Sitting of 9 March 1971

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
IPSWICH DOCK BILL [Lords]
TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
TRENT AND LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords]
TORBAY CORPORATION BILL
As amended, considered.
Bills to be read the Third time.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    Bills to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Special Drawing Rights
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representation he has made to the International Monetary Fund in regard to further issues of Special Drawing Rights.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): None, Sir.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Agreement which permitted the I.M.F. to issue these documents was nothing less than a licence to print money? Recognising the inflationary effect of this, will he use his utmost endeavours to see that no further issues of Special Drawing Rights are made until we have returned to a far greater degree of stability in the values of the world's trading currencies?
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend's views on this matter are well known, but I am afraid that I cannot go along with him. I take the view that the S.D.R. scheme provides a rational method of meeting the world's needs for liquidity. One must obviously consider the circumstances from time to time. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the allocation for January, 1972, is already fixed, and we shall have to consider in due course the position for January, 1973.
    Mr. Cant: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the views of certain central bankers in Europe that the existence of a continued and massive dollar deficit in the balance of payments constitutes a threat to the continued existence of these S.D.R.s?
    Mr. Barber: As I have already said, the allocation for January of next year has already been made and decided upon. In due course the Executive Board of the I.M.F., which considers these matters, will no doubt take into account the sort of point the hon. Gentleman made.
    Mr. Nott: Is it not possible for the countries which have agreed to the further issue of Special Drawing Rights to

    219
    change that arrangement? International liquidity is increasing extremely quickly as a result of the growing dollar deficit. Does my right hon. Friend believe that it is in the interests of this country or of any other Western European nation for this paper to be increased?
    Mr. Barber: I would certainly not wish to propose any change in the allocation for January, 1972, but I would expect the total amount of world liquidity available to be a determining factor for 1973.

    Taxation Tables
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with his Budget, he will publish tables showing the net effect of the direct taxes on income at the rates proposed, family allowances and National Insurance contributions over a standard range of incomes and family circumstances.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): When changes in personal taxation are proposed in the Budget, tables are usually published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report to show their effects on taxpayers in different circumstances. To take other factors into account would mask the effect of the tax changes and make the tables unduly complex.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my hon. Friend encourage his Department, in approaching the subject of the reform of pay-as-you-earn, to recognise that it is dealing not simply with a fiscal problem but with a matter which has social implications in the very widest sense?
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend can rest assured that the Department is aware of this. It is simply that publishing a large number of tables with a very large number of variations would make the document unduly complicated.

    Wines and Spirits (Duties)
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what non-Departmental advice he has received as to the effect on the revenue arising from a decrease in duties on wines and spirits.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Wine and Spirit Association has suggested that a 10 per cent. reduction in the duties
    220
    would result in a slight increase in revenue.
    Mr. Cronin: Is it not a fact that a reduction in these duties would have a very slight effect on Treasury receipts but would, at the same time, produce a decrease in consumer prices in a psychologically important area? Would this not be an appropriate action to take in the present conditions of the wage-cost inflationary spiral?
    Mr. Macmillan: I will note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, as I am sure that my right hon. has also done.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend take into account my view, as one who has interests in hotels and restaurants with bars, that what his Department regards as a slight improvement would be to the industry a very considerable improvement?
    Mr. Macmillan: I have little doubt of my hon. Friend's special knowledge in these matters, both subjective and objective.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the number of my constituents who are sick, elderly and poor who are constantly being advised by doctors that a drop of whisky would do them the world of good? Is there anything that he can do to aid my constituents to come by the necessary at the right time?
    Mr. Macmillan: This is another aspect of the matter and one which I agree is not unimportant. I will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

    National Expenditure
    Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available estimates of the percentage of national income to be taken by public expenditure in the years 1969–70 to 1975 as in Command Paper No. 4578, compared with estimates for 1968–69 to 1973–74 as in Command Paper No. 4234.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The outturn for total public expenditure in 1969–70, given at 1970–71 outturn prices in Cmnd. 4578, represents 50·5 per cent. of gross domestic product at factor cost for that year. The corresponding percentages based on the figures for 1968–69 (provisional outturn) and 1969–70 (estimate) in

    221
    Cmnd. 4234 are 51·2 per cent, and 51·4 per cent, respectively. Figures for later years are not available.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the difficulty of making estimates for later years and the high proportion of G.N.P. going to public expenditure in the years he has mentioned are an indication of the lack of growth in the economy? Therefore, how can he have meaningful discussions with the T.U.C. about the course of public expenditure and about controlling wage inflation and price inflation unless he can give meaningful estimates of growth in the economy?
    Mr. Macmillan: The discussions between my right hon. Friend and the T.U.C. are not a matter for me to deal with. The changes in percentages are mostly accounted for by shortfall. We have deliberately refrained from presenting our public expenditure plans in relation to target rates of future growth in the economy because of the total failure of that presentation when attempted by the previous Administration.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the criticism from both sides of the House in the recent debate of the Government's failure to publish the revenue details in the White Paper, have the Government reconsidered their decision and can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that they will include revenue figures in future White Papers?
    Mr. Macmillan: I have certainly discussed and considered with great care the question of the publication of revenue tables in a White Paper on public expenditure. Everything has led me to believe that the Government are right in their course and that a White Paper on public expenditure is not the place in which to publish future projections of revenue.
    Mr. Emery: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there will be serious criticism from this side of the House if, in the years ahead, whatever estimates he has published or not published, the percentage of G.N.P. which is going to public expenditure is not considerably reduced from the immensely high figures which have prevailed in the last few years?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter back from the realms of figures to the realm of
    222
    fact. I assure him that the Government are well aware of what he said. The figures I have quoted apply to conditions before the present Government's change of policy has had time to take effect.

    Rolls-Royce Limited
    Mr. Robert Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount of extra taxation paid by Rolls-Royce Limited as a result of their decision to capitalise expenditure on research.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I cannot disclose the taxation affairs of particular companies. But, as a general proposition, it does not follow that a company's tax liability would necessarily be increased if it capitalised its scientific research expenditure.
    Mr. Taylor: I welcome that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that the practice of capitalising intangible and nonrealisable assets should be strongly deprecated by shareholders and employees alike?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is not for me to comment as between company and shareholders. As for the revenue treatment, it is clear, and has been since 1962, that capital expenditure qualifies for 100 per cent. scientific research allowance, that therefore there is no real advantage in capitalising, and that this need not necessarily lead to an increase in tax liability.

    Value-Added Tax
    Mr. Moateasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the rate of value-added tax, to which the United Kingdom would be required to conform in adhering to the Treaty of Rome, has yet been agreed.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Not yet.
    Mr. Moate: Whatever rate is decided, would it include food? Is my hon. Friend aware that following the introduction of this tax in Holland, prices rose by 5 per cent. in just three months?
    Mr. Macmillan: As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the record of price rises in countries which moved over to value-added tax is very varied. In some countries prices rose.

