertheless, it seems that there is an increasing tendency for industry to place less and less value on university training, except for the higher grades of specialists in such subjects as mathematics and physics. This is extremely unfortunate, because one of the main reasons for expanding universities was to provide for the increasing need for highly trained people.
The fundamental reason for this dissatisfaction is, I submit, that university education is not training people to think clearly, to tackle and analyse problems clearly; nor to increase their power to make logically based criticisms, to weigh factors and to arrive at valid conclusions.
This is my fundamental and most important criticism of our present-day education. And, my Lords, if it fails to do this, is it really education? What does it then achieve unless it be a cramming of supposed facts, many of which are often highly irrelevant to anything a person may require or want or need in afterlife?
Before considering the third aim, that of creating better potential citizens, I must make it absolutely clear that I am not—I repeat, not—suggesting that university education should be solely directed towards what is likely to be needed by the professions and industry; nor am I suggesting that the individual choice of subject should be restricted more than it is at present. I will, however, say quite categorically that unless a university course can be justified as training future academics and research workers, as a general training of the mind or under the heading of citizenship (which I am about to discuss) it does not deserve the large expenditure which is involved.
If the future of democracy lies in the electorate taking an increasing part in deciding major issues—and I think that this is how it must go—it can be successful only if a growing number of people are capable of understanding, assessing and weighing the complex issues which are involved. They must be able to approach supposed facts with scepticism, and to recognise propaganda and publicity for what they are. They must know the point at which personal feelings and emotion affect their judgment. I am not saying that judgment should not be so affected, but simply that people should know at what point they are weighting a factor with emotion. This is surely a major part of education. Most of it comes under the heading of training people to think, which I have already mentioned. This sort of thing is taught to-day in business schools, in the Services, in staff colleges and elsewhere. But is it sufficiently a part of a university arts course, or even a science course? Perhaps in universities it could be dignified by the title of logic which has a respectable academic ancestry. I would also suggest that to-day there is a vital need for arts students to know something of what science is about and what, in general terms, it can and cannot do. This, I should think, is quite as important as the reverse process.
My Lords, what I am really saying is that learning for learning's sake is not enough; that its usefulness in the broadest sense—and I do not exclude personal satisfaction and fulfilment—must be taken into account when considering its value as a whole. As I said at the outset, the purpose of the Unstarred Question was to encourage the people concerned with shaping our universities' destiny to think about what I feel is a very important matter. And I hope that this can be done in a non-Party and unemotional atmosphere. It is therefore unwise to start making detailed criticisms of universities. Nevertheless, in conclusion I propose to make three. Although these criticisms do not apply to all universities they are points which I should like considered by those who are responsible for shaping the destinies of our universities.
First, the standard of lecturing and the methods of instruction in our universities are sometimes extremely poor. Almost all other responsible organisations, and of course the teaching profession, realise that short courses of instruction on lecturing and teaching are essential. They also know that some people, however academically well qualified, are temperamentally unsuited to teaching or helping all but the very best of students, who are capable of getting a really good degree. Universities are therefore almost alone in appointing lecturers with almost a complete disregard of these two considerations. I do not believe that this situation—which, incidentally, causes a great deal of student unrest—will greatly improve until the status of a senior and efficient lecturer is no longer primarily judged on his published research work.
Secondly, I consider it the greatest mistake that university staff who are concerned with student education should often be appointed directly after finishing their own education. They cannot possibly have acquired the balanced point of view and maturity which some experience in the outside world could give them. Thirdly, although some students, even at 19, are imbued with a sense of purpose strong enough to continue to work efficiently alone, apart from supervision essays, for three or more years, I do not believe that this applies to the majority. I will categorically say from experience in after-life that it does not
1538
apply to many people of maturer years who need the stimulation of working as one of a team or being responsible for controlling others. Universities must provide a corporate atmosphere which fosters interest in work and other social activities. Some try hard to do this; others, in my opinion, fail badly. I venture to think that perhaps some noble Lords, who I fancy may disagree will me on this point, may view their student days through rather rose-tinted spectacles. Be that as it may, I should still argue, as I have said earlier in this speech, that the conditions at university are not what they were in the more leisured days.
My Lords, I have purposely avoided making any recommendations as to what I think might be done to improve matters. I have not been able to go round looking at universities in enough detail to feel that I could say anything useful. What I am trying to do is merely to raise these questions in the hope that those who know far more than I do will assess them and come up with the right answers.
6.9 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the number of speakers on the list shows the great interest aroused by the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to him for the opportunity he has provided for discussing this subject. The Question itself not only provides noble Lords with an opportunity of expressing their views but provides Her Majesty's Government with a timely opportunity to state their views and, perhaps more importantly, their intentions in this field of higher education. Inevitably our minds go back to the Robbins Report and, once again, we are aware of our indebtedness to Lord Robbins and to his colleagues. They made this nation face a challenge. That they underestimated that challenge, that the targets they projected have already been overtaken, is more a tribute to quickened growth of demand following the expansion of opportunities than a criticism.
From that experience there are many important lessons to be learned. One of the most important, I think, is that when we have improved the quality of our primary schools; when we have given them the resources, particularly teachers,

1539
that will enable children to proceed to secondary education equipped to take advantage of what is there available; and especially when we have created a truly comprehensive secondary system and raised the school-leaving age; then the tremendous increase in demand for higher education will make what we refer to to-day as the "explosion" look more like a "bulge".
The Question tabled by the noble Viscount speaks of university education. I would dare to suggest, my Lords, that we have to look at this within the context of the existing framework of higher education as a whole. We have the universities and the polytechnics; we have colleges of education and also the most recent development, the Open University. These vary considerably in the freedom they enjoy, the roles they fill and, I fear, the status which is accorded to them. Mr. Tyrell Burgess, writing in the New Statesman on January 29 this year, put the position of the universities as follows:
"The independence of universities is much prized even by people outside them: it is one of the first things that totalitarian powers attack. This means that we want the universities to be able to resist the demands of society, and their financing through the University Grants Committee is designed to secure their independence. But it also means that we cannot expect them to respond quickly to social or industrial demand; to produce different kinds of graduates, for example, or to widen opportunity."
I should like to set beside that what was written by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lancaster in that very valuable little book Patterns and Policies in Higher Education:
"Personally I think that the British universities have reason to be proud of their recent record of innovation, of research into their own activities, and of regard for economy and the public good; this suggests to me that we have got the balance between freedom and order about right."
My Lords, the polytechnics, on the other hand, are under the control of the local education authorities. Their intake has been based on far less rigid and formal entry requirements. They have developed largely on the basis of professional and vocational education. In their growth they have been very responsive to the demands of the students, local industry and commerce. The degrees awarded to their students are conferred
1540
by the Council for National Academic Awards—the C.N.A.A. If I may say so, my Lords, that is not too exciting a set of initials. They strike me as being somewhat clumsy, and some people think that when compared with university degrees they suggest a distinction with a difference.
The Open University, which owes so much to the interest, influence and determination of the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, is, of course, quite new and unique. One of its great virtues is that the world may see on the screen something of what is going on there and how it is being done. Would-be students can get an excellent insight into what it offers. I think it open to question, my Lords, whether we really need a new committee; but if we do have one, it ought to review the matter of university education—as I think I have said already—within the context of the whole field of higher education. At the moment we have an inquiry going on into teacher training. There are many who feel that this should have been—or, for that matter, still should be—part of an investigation into the whole area of higher education. I should like to see colleges of education catering for a much wider range of courses and for a broader intake of students.
I have mentioned the different sectors of the service of higher education, and one questions whether the total resources made available to them are being used to the best advantage. One has in mind such things as the pooling of resources in terms of student amenities, the sharing of libraries and equipment and the sharing or the interchange of staffs. I think that notice could be taken with advantage of the media of communication used by the Open University. Far greater use should be made of top professors and teachers by using T.V. on a much greater scale, and video tape and things like that.
Looking at the book issued by the Department of Education and Science for 1969, I think that, in one particular at least—medical education—there appears to be some gross inequality of opportunity between the sexes. May I give the figures? In 1968 there were 1,995 men students compared with only 683 women. I should like the Minister to say whether he regards this position as satisfactory;

1541
and if it is not so regarded, will he give some indication of how the matter is to be dealt with? I would also ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that we can afford the wastage which occurs at present in some of our universities. I am told that it is sometimes very considerable and I should like to know whether, in some instances, it is 15 per cent, or approaching 20 per cent. If it does reach that figure at any college or university, it is very considerable. If people drop out, it is a matter for concern. They were selected because they qualified. I am saying that not only is it wasteful, but, speaking in human terms, it is also thoroughly had for most of the individuals concerned.
I doubt whether this wastage would happen but for the long lists of candidates for entry. It seems to me that there is need to provide, or to improve the provision, for changing courses or indeed colleges where an unwise first choice has been made. We cannot afford the wastage of rejection, and perhaps I may be permitted to say also that we cannot afford the wastage of selection either. We cannot be satisfied with the system that we have until places are available for all who are qualified. For this is surely the essential ingredient if we are to have a comprehensive system of higher education—comprehensive in terms of opportunity and availability of courses.
In this context, I find it disturbing that the proportion of students going to universities from the homes of men who are workers does not seem to rise in any significant way. I believe that this is a matter of concern, because this is an area of great potential. I think it was the Robbins Committee who remarked that if working class children get to A level they do not drop out. That prompts me to raise the issue of sixth-form grants. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is able to indicate that any consideration is being given to this matter, since it is vital, if we are to encourage young people to continue full-time study after compulsory school-leaving age. The nation needs all the brain power that it can develop. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government are reviewing, or will indicate that they are prepared to review, the question of parental contributions in regard to student grants. Now that we have raised the age of majority
1542
to 18, it is surely a little absurd that the position remains as it was before.
We are witnessing the development of polytechnics alongside universities, and there is some feeling that the distinction between them tends to reflect adversely on the polytechnics. Anything that can be done to secure equality of status is to be welcomed. Parity of esteem is not merely an ideal to be prized; it is a goal for achievement. By all means let us have a varied and differentiated system but a system within which there is equality in principle in terms of support and appreciation. Could we not have recognition that courses offered in different establishments are of full higher education status?
I began by saying that this debate gives Her Majesty's Government a timely opportunity to state their views and intentions. I should like to ask the Minister what estimate the Government have made as to the number of students likely to be qualified for higher education in the years 1981–82. The figures projected in this valuable little Penguin. Patterns and Policies in Higher Education, is of some 847,000. Do the Government accept that figure? Does that figure take into account the truly explosive effects of raising school-leaving age and of secondary reorganisation? I have a feeling that when we get to 1981–82 the figure is going to be much higher than 847,000. What are the student figures that the Government are working on for the next quinquennium; and what is the cash allocation for the universities to be? Will the polytechnics be treated in as generous a manner, in a manner that indicates parity of esteem? For it is by the treatment that is meted out that the impression as to whether one type of education is first-class and another second-class can be avoided. It is a very old saying that:
"He who wills the ends must will the means."
If this nation is to prosper and its people to be resourceful in their enjoyment of life in all its facets, then we must develop a system of higher education that is comprehensive in terms of intake and opportunities.
The Question suggests the setting up of a Committee. Committees can be used, and so often are, to delay. There are in this field of higher education matters

1543
which call fairly urgently for decisions, and these decisions fall to be taken by Her Majesty's Government. Rather than a Committee, I think it would be better at this stage if they told us what they intend to do in regard to numbers of students, finance, facilities and full use of existing resources; if they could give us something of a master plan, maybe by way of a White Paper. If they cannot do that, then there may be merit in appointing a Committee. But if a Committee is appointed, then one hopes that it will get to work quickly. There is a point that I think ought to be taken into account. It really is not so long ago since we had the Robbins Committee and the Robbins Report, and in so many respects that Report indicated the way ahead.
6.27 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I join in expressing gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for asking this Question, and I associate myself with him because I agree with so much, if not all, of what he said and the various criticisms he made. I must apologise to your Lordships if I am unable to stay to the end of this debate. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I had not anticipated that there would be so many speakers, and I am afaid that I have another engagement. Unless your Lordships have got into the habit that you so well started the other evening of getting through six speeches in 18 minutes (which must be a record for your Lordships' House) then, as I say, I may have to leave before the end of the debate. I do not think that I am going to be provocative, and I am certainly going to do my part to see that things are kept fairly short.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in saying that we must look at this in the context of higher education as a whole. I do not think we can take university education as it is, because it is part of a bigger scene. This field is vast, and I should like in my brief intervention this evening to take three or four points which seem to me to be causing concern to those who are involved in this work, and to suggest three or four possible remedies.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, in an interesting and important speech made
1544
recently to the University of East Anglia, warned us about too great a reliance on degrees and different classes of degrees. In a recent visit to a university, I enjoyed the kind hospitality of the son of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and was able to appreciate the enormous good work he was doing there. I was made well aware by a number of people of the perturbation of those responsible for the welfare of undergraduates of the number of undergraduates at universities who do not really want to be there but who have gone because of pressure, sometimes from their parents, and in some cases from their teachers and schools. I think that this is an unrealised problem, but it is one to which the universities are waking up more and more.
Another point raised recently is that there is a study by the group which produced the excellent paper Higher Education in the 'Seventies, which strongly made the point that persons wanting a higher education should not necessarily be confronted just with the choice of a three-year course or nothing, but that there is a considerable case for shorter courses. Another matter which seems to me to call for some concern is that of the difficulty of integrating the student in society. The student tends to feel rootless and uninvolved when he wants to be involved. I am sure that that is one of the reasons for the sometimes excessive reaction to political events and matters of the internal university order which characterised the university scene a couple of years ago and may well do so again.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, touched on the problem of the failure to provide higher education for the children of manual workers. To-day, the proportion of the children of manual workers who receive university education is about 25 per cent. That is not to say that 25 per cent. of the children of manual workers receive university education, but that 25 per cent. of the university population are children of manual workers. We may say that this is a great step forward, but the proportion is the same as it was in 1926. There does not appear to be much sign that it will necessarily be any different in another 44 years.
Although these may seem very separate problems, I hope to show your Lordships in a moment that they tie in together.

1545
One of the great headaches of the next few years is going to be the problem of paying for university education and higher education. I do not believe, any more than Sir William Alexander, that the sums of money mentioned in the White Paper on Public Expenditure for Education will cover the expenses to which the Government are quite rightly committed. We have underestimated, and we are still continuing to underestimate, what the cost will be. It is right that primary education should be given a priority by the Government, although I and some of my colleagues would prefer that pre-primary education ranked as high. There is little doubt that the priority headache of the present Government is going to be how to pay for and deal with higher education.
These are some of the points which are giving rise to concern, but taken together they point to a need for some radical rethinking of the higher and further education complex which is why, in slight contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I hope that another committee will look at the problem. The work of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and his colleagues, was absolutely first class. It is not all that long ago, but things have moved very quickly in this field, a lot of work has been carried out and a lot of problems and points have arisen since then. Such a committee might look at the difference between vocational and general education as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, suggests, not with a view to saying that one type of person should have a general education and one type of person should have a vocational education, but that eventually everybody should have both, and that you can do it more effectively, efficiently and more cheaply if you realise the difference between the two and plan accordingly.
Perhaps there should be less examinations and pieces of paper internally in the education system. Perhaps—as the professions do—employers should be made to do their own selection, instead of relying on the certificates which come out of the institutions of education. This would go some way to meeting my noble friend Lord Annan's point. Perhaps there should be more short courses in higher education, more sandwich courses, more part-time courses, thus giving a greater
1546
integration for the student in the community and in the nation. It might also help with the provision of education for the children of manual workers—witness the interesting experience of Bristol College of Science and Technology which, in the course of becoming the Bath University of Technology, noticed a falling off in children coming from manual workers' homes, not because of the higher education requirements, but because of the change of image and the type of institution that the college had become.
My Lords, these are just a few suggestions, but I hope that they will be enough to suggest that there really is a case for looking at the whole complex of higher and further education again, and that is why I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in asking the Government to set up a Committee.
6.35 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, first I should like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said about his recent visit to a university. I should like to assure him that at that university he left a very profound impression, and for days afterwards the students were still thinking about what he said and using what he said as material for those informal, and sometimes interminable, discussions of which students are so fond and which are so useful for the development of the academic mind at that age.
I propose to take up a rather different aspect of the question which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has posed. I wish to apply myself to the question of whether the exhibitions of student violence and intolerance may be taken as an indication that university education is not fulfilling the long-term needs of the nation as a whole. In the past year, student violence has been manifested in at least three of the Scottish universities, though perhaps not on quite the scale in which it has been happening in certain universities and polytechnics in England. Recently at Heriot-Watt University the final of a series of purely academic lectures on the international scene was given by the Chancellor of the University. The invitation to deliver the lecture was, however, based rather on the fact that he is the Secretary of State for Foreign

1547
and Commonwealth Affairs and has extensive experience of the problem. The title of the lecture was, "Britain and the International Scene".
The actual lecture was delivered in continuous noise created by a relatively small number of persons, some of whom shouted continuously. There was never a minute of the hour's lecture without uproar. In consequence, despite a microphone, the greater part of the lecture was unheard by the audience. The majority present—both academic staff and students—had to listen to slogans, many quite incomprehensible, some of them obscene to a degree, and some of them blasphemous. The lecture was concluded with an attack on the platform which was foiled by the police. An analysis of the situation disclosed that very few of the interrupters were students of the University. Subsequently it was discovered that several bus-loads of students had been brought in from other universities in Scotland, and from one in England. These persons gained access to the hall by means of forged tickets.
The point I wish to make is that only a very small percentage of students resort to violence. This is proved by the fact that in any one university the very few who support violence have to adopt the technique of "rent-a-mob" in order to gain the disruption by violence. What matters is that the 98 per cent. of students who are opposed to violence do nothing about it. Admittedly the vast majority are not interested at all in "demos" of any kind—peaceful or violent. They want to get on with their studies and the other more fruitful and beneficial activities of the healthy undergraduate—healthy, both in body and in mind; and this is understandable. But the 30 per cent. or so who involve themselves in the election of students' official representatives are in large measure to blame if their elected representatives fail to condemn utterly student violence in all its forms.
It is this 30 per cent. of students and their elected mouthpieces who make one wonder whether present-day university education is fulfilling the needs of the nation as a whole. To seek truth is the essence of the university; and truth can be discovered only where there is freedom of discussion, orderly discussion. Any denial of freedom of speech in a university
1548
spells doom, doom to the quality of its teaching; and denial by violence is fraught with the most grave national consequences. A very wise and experienced professor who was present at the lecture by Sir Alec Douglas-Home told me that it reminded him of a similar demonstration of student violence—similar even to the unkempt appearance of the demonstrators, tousled and unwashed, and without humour. That demonstration, my Lords, took place when he was a graduate student in Germany in the early 'thirties, and soon after it Hitler took over.
I suspect, but I have no proof, that those student hooligans who resort to violence are receiving grants from the State at an average appreciably above that of the majority of the students. If so, this highlights the Question we are debating. Certainly these hooligan students are contributing nothing to the welfare of the nation which provides them with a living as well as with an education. Certainly it would be a pity if the present appeal by the National Union of Students for a very substantial increase in student grants were to be turned down, or substantially reduced, because of these outbreaks of student violence by a very few. But we must recognise that public opinion is hardening against students and any increase in their grants. No other major country in the whole world makes such generous grants to its needy students, and grants on such a wide scale, as Britain does.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asks
"whether … university education is fulfilling the long-term needs of the nation".
My reply is that to a very large extent universities are doing so, but they are doing so at only about 70 per cent. of their possible efficiency. Moreover, universities are also fostering, albeit not deliberately, an academic bias which will certainly poison the well of truth. The universities, I submit, have as great a duty to protect the majority of their students as they have to care for the minorities. But, with all respect to the noble Viscount, I question whether we need a Committee to point this out. But I know what we do need: we need more resolution in combating violence and intolerance, resolution at all levels throughout the universities—students, staff and