    223
    In some they did not. It depended on the rate and the coverage of the tax. In Europe neither the rate nor the coverage of the common Tax has been decided.
    Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are still awaiting the report which the Conservative Party put in preparation prior to the election and which has not yet seen the light of day, at least in public? When shall we have the Conservative view on the value-added tax?
    Mr. Macmillan: The value-added tax is now being studied on its merits in the context of our review of the whole taxation system.
    Mr. Moateasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the possible cost to the United Kingdom of paying a 1 per cent. value-added tax to the Community, under the regulation of the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: No such estimate can be made at this stage. The Community financing arrangements envisage a contribution from Member States after 1st January, 1975, of up to 1 per cent. of a V.A.T. on a harmonised base, but this harmonised base has not yet been agreed.
    Mr. Moate: An estimate was published of 1 per cent., producing a total of £230 million, in the last White Paper. Is my hon. Friend aware that the liability to pay an amount of up to £230 million would mean that the British taxpayer would be paying more to support French farmers, on this one item alone, than he would be spending on official aid to the under-developed countries? Is not that a rather distorted order of priorities?
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept the relevance of the figures so far quoted. In practice any contribution from value-added tax depends on the harmonised coverage, which has not yet been agreed, the exact rate, which need not in fact be as high as 1 per cent., and the percentage share, which would govern our total contribution to the Community funds. None of these has yet been agreed. Therefore, any estimate which is now made can only be misleading.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British people would
    224
    regard it as a piece of duplicity to have S.E.T. abolished and to have a value-added tax put in its place?
    Mr. Macmillan: The Government, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, are committed to abolishing selective employment tax. We are also studying the question of a value-added tax. I do not accept that this would be regarded as duplicity. It might be disapproved of, but it would not be duplicity, because we have made our position clear on both these points.

    Taxation Policy (Low-Paid Workers)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will recommend the appointment of Select Committee, Royal Commission or other public inquiry to examine taxation policy from a comprehensive viewpoint, in the light particularly of the high marginal rates on the low-paid worker.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the combination for the low-paid worker when he increases his wage of a low-tax threshold, higher graduated insurance contributions, and the loss of means-tested welfare benefits forgone can involve him in a higher marginal tax levy than that borne even by the richest tycoon? As the imposition of the means-tested family income supplement and the means-tested housing allowances on top of this situation will make matters a great deal worse and will push the marginal tax rate beyond 100 per cent. in hundreds of thousands of such cases, what does the Minister propose to do to alter this intolerable disincentive to the low-paid worker?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman made a very long speech about that on Friday, of which I read every word. The Government are well aware of the general point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention on a number of occasions. It is forming part of our general studies of the problem of poverty, the results of which will be laid before the House in due course.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has my hon. Friend considered the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure with regard to the scrutiny of taxation? Is he

    225
    in favour of the Committee's findings being adopted at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend knows, those recommendations were made only a few days ago. The Government have them under urgent study.
    Mr. Taverne: As the Government's policy of more use of selectivity necessarily implies a high marginal rate of implicit tax, could the hon. Gentleman explain on this occasion, since he has failed to do so in the past, how that is reconcilable with the Government's stated policy of giving more incentives to the higher-paid?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have never sought to conceal from the House or from the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a problem here. What we have said is that this is a problem which is receiving urgent and continuing study in the context of our general study of poverty.

    Variation of Trusts Act, 1958
    Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to amend the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958 to prevent its manipulation for estate duty avoidance purposes that contravene the public interest.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm an expert opinion that fully 95 per cent. of private discretionary trusts are at present taken out purely for tax avoidance purposes? Will he estimate the amount of revenue annually lost to the Exchequer through these devices, or if that information is not at present available, will he commit his Department to find out as soon as possible? Finally, will he implement the recommendations of the last Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income that private discretionary trusts should be deprived of their unjustified tax privileges so as to stop this massive cheating of the State by the rich?
    Mr. Jenkin: The answer to all three parts of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is, "No, Sir".

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to
    226
    make a statement about current discussions between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community about the future of sterling.
    Mr. Shoreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has now had or proposes to have with the European Economic Community about the problems of sterling and the sterling area, if the United Kingdom were to join the Common Market.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions have taken place between the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom with a view to discussing the future of the sterling balances.
    Mr. Barber: Such discussions have not yet taken place.
    Mr. Deakins: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the results of these important discussions will be laid before the House before the House is invited to make up its mind on the question of Britain's entry into the Common Market?
    Mr. Barber: The discussions are bound to be confidential if they are to be of any use.
    Mr. Shore: The Chancellor will be aware of certain statements made by President Pompidou a week or two ago about, as he saw it, the incompatibility of Britain retaining its obligations to the sterling area with the new obligations it would enter into if we were to join the Common Market. Surely, the Chancellor will not simply say that he will take on new obligations without attempting at all to harmonise our present obligations with the new ones which he proposes to undertake? Will he not, as my hon. Friend suggested, make a statement and clear this question up before he brings these matters to a conclusion?
    Mr. Barber: It is because there is some misunderstanding about the rôle of sterling and the way it fits into our joining the European Economic Community that I look forward to the discussions which will in due course take place, for I believe that they will show, and will convince people, that there is no so-called problem of sterling in relation to our joining the Community.
    Mr. Turton: In the discussions, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at present about 25 per cent. of international trade is conducted in sterling and, therefore, any diminution in the sterling area would diminish world liquidity?
    Mr. Barber: Over the long term, the rôle of sterling and its relative importance have been declining, as my right hon. Friend knows. I should have thought it likely that this trend would continue in future, and certainly the Government have no intention of reversing it.
    Mr. Shoreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the objectives of economic and monetary union, as agreed at the 8th February meeting of the European Economic Community's Council of Ministers, have now been communicated to him and whether he is prepared to accept them.
    Mr. Barber: The Council's conclusions have not been formally communicated to Her Majesty's Government, but we welcome the progress which the Community has made.
    Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very serious statement, almost a grave statement. Is he saying that he welcomes and approves that within the next ten years the budgetary, tax and monetary policies of this nation shall no longer be determined by him and his successors? Has he also accepted, and does he welcome, the fact that there should be fixed exchange rates by the end of this decade? If he has done so, does not he think that he should explain his purposes and policies to the British people?
    Mr. Barber: What I said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's Question was that I welcomed the progress which the Community has so far made. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is hostile to this venture, but the resolutions and the two decisions agreed by the Community last month, to which he referred, confirm my view that there are not likely to be any serious problems for the United Kingdom, if we join, in participating in the first stage.

    Oil Prices (Balance of Payments)
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of
    228
    the net additional costs to the balance of payments of the recent increases in oil prices paid to the oil-producing countries.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments the recent increased price of oil will make annually over the next five years.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The additional cost of oil imports as a result of the Teheran oil agreement is likely to be of the order of £55 million to £60 million in 1971, rising to about £100 million in 1975.
    Mr. Deakins: Do not the Minister's figures make it perfectly clear that the initial burden on our balance of payments, if and when we enter the Common Market, will be much greater than was envisaged by the previous Government, and should not this, therefore, make the present Government reconsider their attitude to this whole problem?
    Mr. Macmillan: I fail to see why this extra burden consequent upon the increase in oil prices, which is shared by all the countries of Europe, should be a factor related to our entry into the Common Market. It happens to us whatever be the results.
    Mr. Eadie: But will not the Minister agree that, in the light of the information which he has just given the House, even Chancellors of the Exchequer must now pay more attention to our indigenous fuel resources? Will he undertake to have consultations with his right hon. Friend with a view, for example, to investigating what rôle the coal industry would play in relation to our future energy requirements?
    Mr. Macmillan: As the hon. Gentleman himself implied, this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I can assure him that such consultations will be undertaken.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend think that it has escaped the Chancellor's attention that it would be a good thing to replace these increased costs on industry by some reduction in the tax on this sort of fuel in three weeks' time?
    Mr. Macmillan: I shall not comment on that, save to say that, in the context of international competitiveness, this is one rising cost which is shared by our competitors.