1549
governors—and to that resolution I would add humour. In conclusion, I venture to quote from Samuel Butler:
"For Truth is precious and divine,
Too rich a pearl for carnal swine."
My Lords, rather than a Committee, we need courage to deal with carnal swine.
6.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I am sure I shall be voicing the opinion of the whole House when I say how much we have appreciated the speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, on one particular, important aspect of university life that receives a good deal of prominence in the Press and which can create a great deal of undeserved antagonism towards students as a whole. With other Peers, I feel we owe a debt to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for raising the important issue of university education at the present time, and for introducing the subject as he did. The form in which the Question is set must in the nature of the case make it an impossible one to answer with any degree of accuracy. The Question refers to "the long-term needs of the nation". That can be defined in a number of different ways: in terms of the nation's quality of life, the quality of life of all its citizens; in terms of economic prosperity and progress; in terms of unity within the nation; in terms of social and political awareness, and in terms of the opportunity for individual citizens to develop as fully as possible for their own self-realisation, and so to be in a position, if they choose, to make a positive and valuable contribution to society and to the world.
How far are universities contributing to these ends and to these needs? I do not think one could begin to give an appropriate answer to that question without first asking an underlying one to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred: "What are universities for?". The answer is often erroneously defined at the graduate stage as trying to match a planned number of trained graduates to a projected number of employment vacancies. This is, however, to take much too narrow a view of what university education is all about. The arguments here are sometimes clouded by the fact that some university courses provide not merely an education but also a training—for instance, in medicine
1550
or in law. But, although the element of training is in the last resort dispensable, for one can train elsewhere for medicine or for law, the element of education is strictly speaking indispensable; it is essential, independently valid, and the overriding purpose of a university course.
Essentially, this purpose is to teach a man or woman to distinguish the true from the false; the genuine from the spurious; the valuable from the meretricious; the significant from the insignificant, whereby he may refine his sensibilities, order his thoughts and exercise his powers of judgment and of expression to the point where he is capable of intellectual maturity. Whether this is achieved through the study of the law of tort or of Mediaeval French literature or of the molecular structure of proteins is in essence immaterial. The value of university education is to provide a basis to contributing in the student's work and family life without respect to the particular job that he or she obtains.
To this I would add a further purpose in universities; namely, to enable students to associate with others of their own age and with scholars and teachers in different faculties, so that they may at least obtain some concept of education and learning in its widest and most universal terms. Furthermore, the life and setting of the university should offer a wide variety of activities to create a stimulating social environment, without being isolated from the community as a whole, so that those who go to university may have the fullest opportunities of development as people. If these factors, or something like them, can be taken to cover what universities are for, this immediately raises the question as to who should be admitted to university education, how much will it cost and what results one might expect to find as a result of university education in terms of meeting the long-term needs of the nation. What I have to say in this regard excludes the important aspect of post-graduate research and the estimate of its contribution to the nation, and the relationship to its cost in men and women hours and in finance. I confine myself to students taking a first degree.
The Robbins Committee and successive Governments since that Committee made their Report have always attached great importance—with which I imagine all your Lordships would agree—to providing

1551
an education at university level, not necessarily in a university as such, for all who are capable of profiting from it, who are capable of completing it successfully and who wish to enjoy it. It has been the official view that to deny young people the opportunity to benefit from a university education or from an education at university level was both socially unjust and politically unwise. University expansion in the 'sixties was therefore designed chiefly on the basis of calculating from the growing future demand from suitably qualified sixth formers for university education. Both the overall student numbers and what is commonly called the student "mix"—crudely, the proportion of science based to non-science based students—are derived from calculations and projections of possible future demand.
But in relationship to what universities are for, this objective by itself is inadequate and fraught with certain dangers. We cannot do educational justice to students if the primary intention is to mould them to fit specific jobs. Faced with the challenge of the pressures of existing policies, universities, and particularly the new universities which have been established to provide for the rapid increase in student numbers, have achieved far more than is often attributed to them.
What is being asked of universities has, however, produced at least three major problems. First, the new universities have not always been in a position to provide a total university environment adequate for the rapidly increasing numbers entering these universities. In particular, there has been a lag within some universities in the provision of social amenities sufficient in quality, scope and size to keep pace with the annual increase of intake. Second, these universities have often not been able to provide or to find sufficient satisfactory living accommodation for students. Naturally it is the extreme cases where students are having to put up with squalid "digs", or accommodation too far from the university, which receive the greatest publicity. The proportion of students inadequately housed may not be large, but it is on a scale that is certainly worrying. And if at the present time that issue is worrying, further expansion is likely to make this particular aspect of accommodation an
1552
acute problem. I profoundly hope that the University Grants Committee may yield to what I understand has been the frequent request of Vice-Chancellors to allocate more money far student residences.
The third problem, which is natural enough in any rapidly expanding university situation, is the provision of courses which are suited to the particular qualifications and motivation of individual students, together with adequate contact on a personal level between teachers and students. University education will fall far short of the best unless those who teach not only are capable of teaching but also regard their responsibility to their students as having about an equal claim as their success and diligence in personal research. Here one may ask whether it might not be desirable, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has suggested, to give more flexibility to students to change their courses, particularly at the end of their first year, and even, if need be, to switch to another university if its courses are better suited to the interests of that student.
All these problems are understandable growing pains in a rapidly expanding university situation. They are responsible for at least some of the unrest and frustration experienced by a good many students, but not for the character of student unrest and frustration which has led to the type of violence which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to. If it be the case that by 1980 the number of young people who are likely to profit from a university education will be doubled, will the country be able to afford this without lowering the quality of education, including amenity and social facilities and the provision of further accommodation for students from central funds? If the standards are allowed to fall one can predict a large number of young people going to university, being frustrated when they get there and failing to benefit. In some cases this is undoubtedly happening at the present time.
There is a further cause of possible frustration if the increase in student places is pursued on the basis of present policies; that is to say, how many students emerging as graduates will find themselves frustrated by having come to university with wrong expectations about

1553
job possibilities after graduation, being led to expect that more prestigious and better paid jobs will result as a consequence of their getting a degree? There is already a good deal of anxiety among students at the present time about what the future may have in store for them in the way of worthwhile jobs when they come to graduate. It looks as if we are faced with a choice between frustration at the "in-put" end—sixth formers with adequate qualifications failing to gel a place—frustration during the university period because the facilities are inadequate or because the student is channelled into a course which is determined by factors other than the long-term intellectual benefit of the student, or frustration at the "out-put" end in connection with the jobs which graduates find.
My own view is that when the Government have decided how much of their Budget can be allocated to this vastly important factor of the nation's life—university education—the number of places should be determined by the maximum numbers commensurate with a university education of adequate and high quality—and here I particularly welcome the emphasis on quality which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—including amenities and social environment, and the number of students should not be increased to the detriment of the quality of the education provided. I believe it is in the long-term national interest to underpin the quality of university life in a setting which has regard not only to the intellectual needs of the students but to the spiritual, social and physical needs as well. A young person will be much better off with no university education at all than with frustration, disillusionment and apathy, which can all too easily result from inadequate provision within university life—a situation which is counter-productive on leaving university.
Priority must surely be given to the maintenance of the quality of university education and, within the conditions required for this, a sustained effort to provide as much finance as possible to increase the number of university places in order that the universities may be able to accept all, or as many as possible, of those who show that they have the capacity to benefit from a university
1554
education. I am referring solely to university education because this is the sphere of education to which the Question refers, and not to the many other important aspects of further education. Provided that the calibre of university education is adequate, I do not believe that graduates who fail to get what have been commonly regarded as graduate jobs will necessarily feel that going to university has therefore been a waste of time. Even with the disappointment of being unable to get the work they would like to do, they will be more likely to appreciate university education as of lasting value in its own right; and, if so, both they and the community will stand to benefit.
The last point I wish to make I will state briefly, but I think it is important. I am sure it will be in the national interest if those who are accepted for universities are encouraged and enabled to start their courses a year or so after leaving school. The intervening time could be spent in a number of ways which would help them to gain in maturity, in sense of responsibility and in breadth of experience, and thus to be in a better position to relate the opportunities of a university education to the objectives of their lives as a whole. I believe that Her Majesty's Government are giving some thought as to whether a feasible or acceptable plan can be found to achieve this, but I recognise that there are a number of problems and difficulties to be resolved if it is to be achieved. I hope, however, that, whether or not a broad-based Committee should be appointed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth has proposed, this last matter will be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government as one of the factors which could do much to enable young people from their university education to gain the greatest benefit and so make the biggest contribution to the life of the nation.
7.3 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, the noble Viscount who put down this Unstarred Question and gave us the opportunity of discussing this important subject referred, of course, to the objectives and aims of university education. In my view, nowhere have these been better presented than in the Robbins Report, and I therefore make no apology for quoting from it at a little length—and

1555
I can only say that I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has not put his name down as one of the speakers. The Report says:
"We deceive ourselves if we claim that more than a small fraction of students in institutions of higher education would be where they are if there were no significance for their future careers in what they hear and read, and it is a mistake to suppose that there is anything discreditable in this. It must be recognised that in our times progress, and particularly the maintenance of a competitive post, depends to a much greater extent than ever before on skills demanding special training. … While emphasising that there is no betrayal of values when institutions teach what will be of practical use, we must postulate that what is taught should be taught in such a way as to promote the general powers of the mind."
That seems to me to state very well indeed, and also to some extent to resolve, what I see to be the dilemma of university education in the practical technical subjects, and nowhere is that dilemma greater than in medicine. If most of my examples are derived from my experience in the teaching of medicine, it is only for the reason that I think it illustrates this dilemma between what is a good general education and what is a training for a practical art. What the Robbins statement means to me is that I am right to teach and to practise the practical arts within a university education, but in doing so I do not dogmatically instruct my students but teach them how to lead to their own conclusions. So much for the method in which the practical technical arts may be taught.
But as to exactly what should be taught we are in even more difficulty. Clearly the medical student must be taught certain scientific principles, and in some of these he should seek the opportunity of studying in depth, and developing, of course, the habit of weighing evidence, as an educated person and a scientific person should do. But on the other hand the doctor particularly, and I guess the lawyer, the clergyman and others, needs to know a little about a great many other things, and it is here I think that university education tends to fail.
It has been a notable experience since I joined your Lordships' House that a very large number of issues have arisen—I have myself taken part in the discussions:
1556
issues which are of great importance to doctors but about which in general there is no information given to students during their university education. Perhaps I exaggerate a little by saying no instruction is given at all, but very little. Subjects such as abortion, contraception, prevalence of bronchitis in coalminers, all these have been discussed in my time in this House; and also divorce, smoking, homosexuality, the facilities for the disabled, euthanasia, the misuse of drugs and the treatment of the dying. None of these are adequately covered in an ordinary university course on medicine. Neither are certain other important subjects, such as sex education, the ethics of human experiment and emotional factors in organic disease. I am not saying that nobody teaches these subjects, but I do say that on the whole the university teachers in medicine are not particularly interested in them and have little or no experience in them. I of course know that very few of our 25 or so medical schools are at present trying to remedy these defects in medical education.
What I feel to be this dilemma was summed up for me, when I was a member of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, in the words of one of our more scientifically orientated members, when he said to me, "After all, man is a chemical engine". How true, how splendid, how scientifically correct and how revealing, and how right that we should from time to time see man in that way! Man is a chemical engine. So, my Lords, is an amoeba, an earthworm, a dogfish; but what a horrible philosophy to teach the doctors of the future. Too long medical school education has taught of man as a machine, man as a corpse, but never man as an individual.
The difficulty is twofold, the teachers and the taught. Other noble Lords have referred to the fact that university teachers are not always selected by their ability to teach. Neither in my profession are they selected by their ability to practise medicine. I have many times been asked by notable universities to give a reference for an applicant to a chair of medicine in their medical school. I have been asked about the academic attainments of the candidate and how he would fit in with the university atmosphere; what kind of a colleague he is

1557
and, above all, what is his record in research. Hardly ever have I been asked whether he is a good doctor who will teach the right attitude towards his patients.
In the Royal Commission Report we heard a great deal about teaching subjects at university level; but I think a certain amount of nonsense can be made of this if it is carried too far. For instance, I personally believe that to witness the birth of a baby is a part of medical education which everyone should have, whatever his subsequent career is to be. But I never found the answer as to how babies are born "at university level", though I admit the sad fact that some of them are conceived on university premises. University teachers as a whole have an unfortunate tendency towards what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale (quoting, I think), referred to the other day as
"sheer technological arrogance, the very obstruction of wisdom."
Sooner or later the universities have to realise that, in addition to studies in depth, the doctor, the lawyer, the engineer, the theologian or the musician want a little knowledge of a lot of things—in medicine, such things as sociology, psychological factors in disease, and so forth. Yet if one tries to present these subjects at the level of informed discussion, rather than as studies in depth, only a small proportion of the students will turn up, partly because our examination system is such that they are far too impressed with the necessity for passing examinations and therefore less interested in any subject or discussion on which they think they will not be examined; and also, very importantly, because they are from the very beginning of their course conditioned to be interested only in certain aspects of medicine which happen to interest their teachers. Through this, there is a danger that by the time the students have finished their medical course they have been so indoctrinated in science that the inspiration and the compassion, and the zeal with which they entered the medical school, will have become dispersed.
My answer to the question raised by the noble Viscount is that I am not satisfied with the present-day university education as fulfilling the long-term needs of the nation; but I am not by any means
1558
certain that a broad-based Committee to investigate the question and to make recommendations would do very much good.
7.14 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I should like to express my agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in asking for a new look at our present university set-up and the direction in which it appears to be now moving in a fairly rapidly changing social and economic structure. I would ask those noble Lords who like myself can to cast their minds back to pre-1914 years, to the early part of the century. Those noble Lords will remember that the universities which have been described as "redbrick" were already well developed. During the inter-war years they continued to develop and many university colleges brought up under the tutelage of London University attained university status and, in their turn, became redbrick universities.
Then, in 1960, came that very high-powered debate on university education. This produced the Robbins Committee, which in due course produced the Robbins Report, which again in due course produced the great proliferation of new universities all over the country. Owing to the changing tastes in architecture I cannot call them "redbrick", but one might call them "glass and concrete".
It is interesting to notice that redbrick followed the academic pattern of the Oxbridge university year; that is to say, three terms—in the case of redbrick 10 weeks; in the case of Oxbridge 8 weeks—with something over four or five months of vacation. That university pattern was no doubt relevant to the social and economic structure of the 19th century, when many rich young men regarded a few years at Oxbridge as a sort of finishing school, and a few others, including a number of serious scholars who had come up the hard way, regarded Oxbridge as a training for one of the learned middle-class professions, in which case many of them did a great deal of work during the Long Vacation. It was always understood, for instance, in the case of Oxbridge Greats, which required the mastery of many texts, that these texts were read and

1559
digested during the vacation time in preparation for the lectures and tutorials to be attended during term-time.
That pattern of the university year was relevant to the social structure of the 19th century. It involved little or no public expenditure; it was not a burden on the taxpayer, and it brought into the orbit of undergraduate life only a small proportion of the 18 to 22-year-old age group, which is of course a vital and creative age group. Neither of those assumptions applies to-day. Our universities cost a great deal of money to the taxpayer, through the University Grants Committee, and to the ratepayer through local authority grants. Moreover, that pattern no longer represents that small proportion of the 18 to 22-year-old age group. I do not happen to have with me the figure, but it is a very much larger proportion of that age group than was the case when that pattern of academic life was perpetuated in the 19th century. What I am saying applies mainly to arts faculties, because in engineering faculties certainly (possibly this is so in other science faculties now) a lot of work is done on the shop floor with engineers, as part of the necessary university training.
I think it is true that with those who are now attending arts faculties of universities the real up-and-coming subject is sociology. In the debate in your Lordships' House on July 15 of last year sociology was described by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hungershall, as "that dreary, inexact, unprofitable and sloppy subject", which he contrasted with the "sharp discipline of science and technology and mathematics". I would query one of his adjectives: I do not think it is a dreary subject, certainly for sociologists, because it tempts the merest beginner to talk with exhilarating self-confidence about a very wide range of contemporary events.
That brings us back to this question of these protracted university vacations of five months in the year. What do the students do? They do all kinds of things. Some of them pursue the Oxbridge tradition; they work very hard indeed at their texts, often under great difficulty in homes where quiet times for reading are not easily available, and where often parents take the view that long university vacations
1560
are a kind of outsize school holiday during which money should be earned. Of course in many cases money is earned. It was recently remarked by the representative of the National Union of Students that it is less easy to achieve vacation earnings on account of the present high level of unemployment. In fact, among my own personal circle of my grandchildren's generation it is quite easy for the grant-aided undergraduate to make enough money to enable him to enjoy the amenities which his wage-earning contemporary is able to enjoy by paying for them.
Many students, for instance, work in garages; others go into catering establishments. I believe that during the summer season the restaurant of Chichester Theatre is largely staffed by students; and if that is the case it accounts for the very high level of service and politeness one finds in that place. Some of the students go abroad, adventurously trekking and hitch-hiking across Europe and into Asia. Many of them go abroad on assignments in order to assist undeveloped countries. Many of them accept the God-given opportunity (perhaps it should be called a State-given opportunity) to move about the country, demonstrating against any Government in any part of the world whose policy they happen to dislike—and even possibly their own Government. As I have said, I think that such activities make a particular appeal to the sociologists, who feel that they can talk with great self-confidence about the questions relevant to their demonstrations.
Now, my Lords, what is all this coming to? I am going to suggest that most degree courses, certainly in arts faculties, can certainly well be covered in two years. In fact, all of them were covered in my college during the war, and I do not think that academic quality suffered from the more intensive work which those shortened courses involved. It is natural that three or four years at a university on a grant is a very attractive proposition for a young school-leaver—even a young school-leaver who is not particularly interested in studying any particular academic subject in depth. Universities provide in term time a very agreeable life for students, and I think that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich

1561
can feel assured that student entertainment is well developed. Only last week I read that the National Union of Students were rather concerned because the half million pounds which was granted for student entertainment was eaten into by the exorbitant charges of "pop" groups.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I think "entertainment" was not a word which I used. I agree with her point. My concern was that, for instance, amenities such as a major place to eat at should be available to students when they start their courses. It was in its wider sense.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, we will take it in a wider sense to include facilities for games, sports, and debates in debating halls, which are all agreeable things which students do, and should do. Supposing that is the case, I think the verdict on our present university set-up must be that it involves a stupendous waste of buildings and equipment. Large acres of buildings, such as engineering buildings, physics buildings, chemistry buildings and common rooms, stand idle for about five months in the year. That applies also to halls of residence, except those which happen to be located in pleasant places such as London, Oxford or Cambridge, where letting is possible for conferences and for that reason expenses are held within check. But it does involve a terrible waste of buildings and equipment. When one compares that waste with the stringency under which hospitals work for fifty-two weeks of the year and twenty-four hours of the day, one feels that the priorities of our country are a little wrong.
In the debate in July last year the only speaker who mentioned the word "priority" was the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. None of the representatives of universities spoke or thought in terms of priorities. Naturally they were interested in securing what they regarded as necessary and desirable for the form of higher education with which they were especially concerned. One must realise that the universities group is a very strong group in this House—I suppose it is really the strongest single interest. It involves a large number of eminent college Principals and Vice-
1562
Chancellors, either regnant or retired, and a good many members and ex-members of the University Grants Committee, This tends to distort our priorities a little, and leaves one wondering whether more money should be spent, at the possible cost of the expansion of the universities, on our primary schools with their outsize classes, our Health Service, our Hospital Service, and especially on our over-extended Police Service, which is not even sufficiently manned to enable it to enforce motoring speed limits. Indeed, there have been occasions, such as were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, when our police force, over-extended as it is, has had to extend still further—as it did quite recently—to give protection to Mr. Amery when he was speaking at Sussex University on a subject that somehow involved him in the charge of being a "Fascist", whatever that may mean.
All this may lead us to the question, which several speakers have hinted at, whether we are overdoing what might be called the mystique of the university degree. Every college or institution of further education, owing to the competition of other such institutions, now has to press for university status and the right to confer degrees at the end of its course. That point was referred to by two speakers in the July debate. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has already been quoted. The noble Lord suggested that a university social service department was not necessarily the right place for young people seeking a qualification for the welfare work foreshadowed by the Seebohm Report. In the same debate, Lord James of Rusholme reminded us of the tendency to "equate the phrases 'higher education' and 'university education'". Are we overdoing the desire for a university course leading to a university degree? If so, what is going to happen to the value of a university degree? I will end by quoting W. S. Gilbert's phrase:
"When everybody's somebody
Then no one's anybody".
7.31 p.m.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, in my speech I shall differ in many ways upon things which matter now from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who has given me the opportunity to speak. There is, however, a matter of history on which I