    Capital Receipts Tax
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study has been made by his Department with respect to the practicability of introducing a capital receipts tax.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We have been reviewing the whole tax system, but the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Dr. Gilbert: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the present death duties system is probably the most hypocritical part of our whole tax system, with high rates which are easily avoided by the richest members of the community, and are in fact so avoided? Will he consider whether a suitably devised capital receipts tax might bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth than either a wealth tax or a combination of gift tax with death duties?
    Mr. Jenkin: I cannot help thinking that, if we want to tackle, as I take it the hon. Gentleman does, the inequalities of wealth, we should turn more of our attention to the accumulation of savings on the part of the individual than to their expropriation by the State.

    Cost of Living Index
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the cost of living index between 18th June, 1970 and 18th June, 1971.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is not usual to provide forecasts of price movements.
    Dr. Gilbert: No doubt, but would not the Financial Secretary agree that the balance of evidence is that the increase will be much higher next year, and could he for once tell us when the Government will start accepting responsibility for the results of their own disastrous policies, and will he try not again to hide behind the excuse of wage demands from the trade unions when, in fact, the reason for
    230
    these demands is the total absence of confidence among ordinary working people in his own Government's policies?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have already said that I shall not forecast price movements this year. I shall certainly not attempt to hazard a guess for next year.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Could my hon. Friend seek to isolate those forms of taxation which bear directly on the cost of food—mostly imposed by the previous Government—and seek first to deal with them?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my right lion. Friend's Budget.
    Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that, since the election, there have been 5,645 separate price increases, an average of about 200 a week? Is it not about time the Government began to take concrete and positive steps to curb this so-called inflationary spiral?
    Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has made it abundantly clear that overwhelmingly the cause of the price inflation from which we are suffering at present is the rising wage-cost inflation which we inherited. The measures which the Government are taking in that respect are beginning to bear fruit.
    Mr. Taverne: But surely the hon. Gentleman will not deny that the Government's policies have considerably contributed to the acceleration of inflation? How can he deny, for example, that the increased charge for school meals, which we debated last night, added to the cost of living, or that the withdrawal of grants to British Rail have led to enormous increases in fares?
    Mr. Jenkin: We have always made it perfectly clear that the Government would put an end to indiscriminate subsidies handed out irrespective of need.

    Close Companies
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to repeal the close company provisions of the Finance Act, 1965.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We are reviewing the treatment of close companies as part

    231
    of our general review of company taxation.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is welcome news. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that in this review the Government will bear in mind not only the generally inequitable impact of the last Government's taxation of family companies but also the disastrous effect which this sort of penal taxation on family companies has had, for instance, in Scotland, where one family company after another has been driven by taxation to merge into larger groups based in the South which have then all too often closed down their activities in Scotland?
    Mr. Jenkin: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have these factors very much in mind.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the evidence given by Sir Douglas Allen on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury to the Wilberforce Committee regarding management by the Government of levels of unemployment was made with his authority.
    Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Sir Douglas Allen's evidence, if taken out of context, might conceivably give the impression that it was a Treasury view that levels of unemployment could be affected almost on a month-to-month basis by Government action. As past attempts at fine-tuning of this kind have not been very satisfactory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no such Treasury view prevails and, incidentally, that the latest forecasts of the National Institute will be treated—
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am loath to interrupt hon. Members. I have allowed some latitude on the Opposition side of the House. I think that hon. Members on that side should recognise that.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that those forecasts will be treated with suitable scepticism in view of the Institute's past record of fallibility?
    Mr. Barber: I think that I can best answer my hon. Friend by saying that I do not necessarily accept the suggestion that Sir Douglas Allen's evidence, if taken out of context, might imply one thing or another. If we read the evidence carefully and look at what he said in its total context we see that it is not inconsistent with the policy which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have been advocating.
    Mr. Barnett: If the Chancellor wishes to do something about unemployment, will he at least reassure the nation, where there is a considerable slump in confidence, particularly business confidence and industrial investment confidence, that he does not intend to pursue a policy which will allow the level of unemployment to rise, and that he intends to carry out his pledges to reduce it?
    Mr. Barber: I certainly do not propose to give any indication of what measures, if any, I might or might not propose three weeks today.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his forthcoming Budget, he will introduce proposals designed to reduce the present level of unemployment.
    Mr. Barber: I cannot anticipate the Budget.
    Mr. Ashley: Despite that great blessing, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the present record rate of unemployment is deliberate Government policy designed to tip the balance against the trade unions or is just another example of the Government's miscalculations?
    Mr. Barber: The principal cause of the unemployment, as I have said before, is the present rate of cost inflation. The fact is that people now know in the country that some of the trade union leaders are pricing their members out of their jobs. If there is any miscalculation, it is on the part of the trade unions concerned.
    Mr. Taverne: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that the level of unemployment at the moment is having any effect in keeping back inflation. Since there is a time lag before reflationary measures have their effect, is this not the

    233
    occasion for the Chancellor at the earliest possible moment to reflate the economy in order to deal with the rising unemployment?
    Mr. Barber: I have noted what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. As he appreciates, I cannot, three weeks before the Budget, anticipate my statement.

    Inflation (T.U.C. Proposals)
    Dr. Strangasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the award recommended by the Wilberforce Committee, he will reconsider the Trades Union Congress proposals for controlling inflation, details of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Barber: These proposals were discussed at the meeting of the N.E.D.C. on 6th January. There will be further opportunities at the Council and elsewhere to discuss methods of tackling inflation.
    Dr. Strang: Is the Chancellor aware that his policy of forcing up rents and food prices and introducing charges to cut taxes for the rich goes directly against proposals that any reasonable Government could have for curbing inflation, and that the T.U.C. proposals are reasonable and could make an important contribution, if the Government were prepared to withdraw the charges?
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman's question is concerned with certain proposals which were put forward by the T.U.C. I have already explained that what the T.U.C. proposed was wage increases related both to past and future increases in the cost of living and to a faster rate of growth of productivity than we are achieving. I can only conclude that that would be inflationary.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June, 1970.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Taking the value of the £ sterling as 100p in mid-June 1970, its purchasing power in mid-January 1971, the latest date for which information is available, is estimated at 95p. This comparison is based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the tastefully-arranged basket of groceries on display in Conservative Central Office during the election campaign? Can he say by how much the cost of that basket of groceries has gone up as a result of the 8 per cent. annual rate of decline in the value of the £ since his party became responsible for the rise in inflation?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sometimes led to wonder what would have happened to the price of the basket of groceries if the Labour Party had been returned at the election.
    Mrs. Knight: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many price increases were in the pipeline long before 18th June?
    Mr. Jenkin: Obviously, a major part of the price increases that have taken place, certainly in the public sector, are directly the result of the runaway wage-cost inflation which was in existence before the election.
    Mr. Cant: On a non-political and severely technical point, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman shares the concern of the Economics Editor of the Financial Times at the growing gap between the consumer price index and the index of retail prices, which he suggests now underrates the level of inflation?
    Mr. Jenkin: I noticed the comment in the Financial Times to that effect. This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who watches over these indices. I will draw to his attention what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Economic Forecasts
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic forecasts he intends to publish in the Financial Statement.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Financial Statement and Budget Report.
    Mr. Sheldon: But since the Prime Minister has frequently reiterated his commitment to open government and to a reduction in unnecessary secrecy, will the hon. Gentleman state that it is not his intention to depart from the practice of

    235
    my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in publishing more information than had previously been published? Will he at any rate commit himself to maintaining those figures of economic forecasts which are available to the Government, have been available to the House and must continue to be available?
    Mr. Jenkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern in these matters. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention that the forecasts should be helpful to the House, but I am not prepared to go into detail beforehand on what they will contain.

    Industrial Investment (Corporation Tax)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of a reduction in corporation tax upon the level of industrial investment.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The recent reduction in corporation tax will make an immediate contribution to the liquidity of private industry. But it is not possible to make a separate estimate of its effect on the overall level of investment.
    Mr. Sheldon: The Chancellor has stated that it is the purpose of the Government's policies to help to create a climate favourable to investment, but is it not clear that the present climate is far from favourable? Cannot he do something before the Budget Statement, by at any rate stating that the Government refuse to countenance for very much longer a level of unemployment as high as it is now?
    Mr. Macmillan: The views of my right hon. Friend and the proposals he has put forward for beginning to create a climate more favourable to investment are well known. I cannot commit him to anything further before the Budget.

    Widows (Taxation)
    Mr. Farrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to raise the weekly amount a widow can earn without incurring taxation.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that widows work beside married women who can earn £8 a week tax-free against a widow's £3 a week? Does he agree that this bears very hard on widows? Will he raise their tax threshold?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is generally understood in the House that the reason for the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend draws attention is the fact that a widow's pension is paid gross. It is taxable income, and allowances are set against it. Therefore, there is less of the allowances to set against her earnings. That is the reason for the difference. I shall not be drawn into what might be in my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Departments concerned to deal with the analogous problem of the earnings rule? Is not it time the earnings rule was substantially amended?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that the Departments concerned will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

    French Minister of Finance (Official Visit)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to seek to pay an official visit to France in the near future for discussions with the French Minister of Finance.
    Mr. Barber: M. Giscard d'Estaing came to London for talks with me on 24th November. He invited me to make a return visit, but no date has yet been fixed.
    Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I hope that his return visit will be made as soon as possible, bearing in mind that, by any yardstick, the French economy has made astonishing progress since the crisis of 1968, not least with a similar rate of price and wage inflation to our own but with a substantially faster rate of growth. I am sure that there are lessons for us in that example.
    Mr. Barber: When M. d'Estaing came here in November, one of the things we discussed was the economic situation in our two countries. I think that it was to our mutual benefit and advantage to do so.

    Surtax
    Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated loss of revenue per annum, on the latest statistics available, if the two top rates of surtax were abolished.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: About £15 million.
    Mr. Dykes: Naturally, I do not wish to press my right hon. Friend on this matter so close to the Budget, but does not this miniscule figure indicate that the abolition of these top rates would help increase managerial and entrepeneurial incentives without in any way impairing the fundamental principles of an equitable distribution in income tax and surtax?
    Mr. Jenkin: It would be better at this stage for me to say no more than that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his forbearance.

    Decimalisation
    Mr. Carterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters have been addressed to him drawing attention to price increases arising out of decimalisation; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Since D Day we have received two letters about price increases. One was from the hon. Member, to whom a reply has been sent.
    Mr. Carter: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that those two letters were of extremely high quality, adequately detailing the sense of outrage felt in the country at the way in which people have been robbed and filched from over the whole process of decimalisation? Has not the robbery been made all the easier and possible because the Government scrapped every possible device for the protection of the consumers while decimalisation was taking place?
    Mr. Jenkin: I think that the overwhelming majority of people in this House and outside it have been greatly encouraged by the very smooth way in which the changeover to decimalisation has taken place and the extent to which there has been, as was expected, rounding down as well as rounding up. The only thing which seems to have been un-
    238
    changed is the hon. Gentleman's own view that he and his constituents were going to be robbed. But that has not been the experience of the overwhelming majority of the population.

    Overseas Indebtedness
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction has been made in the United Kingdom's overseas indebtedness from June, 1970 to the end of February, 1971.
    Mr. Barber: From end of June, 1970, to end December, 1970, official long-term debt was reduced by £72 million, and short- and medium-term debt by £92 million. Since then there have been published reduction in short- and medium-term debt totalling a further £94 million.
    Mr. Baker: While appreciating that the reduction of overseas debt is normally associated with periods of Conservative rule, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind over the next three weeks that balance-of-payments and reserve considerations should not predominate in determining the level of Bank Rate?
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend will not expect me to say more than that I have taken note of what he said. But he is, of course, right in the first part of his supplementary question. The converse is equally true. During periods of Labour Government our overseas indebtedness tends to increase.

    MINISTERS (PUBLIC SPEECHES)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister what administrative arrangements are in existence to ensure that a Minister's Departmental responsibilities are not encroached on in public pronouncements made by other Ministers.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): In this as in previous Administrations it is at times appropriate for my right hon. Friends to refer in their public speeches to subjects which are the Departmental responsibility of another Minister. But such cases are covered by the standing arrangements for consultation between Departments.
    Mr. Douglas: Has it escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention that Scottish

    239
    junior Ministers have been given distinctive titles? Can he give us details of the number of occasions on which those Ministers have appeared on television in Scotland to discuss topics outside their Ministerial job description? Will he make it clear that the television companies concerned should explain to the general public that, on such occasions, the Ministers concerned possess less than even their usual competence, if that is possible? What fees have been paid to the Ministers for their performances?
    The Prime Minister: Ministers at the Scottish Office, other than the Secretary of State, have particular titles. It was generally thought to be for the convenience of the House and of the public outside that it should be known on which particular activity each Minister was concentrating. But it has never been the practice in any Administration that a Minister should be limited to speaking, either in the House or in public, on the subjects which were in his title. This step was meant to be helpful, and I think that it is known to be so.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the problem for members of the Shadow Cabinet to avoid encroachment on each other's memoirs?

    SCOTLAND
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister how many official visits he has arranged to make to Scotland before the Summer Recess.
    The Prime Minister: The only official visit so far arranged is that which I am making to West Central Scotland and to Edinburgh on 26th and 27th March.
    Mr. Sillars: When the right hon. Gentleman does visit Scotland, will he make a special effort to meet the people made redundant by Rolls-Royce? Does he appreciate that many people there feel very bitter and resentful at the treatment they have had? Does he understand that the workers in Rolls-Royce who have been made redundant are keen to know what hidden guilt prompts the Government to refuse to have a Select Committee to inquire into the whole affair?
    The Prime Minister: When I am in Glasgow I shall be meeting those con-
    240
    cerned with the Scottish economy, and I shall have an opportunity of full discussion with them. The redundancies at Rolls-Royce are not the responsibility of the Government. As the Receiver himself said, they are the responsibility of the Receiver and so far have no connection with the RB211 engine. I understand the strong feeling about this matter but, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the company itself had had these redundancies in mind for many months.