1563
should like to add to what he said. For many years in our history education was enjoyed to a great extent by the aristocracy, but, if you go back further, it was not. During the Middle Ages, when our universities were founded, our aristocracy was in a delicious state of ignorance. Education was left to clerks and ecclesiastics. The aristocracy signed its name or, like Chaucer's squire, was taught fighting, carving, dancing and the arts of deportment.
Your Lordships' House is very fact-minded, in despite of which I am afraid that I have decided to give a speech in which there will be a good deal of opinion. I ought therefore to say that when I wanted to go to Oxford I was never examined in any particular subject. The dons decided to have me because of what I had said to them in a series of interviews. My invitation was a fluke, and in exchange for the work that I did for the course I got a bad degree. I have made this humble confession so as to disarm my critics, for whom too much opinion about our universities will be rather tiresome.
My contemporaries at Oxford had one of three attitudes towards their higher education. There was one small group, recommended by my Provost, Sir John Masterman, who came to the university so as to enjoy themselves before facing the hard economic realities of life. The existence of this group was fostered by the intellectual vanity of the other undergraduates. The chief point of difference between Oxford and the outside world is that at Oxford industry is not commended; it is actually despised for the slight which it casts on your native intelligence. If somebody gets a First even, the cry goes up that he worked so hard for it. Rather than get a First it is more respectable to take no degree, because that means you have not done any work at all. The young dandies who came up to Oxford to enjoy themselves were encouraged also by a pamphlet of Warden Smith called Idleness as Part of Education, even though the idleness commended to them in that pamphlet was of a rather special kind, quite different from what they had in mind. There was a strong flavour in them of the 1890s and the 1920s—the two eras were much alike in their frivolity—and the best favoured books
1564
were Zuleika Dobson and Brideshead Revisited. Under that literary influence, they ran up huge tailors' bills and took instruction to become Roman Catholic. I wish that the present Vice-Chancellor at Oxford would leave this form of higher education alone. Nobody should interfere with pleasure of this kind, which should be enjoyed by any who are willing to pay for it.
I remember another group among my contemporaries at Oxford who were there for the pure love of learning. They, again, were a small minority. Nearly everybody would agree that they, too, should be left alone. My attack will be aimed at the majority of undergraduates who, in the words of an eminent don, confuse learning with earning; who, supported by the public purse, come to the university so as to alter their own position in society. For the assignment of places in our society, examinations are not necessary. For the greater part of our history the most complicated tasks have been carried out by men who did not have to take examinations. In his Study of the British Genius Havelock Ellis has shown that of all our eminent men described in the Dictionary of National Biography some did not go to a university, and of those who did, few took any advantage of the education which they received there.
Within the space of a generation or two, the families of such men have always been able to enter the aristocracy. The insistence that we must have examinations to assist the rise of talent has been entirely psychological. Even though our aristocracy was never a closed one, like those of Venice or Japan, the element of heredity in it offended people's sense of equality. That shrewd observer of politics, De Tocqueville, remarked that people must have this equality at any cost; it means more to them than liberty or any of the other great liberal watchwords. The Left is coming to see that the achievement of such equality is something of a will-o'-the-wisp. Now examinations are criticised severely because it is their purpose to publish, with as much precision as possible, the extent to which we are not equal. There is another feature of our examinations which no psychologist can ignore: they are a Puritan thing. Education is not so popular in England as it is in Scotland

1565
and Wales, which are the strongholds of Nonconformity. The Scots and the Welsh love their examinations as an opportunity for the self-punishment which, in their religion, bites very deep.
I will show now how remote the subjective exercise of competing in examinations is from the practical task of selecting the right man for the right job. Often a course which an undergraduate takes at a university is in a subject which is not connected at all with what he intends to do. We are told, nevertheless, that this does not matter, as the course, whatever it is, teaches the undergraduate how to think, I do not quarrel with the idea that an undergraduate should be taught to think in a particular kind of way, if that is so that he may enjoy doing so. The Oxford way of thinking, so brilliantly recorded in Christopher Hampton's play, The Philanthropist, is most attractive. But as a preparation, in most instances, for the exercise of earning a living, it is a positive hindrance. I have witnessed the misery of my contemporaries at Oxford on this account, as they have for the most part ended up in commerce or one of the professions. Going into some commercial enterprise, many think there will be some opportunity for their original thought, and they are quickly cut to size. Going into one of the professions, they are bored to tears by preparing for an examination which demands the recollection of a great amount of detail, no imagination and hardly any analysis. A taste of that in law has driven some of my friends back to the university.
If, as in medicine or the law, the course which the undergraduate takes at a university is the same as his future source of livelihood, that does not make it any more necessary. Sometimes this is denied by an angry doctor who writes a letter to the newspaper saying, "How would you like to have your appendix taken out by somebody who had not been examined in how to do it?" The running, a few decades ago, of a good firm of solicitors shows, nevertheless, that the knowledge and skill needed for an occupation may be acquired perfectly well without any education. The purpose of the examinations in that profession was to establish who was eligible socially to become a partner and collect business as he went grouse shooting. Whoever took the
1566
examinations had to pay a large sum of money to his firm so that he might work for them for several years under articles. The only source for that large sum of money was hereditary. Meanwhile, the good repute of the firm rested on the work of the managing clerks, who never took an examination.
In this matter, the law does not stand alone. On January 31 an article in the Sunday Telegraph said that we ought to shut up all our colleges of education, as the only way to learn how to teach is to teach. It is suggested even that practice should form part of the educational courses themselves. In Scandinavia an Education Bank may be set up, which will enable any student to work in a concern without cost to himself, so that he can acquire practical experience.
The forms of education which I have outlined as so useless impose a hard sentence on the students themselves. Education is given now to the number of people who desire it, not to the number of those for whom there will afterwards be better jobs. Even though that is the principle of the Robbins Report, however, it does not prevent people who have been to a university from thinking that they should have the jobs for which such an education would once have qualified them. One female undergraduate who wrote to The Times in the autumn complained that for every job for which she applied there were between 40 and 300 applicants.
Of course, any of our students can go on to work for some further qualification so that they may then get the better kind of job. In America this pattern has prevented a man from earning his living until he is 25. In Italy, I am told, the age is 30. But up to those ages it is hard for students to marry; and whatever Government imitates these countries gives a public licence for promiscuity. If, on the other hand, our students do not continue with their studies, the consequences are even worse. The French and the Germans know how dangerous it is to put a large number of students into the difficulties of the female undergraduates I Lave just mentioned. They know that it is a classic recipe for revolution and a Fascist Government.
The thought of this brings me to speak of the other political consequences of our higher education. We are less prone to

1567
an awareness of such consequences than our neighbours on the Continent. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, the former Prime Minister and the authors of the Penguin Education Special believe that the University of the Air is not a political institution. But no matter what their motives may have been at the time of its inception, neither the former Prime Minister nor the noble Baroness can deny that the Open University has this same political consequence as the rest of our higher education. Our students acquire the shallow, rational 18th century habit of mind which, as the authors of the Penguin Education Special inform us, leads them to question our old institutions such as, I expect, the House of Lords itself. Such an attitude is not to be commended so automatically as the authors of that paperback would have us assume. Disraeli told us that our country is great because of its institutions. Many arguments for respecting the traditional flavour of our institutions may be found in the writings of Burke and the great, but rather forgotten, German school of history in the last century. I will merely say that for their survival institutions like the House have rested on one basis only—that of our consent.
There is another very sinister danger in our higher education, of which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has spoken, and in conclusion I shall support him. A week ago I listened to a fascinating talk which Professor Andreski gave to the Monday Club. It is for others to judge how gullible I may have been. I will give merely the gist of the information which I picked up from Professor Andreski and the members of the Monday Club who spoke when he had finished. We are here in Parliament to make laws. In our universities, a small group of students have broken the law and used violence so as to impose their will on the Vice-Chancellors. Even though they are under no legal obligation to do so, the Vice-Chancellors have given in to them, because the cause which the students say they represent is equality or some other goddess of the Left. Equality, however, is not what these students want; they have used its name as the technique by which to obtain power. The appointment of a lecturer
1568
comes up to be renewed. If the lecturer should not approve of sanctions against Rhodesia, or show in any way that he does not have Left Wing, Marxist inclinations, this small knot of students will not have him and the Vice-Chancellor concerned sees that his appointment is not renewed.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it would be interesting if he could inform the House of any specific instances when the appointment of a university lecturer has been vetoed by a group of militant students, and when the Vice-Chancellor has acquiesced in that veto.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, the difficulties under which I labour here are, first, that no such information of any specific instances was given at the Monday Club; and, secondly, that I think the members of the Monday Club said that in matters of this kind they were "clipped" a bit by the law of libel. They said as much.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think that is a little weak. The noble Lord has been challenged and he is not able to substantiate what he said. To suggest that the Monday Club may be limited by the laws of libel, and here to repeat what was said without making any attempt to substantiate it, appears to me to be a rather serious matter.
LORD SUDELEY: I concede that it is, my Lords, but may I say that I prefaced this part of my speech with the remark that it is for others to judge how gullible I may have been. I have spoken of how a lecturer has his appointment renewed according to his political views. By this means, the staff of the university comes to consist largely of members of the extreme Left Wing and Marxists. Because they are examined by such lecturers, the majority of students come to see that in order to qualify they must give a Marxist slant to their essays and examination papers. In this way the majority of students become indoctrinated. Because they possess the intelligence which enabled them to go to the university, some of these students will come later to take up key positions in our society.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I interrupt again? It is perhaps unfair to press the noble Lord, but I would