    PRIME MINISTER'S BROADCASTS
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will make regular broadcasts on the state of the nation.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion and I can assure him that I shall broadcast whenever appropriate.
    Mr. Barnett: Since the nation will be hoping for the maximum co-operation, for example, with the T.U.C., is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reconsider the somewhat hasty dismissal in January of the T.U.C.s serious proposals on wage inflation?
    The Prime Minister: It has been known to the General Secretary and to the members of the T.U.C. General Council ever since I became Prime Minister that I am always willing to discuss any questions with them. I have on occasions done so. They have asked to see me, and we are meeting on Thursday. As I have already explained, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also explained, he had the opportunity for three weeks to consider the T.U.C.s proposals before commenting on them. The hon. Gentleman may or may not agree with what my right hon. Friend said about them, but he gave them full consideration. It was not a hasty judgment.
    Mr. Awdry: Would it be possible for the Prime Minister to speak to the nation without necessarily having to give the Leader of the Opposition a chance the following night to make party political points?
    The Prime Minister: These matters are governed by the aide memoire concerned

    241
    with television and broadcasting which was drawn up under the last Administration and agreed by ourselves when in Opposition and by the Liberal Party. I adhere to that, in part because it is helpful that the Leader of the Opposition should follow any broadcast I make.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that there are quite a number of people who are anxious that he should say something, even if it is only "Goodbye"?
    The Prime Minister: That is the last thing that they will hear.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a Ministerial broadcast explaining Her Majesty's Government's present policies.
    The Prime Minister: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Eadie: When the Prime Minister has given due consideration to the proposition in the Question, will he try to get round the country to discover how unpopular his Government are? As a consequence of that, in his broadcast will he state to the public that he has not set a target of one million people unemployed for next winter?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows me and the Government well enough to know that we deplore unemployment. What needs to be done is to develop an economy in which we can be competitive and hold overseas markets. That will not be done by taking on loss-making contracts and pouring subsidies into private industry.
    Mr. Lane: When the Prime Minister next broadcasts and touches on the Common Market negotiations, will he make it clear to the public that the benefit to this country of joining the Community, in terms of extra growth in our national wealth, is likely to be well over £500 million a year?
    The Prime Minister: This is an important factor in the long-term consideration of our membership to the E.E.C. It is also true that we can have growth and substantial improvements in growth in this country outside the Community—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I should have thought that that was obvious—provided that it is not undermined by inflationary
    242
    wage increases which are exceeding productivity.
    Mr. Heffer: When the right hon. Gentleman next broadcasts, which is likely to be after his meeting with the T.U.C. leaders, will he be able to tell the nation that at that meeting he and his hon. Friends were prepared to discuss not only the details but the principles of the Industrial Relations Bill? If he is prepared to do that, is he aware that it can lead to quite an interesting and new development as far as the Government are concerned?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the principles of the Bill, not the withdrawal of the Bill. We offered to discuss the principles of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was quite prepared to have a discussion on the Bill but not to go back on what we had put to the electorate at the last election.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman look up the record and see what happened after the publication of the Consultative Document by his right hon. Friend, who said that he was prepared to receive representations on detail but not on the principle of the Bill? The Prime Minister says that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to go back on what was said at the election. Did not the right hon. Gentlemen, in reply to a question by me during the election, say that a Conservative Government would not have enforceable agreements except at the request of both sides?
    The Prime Minister: We discussed this matter when there was a debate on the White Paper and during the Second Reading of the Bill. I explained the position to the right hon. Gentleman exactly. If the trade unions still wish to discuss the contents of the Bill in a way which can be dealt with during its remaining stages, then we are prepared to listen to what they have to say, as we have always been prepared to do. But we are not prepared to go back on the general policy put to the electorate at the last election, and the T.U.C. knows it.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question I put to him: did he say during the

    243
    election that agreements would not be enforceable unless both s des agreed that they should be? Will he say "Yes" or "No" to that? Secondly, will he say whether it is in the Bill?
    The Prime Minister: These matters have been debated. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to examine the statements of the past, I am prepared to do so with him. I took part in the debate specifically to deal with the principles of the Bill.

    NORTHERN REGION
    Mr. Urwinasked the Prime Minister (1) how many official visits he has made to the Northern Region since 18th June 1970;
    (2) when he next intends to visit the Northern Region.
    The Prime Minister: I have not yet paid an official visit to the region, but I shall be visiting it next Saturday and Sunday.
    Mr. Urwin: Does the Prime Minister recall his election pledge to pursue a strong and vigorous regional policy? Is he aware that the credibility gap between promise and action yawns increasingly wider in the development areas? During his visit on Saturday, will he endeavour to discover the extent of the deep dissatisfaction and unease in the region over the failure of the Government's regional policy? Will he then instruct his Ministers to readopt the policies pursued by the Labour Government to reduce unemployment rather than to increase it, which is the present Government's policy?
    The Prime Minister: While I am in the North-East I shall have the opportunity of discussions with a variety of people on the situation there. I do not propose to return to the policies of the last Administration. There is very wide support in the North-East for the work which was done to build on Lord Hailsham's plan, and the proposals for the development of growth areas and infrastructure which were made after that. I also find that there has already been a warm welcome for the special arrangements recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at the National Economic Development Council.
    The Prime Minister: As I told the House last week, I intend to do so on 7th April. This meeting will provide an opportunity to carry forward the discussions which I am having with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. this week.
    Mr. Ashley: Would the Prime Minister confirm or deny that an N.E.D.C. study has given him conclusive evidence that the Government's de-escalation policy on wages is completely unworkable? If such a study exists, will he strive to retain credibility in the Government's honesty although not in their competence, by publishing such a study?
    The Prime Minister: I know of no such study by N.E.D.C. or by any organisation connected with it which has reached any such conclusion. Nor do I believe that such a conclusion is right. As I told the House last Thursday, I believe that there is evidence that the rate of escalation has been slowed down considerably and that we are beginning to move in the opposite direction.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In his discussions with the T.U.C., will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Mr. Feather and his friends can commit no one but themselves and that even the extent of that commitment must be in doubt?
    The Prime Minister: The Trades Union Congress and the General-Secretary have never attempted to disguise that fact. That does not in any way preclude a very wide area of economic policy which we can discuss with the T.U.C.
    Mr. John Mendelson: In these discussions, would the Prime Minister bear in mind the recent Report issued by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the urgent need pointed out in that Report for a policy of reflation? Will he now agree that it is high time, in view of the liquidity difficulties which

    245
    so many firms are facing, for the Government to encourage immediate new investment if we are not to reach a serious recession by the end of the year?
    The Prime Minister: A number of such reviews have been published, including that which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and one by the T.U.C. which we shall be discussing on Thursday. The C.B.I. has expressed its views, which I was glad to have. None of these reports alters the fact that the reason for the lack of investment is to a considerable degree the unprofitability of firms today, and the lack of resources to invest which stems from unprofitability in the past and from the inflationary rise in wages. These two matters have to be considered together.

    SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENTS
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 8th February to the Royal Commonwealth Society on the Simonstown Agreements represented Her Majesty's Government's policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: In that case can the right hon. Gentleman say on what basis of fact his right hon. Friend said that the South African Government were fulfilling all of the undertakings given in the Simonstown Agreements over the employment of coloured labour in the base? If it is ascertained after further investigation that the South African Government are not fulfilling that part of the Agreements, will the Government take steps to rescind their proposal to sell Wasp helicopters and other military equipment to the South African Government?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd February the detailed information which has been provided by the South African Government about the arrangements in the Simonstown naval base. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House on 4th March that certain further information regarding job classification has now been sought through
    246
    the Ambassador in Cape Town. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular information about this which he would like to bring to my notice or to that of my right hon. Friend, we can make inquiries about it.

    TOURISM
    Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Prime Minister which minister is responsible for the co-ordination and supervision of matters arising out of the needs of tourists in this country, with particular reference to the adequacy of transport facilities both public and hired; whether he is satisfied with such arrangements; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has a general responsibility for policy on tourism and for ensuring that Government Departments are aware of the interests of tourists and take them into account as appropriate. The provision of transport facilities is in the first instance a matter for the relevant private and public undertakings.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that tourists would very much welcome some assistance in these matters? Has he had leisure to observe in the tourist season the melancholy spectacle of tourists frustratedly gesticulating at bespoken taxi-cabs and forlornly queuing up for those bewildering London buses which seem, like Wordsworth's clouds, to move all together, when they move at all? Can something be done to help them, in their own interests and in the interests of the balance of payments?
    The Prime Minister: The impact of these aspects of London life is not, of course, limited to tourists. I share my right hon, and learned Friend's desire that as a nation we should do everything possible to welcome tourists, for their own sake and also because of the balance of payments. I will gladly get my right hon. Friends to see what can be done to make facilities for tourists more accessible. The points which my right hon. and learned Friend mentions are very largely matters for the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment.

"DAILY SKETCH" (CLOSURE)
Mr. Benn(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the closure of the Daily Sketch.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): The Associated Newspapers Group has announced that it will merge the Daily Mail and the Daily Sketch by mid-May. Although I very much regret the disappearance of a national newspaper, it was not unexpected, particularly in view of the failure of the national newspaper industry to come to grips with its well known problems. The Department of Employment is in touch with management about arrangements to give all possible assistance to those who need help in finding other jobs.
Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I share his feelings about the death of a national newspaper in a democracy, even though politically it was not exactly favourable to this side of the House. Would he confirm the number of journalists and workers involved? I should like to ask him three further questions. First, what talks is he proposing to have with the proprietors and unions involved about the future? Secondly, have the Government assessed the likely effect of commercial radio on future advertising revenue for the Press, and will he discuss that with the unions and proprietors? Finally, will he recognise that blaming other people is getting a bit thin and that the Government had better accept some responsibility themselves?
Mr. Davies: I understand from the concern that 1,700 people are likely to lose their jobs out of a total work force of 7,500. Of course, that concerns me.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question as to whether we are having talks with the proprietors is "No". That is a matter for them and not for me. That does not preclude talks between the Department of Employment and the proprietors and unions concerned with a view to finding other jobs. The question of commercial radio and its effect on the advertising revenue of
248
the newspapers concerned is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the industry. It is not for me.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent this unhappy occurrence, with its many losses of jobs, is due to the restrictive practices imposed by the printing Unions, as reported on by the Shawcross Committee some years ago?
Mr. Davies: It is absolutely certain that, among the problems to which I referred in my Answer, those of over-manning and the difficulty of trying to procure better productivity in this industry are very well known throughout the nation and undoubtedly have contributed materially to the problem we now face.
Mr. Driberg: Is the Secretary of State aware that the protective—not restrictive—practices in the print unions are justified by the repeated closures of national newspapers, of which there may well be more in future? Tragic as the redundancies are, as they are in any industry or trade, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the important thing is that the closure of national newspapers diminishes the consumer's right of choice?
Mr. Davies: If there is a reduction in the number of newspapers there may be some diminution in the right of choice. But we still have ten national dailies and seven Sunday newspapers, so there is still a fair amount of choice. I think that the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his supplementary question is the case. It is the restrictive practices which have been prevalent in this industry which have very largely caused the problems we face.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the very grave threat to the national Press, and as at least three national newspapers are being threatened with closure, is there not a case, because of the constitutional importance of the Press, for the Government to appoint a committee to investigate what needs to be done to assist newspapers in the present situation?
Mr. Davies: I have given thought to that proposal, but my conclusion is that no useful purpose would be served by instituting an inquiry at this stage.
Mr. Benn: Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House why he was not prepared to answer the question which I put about the effect on the newspapers of the introduction of commercial radio, which must be a matter of Cabinet decision and not of individual Ministerial decision? There is likely to be a further diminution in advertising revenue which will accentuate the difficulties which cause the whole House concern.
Mr. Davies: That is a matter for the Minister concerned to answer. But it is obvious that in the evolution of industry generally changes of this kind must be taken into account by the newspapers and by other industries. The shift of advertising material is a well-known factor which has taken place in a number of fields.
Sir F. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend remind us—or would he need prior notice of this—exactly how many millions of pounds have been lost in the newspaper industry in the last ten years as a result of strikes, walk-outs and go-slows? Will he accept that most of us do not need a committee of inquiry to tell us why this sort of thing takes place?
Mr. Davies: I have no figure in mind and I doubt whether it would be practicable to assess it.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the present death rate among newspapers and the anticipated death rate is a matter of concern for this House and the Government? Little as I like the paper which is to die, it is rather tragic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) pointed out, that freedom of choice is being diminished. In view of this crisis which affects us all, will the right hon. Gentleman or other Ministers carefully examine the German system of subsidising newsprint, which helps to keep some of the finest newspapers in Europe alive, to see whether that cannot be applied here to stop this alarming situation from getting worse?
Mr. Davies: This and other devices have long been the subject of study and discussion, but I think I am right in saying that the previous Administration rejected their practicability, as we do.
Mr. Money: It is nearly ten years since the Shawcross Committee reported and found that the employment of an excessive labour force and the failure to exploit the development of machinery were at the root of many of the problems of the industry. Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether any steps can be taken by the House now to bring these matters before both sides of the industry?
Mr. Davies: The industry itself is not at all unaware of the problems which it has to face and of the need to change fundamentally the weaknesses which exist within it. It last year set up a steering group, which had the support of both sides of the industry, with a view specifically to trying to overcome these difficulties. I am bound to say, with regret, that the success of this steering group is very questionable and its survival in doubt.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while, as he said, the demise of this paper was not unexpected, there is, as his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, a very serious position in the newspaper industry, in which other newspapers might go under, with the loss of freedom of choice to which reference has been made, with heavy unemployment in an industry, or a profession, where it is not easy to get alternative employment, and with all the other reasons why the whole House would not wish to see any further diminution?
Would the right hon. Gentleman in those circumstances—I do not press him for an answer now—think again about some of the answers which he has given? Will he agree, for example, that it might be right for him to sit down with the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the unions, including the journalists as well as the printers, to see whether there is any scheme which the industry itself can put up, either of joint action or involving Government action, to see that the present parlous state of the newspaper profession is looked at again?
Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that what he said about the last Government was quite wrong? I am sure that he was badly briefed on this—[Laughter.] This is a serious matter—although the right hon. Member for