1569
urge that it would be of enormous intellectual interest if he would produce a single examination paper which has been thus influenced in any university in this country.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I remember the statement made by a member of the Monday Club, a Member of Parliament. He said that in this instance he could not mention which university it was, because he had to protect himself against the law of libel.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may comfort himself with the assertion that if that has ever taken place, which I rather question, it is the minutest exception rather than the normal practice.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I am of course extremely pleased to know that that is the case. I have little more to say. I was going to say that the political process which I have just described is familiar to us all. The extreme Left and the extreme Right are very close, and we do well to remain somewhere in the centre.
7.46 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, the matter raised by the Unstarred Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth, has so many important facets that it cannot really be treated adequately in a relatively short debate such as we are having this evening. Despite the distinguished list of speakers, there are some great educational guns not firing this evening, and I feel that the matter could easily have been the subject of a major debate in your Lordships' House. If it were, I feel that a conflation of the views expressed by your Lordships would be of the greatest value to those who are in charge of higher education. But I believe the matter demands a more prolonged examination than we could possibly give it here. Consequently, I feel that there is something to be said for a committee of the kind which the noble Viscount proposed. However, it would not only need to be broadly based, as he suggested; it would need to be immensely authoritative—as authoritative, indeed, as the Robbins Committee which has had such an immense influence on educational developments. It would not be an easy committee to select, but I should like the
1570
Government to give some consideration to the possibility of selecting it.
I intend this evening very briefly to consider only one of the very important issues which I believe this Question raises. The one aspect that I want to mention exhibits a highly desirable trend in higher education. To make my point, I want to interpret the noble Viscount's Question rather more broadly than perhaps he intended, and more in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, interpreted it. I want, in other words, to talk in terms not only of university education, but of higher education leading to a degree. There are to-day many higher education establishments, most of them called polytechnics, at which, under the general ægis of the Council for National Academic Awards—of which for some years I have had the honour of being chairman, and whose initials, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, are quite unexciting and extremely difficult to replace with anything more inspiring—it is possible to obtain degrees of the same standard as those obtained in universities. A large number of the courses leading to these degrees are of a particular character, and it is of that character I wish to speak. I am of course referring to sandwich courses.
In 1956 there was created the National Council for Technological Awards—the N.C.T.A. Its primary objective was to provide, in places of higher education which were not universities, awards of a standard equal to those in universities. The courses which grew up in the colleges under the N.C.T.A. system had two remarkable characteristics: they were all honours courses and they were all sandwich courses, and in the few years of the N.C.T.A.'s existence there was a tremendous growth of the sandwich course system, which had the enthusiastic support of large sections of industry. It was in this period, roughly 1956 to 1963, that the colleges of advanced technology (the famous CATS) were designated, and they matured on the sandwich system in a most satisfying fashion in that period. Incidentally, may I interpolate here, taking up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, that on the sandwich system expensive facilities were used to the utmost because both the sandwiches and

1571
the end-on system could benefit throughout the whole year.
In 1963 there came the massive Report of the Robbins Committee. This Committee said, among many other important things, that the system developed by the N.C.T.A. was so manifestly successful that it should be extended beyond the boundaries set by technology into other areas. In other words, it advocated that the sandwich system which had grown up in technological fields should be far more widely used. For this purpose, they proposed the creation of the Council for National Academic Awards—a body for which, during the whole of its existence, we have been seeking a better name, with no success. Secondly, the Robbins Committee said that the ten colleges of advanced technology had done so well under the N.C.T.A. system that they should become universities. They did in fact become universities, and to the best of my knowledge they have not significantly departed, in the fields in which they were operating the sandwich course system at the times of their charters, from that admirable system; that is to say, of the 45 British universities, 10 have a major operation in the sandwich course field.
In the polytechnics and colleges operating under the C.N.A.A. system to-day, there has been a growth since the C.N.A.A. started in 1964 from the mere 3,000 left after the creation of the ten new universities, which took most of our clients away, to nearly 24,000 to-day. Of this 24,000, 15,300 are sandwich course students, and the present rate of increase in the number of those students is over 6,000 a year. The most up-to-date figures I have been able to obtain for the sandwich course students in the new universities suggest that there are nearly as many there to-day as in the polytechnics, which suggests that the total sandwich course population at the present time is round about 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. of the total population aiming for degrees.
I believe that this trend, now so clearly significant, is wholly desirable. I do not think that all courses under the C.N.A.A., nor all courses in universities, should be sandwich courses. Obviously not. In some areas, in some disciplines, that would be quite inappropriate. But where the system can be applied I believe it is wholly beneficial. From the narrow professional
1572
point of view, it is highly desirable that when a young person gains a degree and is going into industry or commerce—and I am really dealing with the second of the noble Viscount's three broad headings—he or she should be instructed in both the practical and the academic aspects of their work. But—and this. I believe, is much more important; and here I really come to the third of the noble Viscount's headings—the sandwich courses give a wonderful opportunity for young people to learn not only how to think and how to apply their knowledge, but to learn about people, about industrial and business practices and about the need for organisation and discipline in the industrial life in which they are going to work.
A well-run sandwich course produces for business, for industry, for life itself, a maturer and more responsible individual than the majority of university courses. I do not mean, of course, that at the end of a university course a person cannot, by appropriate social contacts, gain what the sandwich course person has gained by the end of his course, but I say quite seriously that at the time of arrival for a post the sandwich course student is by and large the more responsible person. I am prepared to have noble Lords disagree with this view, and it could be suggested, in view of the interest I have disclosed, that I am not entirely unbiased. But as an industrialist—with another hat on, so to speak—I have long been confronted in technological fields with both kinds of product and I believe that my judgment is a dispassionate one.
Now the sandwich course system is developing satisfactorily in other than technological fields. Of the 15,300 sandwich course students I have mentioned as working under the C.N.A.A. ægis, 3,825 are on arts and social studies courses. Of these, admittedly 3,013 are on sandwich business studies courses, largely as a result of the recommendations of the very far-sighted report of Mr. Crick and his Committee in the same year as the Robbins Committee issued their Report, but I think there is a strong current flowing into other non-technological areas, such as public administration, town planning, marketing, sociology and law. It is really quite remarkable what is happening; and it seems to me, my Lords, that this is a movement

1573
strongly to be encouraged, not only in the polytechnics but in the universities. There is no doubt that the universities have had a tremendous and beneficial influence on the development of the CATS and on the development of the colleges which have become polytechnics. There seems to be equally little doubt that the sandwich course system can have a reciprocal influence on the development of universities.
The two ends of the spectrum of higher education for degrees are still perhaps quite a long way apart, but in the middle of the spectrum it is already difficult to distinguish between the newest universities and the polytechnics. Both are applying with great intelligence the sandwich course system. This, my Lords, is a situation which seems to me to be capable of most advantageous development. I believe that such development could be a major factor in eliminating the obnoxious elements in university life which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, so eloquently described.
7.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, in talking this evening I am running into that unpleasant experience that many journalists, teachers or politicians go through—the discovery that it is often easier to talk on things about which you do not know very much than it is to talk on things about which you are supposed to know a certain amount. I am a university teacher by profession, so I ought really to be able to enlighten your Lordships quite a lot. But, fascinated as I have been throughout this debate this evening, I am hesitant about my own contribution. In spite of this, I am grateful to be able to take part, and I thank the noble Viscount for the opportunity. If he will forgive me, I want to give him and the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, one small "donly" rap on the knuckles about the use of the word "Oxbridge". Where is it going to take us, my Lords? When I was working in America, even allowing for American raids on our language, we did not talk about "Berkstan" or "Harvale"; and I hope that in considering Government reforms we are not going to talk about "West-white", either.
I agree, however, with the noble Viscount about the perils of scholasticism, and what in America we used
1574
to call the "publish or perish" syndromes. I worked out, while I was there, that there were some 17 people being supported, at quite a good rate—with, say, two ranch cars and about 17,000 dollars a year—by the writings of Sir Philip Sidney alone; while I yield to none in my admiration of that great poet and gentleman, I am not sure whether he bears up to that kind of cost analysis. I disagree with the noble Viscount on his interesting point about what could be called the "Nicholas Nickleby" of the profession—the early appointment. It seems to me that the fact that in a modern university quite a lot of the undergraduate teaching load is taken by fairly young men, men fairly close to their own first degree work, which they must have done very well, is a way of bridging academic as well as emotional generation gaps. I think that to have gone through first degree work does not necessarily equip one badly for teaching immediately: it might even make one's teaching more succinct.
This generation gap was clearly not evident in what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. There was an inconsistency that I found in something he said. He talked about students being rootless and uninvolved, yet at the same time he argued for less focus on paper achievements, on examinations and work of that kind. One has sympathy with the idea of the absurdity, often, of examinations. I, as a tutor and lecturer, am impatient with the essay form. I find my students going through three years with all their work for me in this one form. I do not see why they should not make a speech to me or write me a sonnet instead of presenting me belles lettres. However, I must move to the right a little about the need for tasks. It seems to me that one must think of the right tasks, but that only through tasks is it possible to create the necessary self-esteem for fulfilment and to break down the rootlessness.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt. I would gladly write the noble Earl a sonnet, were it not at such short notice. The point I tried to make—I do not think it involved a contradiction—was that on one side there is a lack of roots for the student in the community in which he ought to

1575
be living. I certainly did not, on the other hand, want to do away with tasks as such, or even internal examinations. All I regretted was the tying of degrees and certificates so much to the market outside that the university is often doing the employers' work for them, rather than concentrating on education and the setting of tasks on education alone.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I have been working with a group in my university in discussions about examinations which one can take with books. Obviously, the pure testing of memory is not necessarily a testing of intellectual skill. But the great difficulty is that examination results to some degree must be negotiable tender. With the enormous body of scholarship and secondary material now written, one must be a very advanced don to keep track of cribbing. There are problems of this kind.
Another slight inconsistency came out in the speech of my noble friend Lord Balerno. He said squarely (and I do not mean that in a punning sense) that student violence was very much a minority affair. I am sure that in that we all agree with him. Yet I would be prepared to wager with the noble Lord, were he here, that his speech, more than any other, is the one which will be reported to-morrow. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, got to the heart of the matter and highlighted the differences between vocational and general education: and here I get on to my own theme. And I should like to compare my experience of the American system with our own in this respect. The question, it seems to me, is how much general education the universities should undertake. The old idea was that a university was a society of learned men, and those who would go up, were their interests primarily academic, would benefit from attending as apprentices to such learned men. They were not essentially teaching bodies. This is all very well if you can assume a very high standard of secondary education.
Although this debate is about higher education, I want—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would approve of this, as would my noble friend Lord Belstead, who is primarily interested in secondary education—to stress the connection
1576
between the standard in secondary education with first degree work. It was quite clear when I was a junior teacher at Harvard—and as a junior teacher I had people in the first two years—that the standard of entrance at Harvard was much lower than at my own University College in London. But Harvard was able to put its students through four years of first degree work, and after that time the majority of the bright ones would go on to vocational training, to graduate studies in arts or science, to business school, to medical school, to the excellent law school, and even to the school of government. It was not impossible for a graduate student at Harvard's school of government to spend his vacations working in the White House. There was that kind of "hot line" in operation.
Now we are better; but even though the Robbins Report was made nearly a decade ago, I feel for him and his Committee when he wrote:
"The institutions of higher education sometimes complain that too many entrants cannot express themselves clearly in English, have an inadequate understanding of elementary mathematical principles and have made no significant progress in any modern language."
One has experience of people coming into universities who would fit that description. As I say, there is a much higher incidence of such people in America; but there is more time and more money to do something about it.
I would say that we must constantly work away at our standards of university entrants. Any don rejoices to have students with some reasonable background with whom he can work. While the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench might agree with me, I must issue a caveat, again based on my American experience, about comprehensives. I am not dogmatically against comprehensive education—I know from experience that there are some excellent comprehensive schools—but my experience in America was (and I think that here I am in agreement with my noble friend) that one got another kind of selectivity. At Harvard certainly there were great problems arising over this. If you went to a local neighbourhood school in a professional middle-class district you had a good chance of getting into Harvard; and likewise if you went to a private school—what we call a public school. But if you went to almost any other it would be