251
Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) may not think so—to many people who are losing their jobs at this moment. Would the Secretary of State look up the record on this and then tell the House that what we said was that if the industry as a whole would put up any scheme we would consider it, including the newsprint scheme, but that it would have to be on a non-selective basis—because the whole House would agree that there should not be individual help for an individual newspaper?
Mr. Davies: Of course I will give further thought to the questions involved, but the experience with the steering group set up by both sides of the industry last year is not at all promising. In relation to the devices which might be used to give a helping hand to the newspaper industry, the point put to me by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was not one which would originate from an initiative taken by the industry: he wished the Government themselves to initiate something.
Sir J. Rodgers: Would my right hon. Friend seek the help of the Leader of the Opposition in getting rid of the gross restrictive practices carried out by the printing side of the newspaper industry which have caused the collapse of so many papers?
Mr. Davies: Yes, I take due note of the points made.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In considering the proposals put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, will the Secretary of State recognise that although on this side there is little love for the paper which is going, we recognise that there is a very serious problem here which should concern all of us if we are to have a diminution of the number of organs of the national Press? For this reason, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously think again and, in considering the difficulties of reaching agreement, recognise that the intervention of a third party, governmentally-appointed, might be a means of reaching a solution?
Mr. Davies: My belief is that inquiries of this kind are useful if one does not know what the malady is, but we know what the malady is, and the industry
252
does. It is a question of setting their own problem in order.
Mr. John Page: In view of the agreed difficulties of the newspaper industry, will my right hon. Friend use whatever means are open to him, and also enlist the aid of the Leader of the Opposition, to see that the stoppage of newspapers on 18th March does not take place as on 1st March?
Mr. Davies: I take due note of that, but it is not really a point for me.
Mr. Harold Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is taking due note, will he remember that we all deplore the stoppage of newspapers for any reason whatever, including that proposed for 18th March, and we have made—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should be a little more serious about this and stop joking. I was asked a view and I am stating it.
Is the Secretary of State aware that his diagnosis of the problems of the industry, which he seems to be unwilling even to discuss with the industry as a whole, is a little naïve and one-sided, that, in addition to the problem of restrictive practices—which we never hesitated to condemn in this industry—the Economist Intelligence Survey report was equally critical of the management side, and that both need to be looked at impartially?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ponder further on this, and will he, if willing to talk to both sides of the industry, recognising the anxieties in the House about it and the problem of a communications industry, take it from us—I hope that I can speak for other parties—that if he wants to propose anything for settlement on an all-party basis we shall be ready to support it?
Mr. Davies: I express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance, but I do not think that any particular intervention by myself is of much use at the moment. In trying to make the point that restrictive trade practices were the only question which I had cited, the right hon. Gentleman is doing me less than justice. I said that there were various problems.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Could I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible when the Prime Minister is attacked by the Opposition about going to the North of England to remember that on this kind of occasion I would enjoy being called—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the hon. Lady has to say.
Dame Irene Ward: Could I just add [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that, in common justice to the North of England, it would be rather odd when my right hon. Friend is going to visit there if no one from his side of the House said how delighted they would be to see him?

CLOSING OF PRISONS
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Edward Lyons: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the closing of prisons by repealing section 38 of the Prison Act 1952.
When most of our prisons come to be sold, the House may be surprised to learn that all the State will get for them will be £120 for every prisoner who was in prison in 1877. All the rest of the sale price will go to the local authority within whose boundary the prison is situated.
Most of our prisons are more than 100 years old, and even in 1877 there were prisons like Pentonville and Parkhurst which were State orisons for convicts. Most of our great prisons, such as Wandsworth, Holloway, Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Stafford, Winchester, Hull and many others were owned by local authorities, which managed them very cheaply on the rates. For example, in Lancashire it cost £15 a year to maintain a prisoner, in Leeds £19 a year, with a national average of £23 per year per prisoner. The trouble with this system was that one authority treated a prisoner as if he were sub-human whereas yet another authority treated a prisoner as if he were not human at all.
The ratepayers wanted to get rid of the burden and the Government wanted to introduce a system of prison administration. Therefore the Conservative Government of 1877 nationalised the prisons, with no talk of compensation. They said, "We will take over the prisons, but when we come to close them in years to come we will give you the sale price, provided that you will give us £120 for every prisoner for whom separate cell accommodation was provided on 12th July, 1877".
That provision in the Bill of 1877 was re-enacted in the consolidating Statute, namely the Prison Act 1952, so it is still the law of the country. Unfortunately, the Government of the day did not foresee that land values would rise steeply in the ensuing century whereas the value of money would continue to deteriorate. The Treasury informed me in a Written Answer in February that 3s. in 1877

255
bought the same as a £ would buy today, so in 94 years there has been an 85 per cent. fall in the value of the £.
What is the effect of this situation? In 1877 Holloway, at £120 per head per prisoner, would on its closure have brought the Government some £40,000 from the local authority, but the land value of Holloway in those days was less. The idea was that the State would make a profit on the closure of a prison because it was helping the local authority by taking over the prison and maintaining it at the taxpayers' rather than at the ratepayers' expense.
Unfortunately, this situation has now all changed. Let us take for example Oxford Prison, which will be the first to be closed. At £125 a prisoner that would bring the Government on closure some £9,000 from about 75 cells in 1877, but Oxford Prison today is worth getting on for £500,000. Therefore, instead of the Government getting that money, Oxford, which has not paid a penny for Oxford Prison since 1877, will have nearly £500,000, and will pay the Government £9,000, which will be a windfall to the Oxford ratepayers. In return the ratepayers will have an eyesore removed from the town. This will happen throughout England and Wales.
The matter does not stop there. Most of these prisons will be retained into the 21st century. In the end, when our great prisons close, with the constant diminution in the value of money and the constant increase in land values the local authorities will get all the money and the State will get peanuts.
256
The fact is that the present building programme is woefully inadequate. The number of applicants to fill the prisons continually increases. We are desperately in need of a fillip to the present building programe. I suggest that my Bill, by deleting Section 38 of the 1952 Act, will enable local authorities to get compensation in regard to the sale price of old prisons which will have the effect of providing a tremendous help to the present building programme. The Treasury will know that when it closes an old prison it will receive £500,000 as a subsidy towards the new prison. The sooner that happens the better cities like Leeds, Birmingham and London, which have old prisons in their midst, will be pleased. They will be able to use the sites for housing, which is a desperate need, for new shopping centres, new industry and so on. For these reasons, I ask the House to approve the Bill this afternoon, since this proposed legislation will perform a most useful function.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Lyons, Mr. Richard, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Sir John Foster, Sir Donald Kaberry, and Mrs. Jill Knight.