1577
different. As a result, before I went there admittedly, the whole entrance requirement orientation of that university had changed. They were concerned not simply to take people on their academic merits but to "balance their books" to some degree. But the fact that they had consciously to choose certain students who were well below the standards of others points, I think, to a danger in the comprehensive system. I found in my own class that one might have two students in the front row, one of whom could not express himself in English at all and the other who you knew would be a graduate student. That was difficult to handle.
In America, more money was around. When I arrived at Harvard the investment account of that university had just hit 1,000 million dollars—and that would not take into account any questions of plant, Government grant for special projects, or the like. What we have to decide is what, given our realities, our economic crisis, our inflationary situation, we can do. My Lords, I want to close by saying this. I am very glad that, in spite of our situation, we are putting student needs and the question of student grants under review at the moment. There is no question that £420 a year does not sustain a life with any pretensions to leisure for intellectual activity and the like in London at the present time. This is really a problem. Many of my students coming to London University live out as far as Kent, and their commuter bills must be fairly considerable.
There is the question of academic salaries. Academics are realistic men. They know that in many ways their lives are privileged. As Lord Robbins pointed out, they can arrange their hours. They are not tied to office routines. They have a considerable degree of freedom to pursue their own interests. I do not think that they expect huge salaries. The same is true in America where they are highly paid by our standards. A professor at Harvard might earn, say, 20,000 dollars; but he would know that a dentist in his own home town might be earning 40,000 or 50,000 dollars, and he would welcome the difference. Nevertheless, my Lords, people at the head of my profession, who can enjoy their teaching or their research, also have very considerable chores of
1578
administration; and they are paid rather less than a junior Minister in the Government—and I am not one who thinks that junior Ministers are overpaid.
The third factor, and one to which I should like to give great emphasis, is the question of graduate schools. In an inflationary situation, with expansion cut back, one has, as it were, to spin a coin about choices. At the moment, I would pump any spare money that was going, or even money that I had to wrest from the Treasury—or that I had to ask my right honourable friend the Minister of Education and Science to wrest from the Treasury—into improving the quantity and quality of our graduate schools. It seems to me that we really need methodological skills for tackling our problems paramountly at this time.
This seems to me to be borne out by the connection that I make mentally, and perhaps emotionally, between the debate to-day and the excellent debate in your Lordships' House yesterday. I should like to close with two quotations from that debate. One of them comes from the speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Curnnor, who said that he believed that one of the gravest symptoms of our present national sickness (he was not meaning a cultural or spiritual sickness; he was talking about inflation pure and simple) is the falling away in investment and investment prospects. It seems to me that we still look on universities, on education, as a major national investment, perhaps the paramount national investment; and if we have to tackle one end of it, I think it should be the gradute end on which we should concentrate at this time. The second remark with which it would be appropriate to end comes from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who said that there could be no university, no institution for the purveyance of art, music or drama whose very way of life, whose planned existence, was not threatened by such a development—that is to say, by the development of inflation.
My Lords, one of the minor pleasures of this debate was to watch the exchange between my noble friend Lord Sudeley—who is a very old friend though not in the political sense—and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. Were the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, also a personal friend of mine, I could give him a long

1579
account of my noble friend Lord Sudeley's expertise and experience as a tease. I have never taken his opinions very seriously, and I would point out to him that this is a serious subject. I think it was Solomon Grundy who was born on a Monday and he did not have a very long life.
Finally, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked for a committee to review our needs in higher education. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Belstead feels about this, but I see no need for such a committee. We have a long way to go to implement the findings of the Robbins Committee and I think that work will stand us in good stead for at least another decade.
8.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, unlike the avid autograph hunter, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has not asked "how many" but "how much"; and in concentrating the attention of the House on the qualitative aspects of university education he has initiated a discussion on issues which do not always receive the attention they deserve. It is an essential principle that our universities, though considerably dependent on State finance, are autonomous institutions conducting their own affairs; yet a stimulating and constructive debate such as we have had this evening sheds welcome light on to higher education, and I will seek to reply to the main points which have been raised.
The noble Viscount spoke about three objectives of university education; first the training of future academics and research workers; second, the general training of the mind for the benefit of the individual and the nation; and thirdly, preparation for citizenship. Certainly the Government would not dispute the importance of these objectives. Indeed, I seek to reply to this debate bearing in mind that two of the four main objectives of Lord Robbins's Committee were instruction in skills suitable to play a part in the general division of labour in the country, and that teaching must promote the general powers of the mind, I suppose that traditionally the
1580
universities have supplied the country's trained graduate manpower. At one time, primarily, this meant the clergy; then a widening range of professional men and now the rapidly increasing needs of industry.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House have said that the university must educate as well as train and deliberately develop the critical faculties; and in a university surely there should be found an education in citizenship, whereby living in such a community the student may learn, perhaps unconsciously, to play a part in society. In expressing views about the training universities instil into students, some reservations have been expressed especially about Ph.D. courses. Your Lordships will know that many postgraduate students are supported by Exchequer funds, in some cases through the awards schemes of Government Departments, but more commonly through the Research Councils. Of these agencies, the Science Research Council disposes of by far the greatest number. In 1969–70 more than 7,000 students were reading for Higher Degrees or Diplomas supported by an S.R.C. award, compared with just over 5,000 students on similar courses supported by all the other Research Councils and the Education Departments of the two countries.
Following the Swann Report 1968, and Mr. McCarthy of I.C.I.'s study on The Employment of Highly Specialised Graduates, there was a move away from fundamental research and from training science-based specialists. In the current academic year, for every 10 new research studentships awarded by the Science Research Council about 7 studentships were given for advanced courses, and it is to be hoped that industry and the schools will benefit from this change in emphasis.
In addition, in 1968 the Science Research Council and the Social Science Research Council set up a Committee to encourage broader postgraduate training. To this end, a small number of research studentships have been allocated to experimental training schemes of this kind which were already under way at universities, including Aston, Imperial College, Loughborough and Stirling. Until recently the Joint Committee's efforts concentrated on introducing scientists and engineers to subjects such as economics, psychology, and sociology. It now intends

1581
to explore the converse approach of providing social science graduates with a useful training in science and engineering.
My Lords, the Social Science Research Council is, of course, the youngest of the Research Councils, and is conscious of the lack of systematic evidence of national needs in the Social Sciences. Last year it set up its own Working Party to consider the broad issues of postgraduate training as well as the Council's long-term objectives, and the most effective way to achieve them. In addition, no mention of this policy would be complete without acknowledging the work of the C.N.A.A., whose Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has spoken in the debate this evening. The C.N.A.A. has encouraged the development of courses which provide a broader study of science or technology, or, I think I am right in saying, with a mixture of social sciences. And there is no question in my mind that these courses appeal to many sixth-form pupils who would not choose a traditional degree course in science or technology. I think I am right in saying, too, that it was one of the concepts of the Robbins Report that girls either would or should increasingly demand higher education. I have some figures here to which I will refer in a moment.
The impetus, if I may say so, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, of sandwich courses, to which he drew attention this evening, is most impressive. It is a wonderful thing to think that, even if we stick faithfully to the terms of the noble Viscount's Unstarred Question, this evening we are still discusing 10 universities, as the noble Lord has made us aware. The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, is, I think, shortly giving up his chairmanship of the C.N.A.A. I am not sure whether this will be the greater loss to the Council or the greater gain to industry, where I believe the noble Lord is returning.
Suggestions have been made that there is a growing tendency for industry to place less value on university training, except for certain science and maths specialists—at least, this is the way that I read the noble Viscount's remarks—and that more should be done to train students to sift and weigh factors and reach valid conclusions. While the broad objectives of university education remain
1582
unchanged over centuries, the demands constantly change. In the 19th century it was traditional to service Church and State and to man the established professions. Now we are in the middle of an unparalleled technological revolution. I must say that, as I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, I could not but reflect that industry now has assumed its role as a vast employer of our most able and skilled men and women, and demands that common sense and basic knowledge should be supplemented by highly developed skills and techniques. For the university this requires, to say the least, considerable flexibility and capacity for adjustment.
There is in fact a growing awareness within the universities and industry of what each has to offer, and the Docksey Working Party on Universities and Industrial Research paid tribute to the needs of the other. The fact is that it is increasingly difficult to-day to turn out specialists and give them a broad, liberal education; and those who are facing this problem, be they universities, polytechnics, colleges of further education or all those who are collaborating from industry, deserve our good wishes for success.
But, my Lords, I would suggest that we should not make too much of the thesis that study in depth produces narrowness of mind. For surely a great strength of the British people has always been their adaptability. I remember many years ago at a dinner in Oxford having the Nuremberg war trials explained to me in the greatest detail by a quiet, studious individual, who had, I knew, special responsibilities for overseas students at the university. It was only later that I discovered that this academic to whom I had been talking was none other than Brigadier Williams, former member of Field Marshal Montgomery's staff, whose brilliant analysis of the unusual dispositions of German and Italian troops at Alamein had been a major factor in the successful delivery of the final blow in that battle. Appearances can be deceptive. We were led, after all, in the last war by a C.I.G.S. who was a great soldier and a man who had lost his heart or his life to bird-watching. This afternoon we have been addressed by a Polar explorer who is also a Bishop.

1583
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, suggested in his speech that many students may find difficulty in working efficiently alone. If this is so, they are perhaps not so very different from previous generations. Our older universities always realised this, and both Oxford and Cambridge provided a supervisory system which through regular essays, "sonnets" and discussions subtly yet firmly guided us along the path of independent study. So students to-day need similar opportunities, even if expanding numbers may require more cost/effective teaching methods. This was something to which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, referred on July 15 in the debate on his Motion on higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, also spoke briefly on it this evening; and on this subject I entirely agree with what has been said.
I would acknowledge that the Schools Council's most recent survey suggests that some sixth form pupils do find a strain in the transition to university education. The factual content of many A-level courses is considerable, but I think it is vital to remember that the percentage of young people with qualifications for higher and further education steadily increases, and gives no credence to any suspicion that pupils to-day are somehow less self-sufficient than they formerly were. They may need less, not more, specialisation: and here I would draw your Lordships' attention to the action of the Schools Council, which has specifically asked its two sixth form working parties to take account of the desirability of broadening the scope of sixth form study. What effect this will have ultimately on examinations no one can yet say, although Lord Gowrie's reminder of the four-year United States course is a factor which surely must be borne in mind.
But the possible effect, with the agreement of the universities, who are represented on these working parties, was summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in the debate on July 15 last, when he reminded this House of this passage from his Report:
"… we should not recommend so large an expansion of universities as we do unless we were confident that it would be accompanied
1584
by a big increase in the number of students taking First Degree courses."
I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and I hope that perhaps he, the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, who briefly mentioned the matter, will forgive me if I do not precisely follow them in any argument on social matters in universities. What I should like to say is that it seems to me that the present generation of university students probably have more opportunity of acting and thinking independently than earlier generations did. The rights and responsibilities of citizenship are acquired now at a younger age, and sometimes this leads to reflection on whether this can be accounted such very good fortune for the present generation. For many people university is the last opportunity to explore all the thousand and one things that young people feel the need to discover before the everyday responsibilities of life are theirs.
Yet I acknowledge that it is a matter of fact that to-day many students wish to handle matters related to welfare, recreation and student activities, and to have an effective voice in the management of their institution. Also, with some responsibility for the youth service of the Department, I see some part of the voluntary work which takes students to-day beyond their college boundary. Such things as student community action in London, and similar work in Birmingham, remind us of the large number of student groups who raise money for charity, visit hospitals and prisons, help the disabled, and work with the young, elderly or handicapped. I suggest that this is relevant to the needs of society to-day, and relevant also to this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me several questions as did other noble Lords. I hope that they will not think it discourteous of me if I attempt to answer only some of them. I listened to what the noble Lord said about polytechnics and their supreme importance. I would simply say from this side of the House that we are very glad, as the Government, to have been able to authorise an increase of £2½ million in the polytechnic building programme. The interest of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been demonstrated in the continued designation of more polytechnics in the last eight

1585
months. I welcome this opportunity to recognise the work which is being carried on by local education authorities, governors, staffs and all connected with the polytechnics.
The noble Lord also brought up the subject of admissions of women and girls. Admissions roughly correspond to the proportion of applications. On wastage, the general figure of wastage in universities is about 13 per cent. I must say that I thought it was lower. I am advised that it is about 13 per cent., which, by international standards, is low.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether that is an average figure? If it is, clearly it would be higher in some instances.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, yes, I am advised that that is an average figure. If one is casting about, and I think the noble Lord in his speech was, for ways in which this figure can be reduced or wiped away, there is the idea of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, for the deferred year. I listened with the greatest interest to the right reverend Prelate, and certainly acknowledge on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there are educational and economic arguments in its favour, and the hope that a deferred year might provide opportunities, for instance, for increased voluntary service. The view of the Vice-Chancellors was canvassed on this matter, and I think I am right in saying that the answer was that this concept should not be regarded as appropriate for all students in all subjects. The Government are seriously considering the matter—the right reverend Prelate was quite right about this—and will take into account varying views, including those of students.
An extremely interesting article has been written by the National Union of Students on this subject. If the right reverend Prelate would forgive me, I would prefer not to be drawn further on the matter excent to give the assurance for which the right reverend Prelate asked, that this factor will be taken into account in planning higher education for the future. The parental means test, about which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy asked me, is under consideration. I think I should inject into the debate the fact that its absolute
1586
abolition would mean a loss of something like £35 million to £40 million to the Exchequer. The noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate will remember that the Department's planning paper gave a total student population of 840,000 for 1980. I think the noble Lord said 1981–82.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 1981–32.
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes. This was a projection and not a policy decision, as has been made clear in the House before. The provisional decision on grants for the first year of the next quinquennium should be made by the end of this year, and the final quinquennial settlement of 1972–77 ought to be reached by the autumn of 1972. If that is so, this will be the same timing as it was for the previous quinquennium. I would, therefore, put it to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that whereas this is an admirable moment for political pressure, it is not a suitable moment to canvass conclusive Government pronouncements. The noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, brought up the subject of the under-use of buildings and equipment. This, again, was one of the 13 points that was put to the Vice-Chancellors in 1969. They broadly accepted that concept. The implications are: more intensive use of buildings and equipment; possible reorganisation of the academic year and more sharing of adjacent institutions. All I can say this evening is that it will be interesting to see how this concept, which has been broadly accepted, works out in practice.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, and more sandwich courses. That would have at least the same effect.
LORD BELSTEAD: And more sandwich courses. The noble Viscount, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred to teaching standards. There are sometimes criticisms of teaching standards, not least from the students themselves, who are, after all, the consumers in this matter. This is not new. What I think is novel is the growing practice of the universities, with the encouragement of the University Grants Committee, to try to provide systematic training in teaching for academic staff. The results of an inquiry just over a year ago showed that more than half of the universities had training courses of some kind, either working or planned. One particular

1587
aspect of this question is the growing importance of educational technology, which cost effectiveness must surely at least hasten. As a practical measure, what the University Grants Committee have done is to select eight of what they call "high activity centres" in universities to carry out research into the best ways of using various media. I am sure, too, that the Open University is going to contribute quite a lot in this regard, not only because of its new techniques but because it subjects the teaching of its staff to public scrutiny.
The noble Viscount also questioned the appointment of university staff before they had sufficient experience in another job and of the outside world. I would approach this matter from a rather different standpoint from that of my noble friend Lord Gowrie. I would certainly agree with the noble Viscount that it is highly desirable for a teacher to bring to his work knowledge which may broaden the mind and experience which can strengthen convictions. Yet we must beware following this through too far, lest it lead to objecting to the employment of any newly-trained graduate in any occupation at all. The higher education research unit of the London School of Economics carried out a survey, published in Report No. 145 of the National Board of Prices and Incomes. The noble Lord may be glad to hear that out of a sample of between 300 and 350 successful applicants for lectureships in 1968–69, over 16 per cent. came from industry or other careers, and a further 11 per cent. had experience of universities overseas. As many as 55 per cent. could not have been appointed immediately after graduation since they held doctorates or other high degrees. Civil Engineering was notable, in that it found 60 per cent. of its recruits from outside education. This was an interim report, and the final analysis will be of interest to the House.
Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth, has asked for a Committee to investigate whether universities are fulfilling the long-term—
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord before he comes to his final point, whether he, has anything to say in regard to the point that I suggested about more
1588
money for student residences, as the expansion increases, from U.G.C. funds?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. I think the answer is that student grants are under close consideration, and if there is to be a change in the grant this will be from September, 1971.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, my point was not about student grants, but about grants for residencies—that is for actual buildings for accommodation. I gather that recently some allocation has been made from the U.G.C. in certain instances, but I believe that there is great pressure from Vice-Chancellors that the amount should be increased.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry to have misunderstood the right reverend Prelate. I remember when he made that point seeing nods of approval from all sides of the House. Once again I have, somewhat lengthily, gone into the question of the chronology of the forthcoming quinquennium, and I am not in a position this evening to make announcements ahead of what my right honourable friend may be saying. If I have any further information on the point I will write to the right reverend Prelate.
Finally, the noble Viscount has asked for a Committee to investigate whether universities are fulfilling the long-term needs of the nation. I would not want the noble Viscount to think that this has not been considered deeply while preparing for this debate. Indeed, it has not been possible for me to listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich without appreciating all that this aspect of higher education can imply. At the same time, the University Grants Committee recognised from the start of university expansion in the late 'fifties that a broadening of undergraduate education would be needed.
As recorded in their survey of the quinquennium, 1957–62 (Cmnd. 2267) they found this trend of thought to be held in most universities, with increasing emphasis on courses leading to joint or general honours degrees. The Committee welcomed this at the same time as they recognise the danger of losing too much of the value of study in depth. And in

1589
their Report on the previous quinquennium, still as long ago as 1957, the U.G.C. had asked the universities to consider what they were trying to do with the students entrusted to them; what qualities of mind they should develop; whether the courses offered and the kind of life the students live would develop these qualities sufficiently.
In 1962 the Committee recorded that they had found almost everywhere the fundamental thinking which they had urged five years earlier. Then in 1967 the U.G.C. again pointed to the need for greater flexibility in courses, for some diminution of the intensity of specialisation and a conscious effort to foster the training of more graduates with a general competence over a reasonably broad field of associated studies. I hope your Lordships may agree that it is clear from our debate to-day that the U.G.C.'s words over the last decade and a half have not fallen entirely on barren ground. In the past ten years or so, the Robbins Report has led the way for a constant outpouring of valuable reports dealing with various aspects of university and higher education, many with a bearing on the issues raised by your Lordships in the debate this evening.
Any Committee, my Lords, however broadly based, would be hard put to discharge the immense task which the noble Viscount and other noble Lords this evening envisage, and I am convinced that it would inevitably duplicate the vast amount of work which has been done. Critical examination is good for us all, but it is in the universities, above all, that we are likely to find critical faculties developed to the highest degree. So, in resisting this call from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, this evening, I trust that he will not underestimate the value which Her Majesty's Government place on a debate of this kind, and that he may agree that the constant process of interaction which prompts society to define its needs more precisely brings a response from the universities which is both flexible and vigorous.

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOM AND EXCISE) BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment to be printed.
  CONTENT OF ANIMAL FOODS
  CONTENT OF ANIMAL FOODS
  PRINCESS MARGARET ROSE HOSPITAL: THEATRE FACILITIES
  PRINCESS MARGARET ROSE HOSPITAL: THEATRE FACILITIES
  GIBRALTAR: AVIATION CONSULTATION
  GIBRALTAR: AVIATION CONSULTATION
  THE KING'S NATIONAL ROLL
  THE KING'S NATIONAL ROLL
  SNOWDONIA NATIONAL PARK
  SNOWDONIA NATIONAL PARK