CLOSING OF PRISONS
  CLOSING OF PRISONS
  Bill to amend the law relating to the closing of prisons by repealing section 38 of the Prison Act 1952, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 19th March and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
INDUSTRY BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
INDUSTRY BILL
  Clause 1

    REPEAL OF INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION CORPORATION ACT 1966 AND DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATION
    3.56 p.m.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 22, at end insert:
    (5) Before the appointed day the Members of the Corporation shall report as to the valuation of securities and/or assets owned by the Corporation and subject to acquisition by any company which is publicly owned.
    The Amendment seeks to go a little further than the indications given by the Government in Committee that information would be available regarding the future of investments made by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation in various companies. However, during Committee stage there were certain eventualities in respect of one particular investment by I.R.C. involving a sum of £10 million in Rolls-Royce.
    The I.R.C. report for the year ended 31st March, 1970, on page 11, contains the statement:
    'With the full co-operation of Rolls-Royce and the Ministry of Technology I.R.C. carried out an investigation into the financial position of Rolls-Royce with particular reference to assessing the company's medium and long-term capital requirements."
    As a result of this investigation, I.R.C. made proposals to provide additional finance, and these proposals were agreed by Rolls-Royce and the Minister of Technology and were announced on 19th May, 1970. They involved the advance of £10 million by I.R.C. in 1970, with an indication that a further £10 million might be made available in 1971. The £10 million was advanced to Rolls-Royce, and the I.R.C. did not enter into this arrangement flippantly or with any disregard for financial probity. The report on page 12 states:
    "The Board of I.R.C. has more than a banker's responsibility in respect of its investments. It is not enough to know that an investment is secure. I.R.C. must also concern itself with the purpose for which the invest-
    258
    ment was made and the rate at which exports and the productivity of capital and labour are rising as a result of it."
    4.0 p.m.
    It is clearly stated in the report that certain follow-up investigations are made of those companies in which the Corporation has made investments. As a result, I suggest that an organisation in which the Corporation has made investments will receive a certain degree of credibility and financial stability in the eyes of the general public. I do not argue that it is necessarily on all fours with the type of investment which might be made by the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation, but there is a degree of similiarity. Therefore, any investment made by the I.R.C. would carry the suggestion that it was done after an investigation of the finances of Rolls-Royce, and it might have induced certain individuals to place a greater degree of credence in the long-term profitability of the company than might otherwise have been the case.
    The purpose of my Amendment is to indicate to the Government that it is not sufficient to put down a guillotine, so to speak and say that we must wait for the obligations of the I.R.C. under the 1966 Act to be fulfilled in a particular report.
    This investment of £10 million is quite unique and distinct. In view of that, the Amendment suggests that, before the appointed day, this House has a responsibility to look into the reasons why this £10 million investment was made. I say that having in mind the promise to produce a White Paper looking into the whole background of the Rolls-Royce collapse. It will not be sufficient for the Minister to assure us that some of the personalities involved are still associated with the new Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. We must have some indication from the Minister that he is willing to look after this investment and to give the House proper information about it. So much cloud and difficulty surrounds the whole issue, and that is why we on this side have been pressing in genaral terms for a Select Committee to look into these affairs.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I want to try and help the hon. Gentleman with this Amendment early in the debate, though I have no intention of precluding

    259
    any other hon. Gentleman from contributing to it. I wish merely to direct the House on to the right lines in terms of the relationship between this Bill and the subject which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    I make no point about the strange wording of the Amendment, because no asset of the Corporation is subject to acquisition by any company which is publicly owned. Even if the Rolls-Royce loan is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the asset that the I.R.C. possesses is the £10 million of loan, and no one will acquire that asset because if the Government were to acquire parts of Rolls-Royce they would not acquire the loan that the Corporation has already lent to the old company which virtually ceased to exist with the appointment of the receiver. I do not rest any case on that, but it may have coloured the hon. Gentleman's view of the relevance to the Bill of the point that he has raised.
    The I.R.C. made a loan of £10 million to Rolls-Royce in May, 1970, and that was possibly to be followed by a further transfer of £10 million though, in the event, it was never made. I think that subsequent events have demonstrated the unsuitability of a body like the I.R.C. to handle a major matter of the sort that Rolls-Royce was. It did not detect the dangers into which Rolls-Royce was running, though I do not blame it for that. However, clearly its scope and ability to cope with such a major problem is a weakness in an organisation of this type for dealing with situations like this.
    Mr. Edmund Dell: The hon. Gentleman has just made certain statements about the inability of the I.R.C. to deal with this situation which are prejudicial to those gentlemen who were members of the Board of the I.R.C. at the time. But is not it rather strange that the Government refuse to publish the Report made by the I.R.C. on the Rolls-Royce situation?
    Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Corporation was able to proceed confidentially as it wished and that it would be wrong for us to publish reports of any sort which it made confidentially. I was not referring to the competence of the I.R.C. I was saying merely that the sort of situation which
    260
    finally overtook Rolls-Royce, in which large sums and major political decisions were involved, was far beyond the capability of the Corporation to handle—
    Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the report, of course the reason for confidentiality in reports of this kind is that those giving and receiving the information must know that it will be used only for the purpose intended. In this case, Rolls-Royce has gone bankrupt, and there is no company which could possibly be affected by what the Corporation said, in addition to which the Government propose to wind up the Corporation. This report is now a historical document which is of great value not only in connection with this debate but more widely. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to look again at the possibility of publishing it?
    Mr. Ridley: I am always happy to look again at any suggestion. However, it was the right hon. Gentleman's own Act which set up the Corporation. In his wisdom, the right hon. Gentleman provided in that Act for the complete independence of the Corporation and lack of accountability to Parliament for what it did. It was contrary to what his colleagues urged me to do in Committee, which was to be certain that information not intended for the Government or for publication came to the Government at the time that the Corporation came to an end.
    Certainly I shall look into the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but he has only himself to blame if the confidentiality under which the Corporation operated is enforced because of his own Act.
    Mr. Austen Albu: I do not understand this continual reference to the non-accountability of the I.R.C. It is clear in the Act that the Corporation has to present reports. What a report has to contain is specified under five headings in the Act. Any report will be debated in Parliament. In addition, the Minister responsible for the I.R.C. can be held accountable for what the Corporation has done. That is an extraordinary definition of "non-accountability".
    Mr. Ridley: Perhaps I might rephrase what I said. The Corporation was empowered to carry on negotiations and to enter into agreements which were based on a large amount of confidential information that it did not have to divulge either to the Government or to the public. It was on that basis that the negotiations were carried on, and it would be quite wrong for me now to break that confidentiality. To that extent, the Corporation is not accountable to Parliament for its detailed actions. However, hon. Members can probe any of those actions and ask questions of the Government. But it would not be right for the Government to release any of that information unless the most careful consideration had been given to it and the agreement of all concerned to its publication had been obtained.
    I have undertaken to look into the possibility of publishing the Report. But I do not want hon. Members opposite to have too high hopes that it will be possible.
    The £10 million loan which was made by the Corporation was an unsecured loan. In the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce, therefore, the Corporation ranks as an unsecured creditor to the extent of that £10 million loan. This is where the hon. Gentleman was in some difficulty with the Amendment. We are not participating in the new Rolls-Royce which may be set up under the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act, 1971. Nor do we have any priority over other creditors with this loan which is entirely unsecured. It is impossible to forecast what the Government will get back. It depends on a whole series of major decisions, such as the future of the RB211, the price which is paid for the assets of Rolls-Royce in the new State-owned company, and the reaction of Lockheed and the American Government to all these decisions. Therefore, the value of the return which unsecured creditors will receive is impossible to predict now. I should be misleading the House if I attempted to predict it now. It is clear that we shall not get back 100 per cent. necessarily; it will have to take its share of the shortfall of assets.
    We shall be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, but I do not think that it would be right to write into the Bill a matter of this kind,
    262
    because we cannot say what the value of the loan will be on the appointed day and any report would merely say that the I.R.C. was owed £10 million in unsecured credits. Therefore, that would be the only matter to be reported on the appointed day.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether, if the Board of Trade investigators called for a report from the I.R.C. on its holding in the company, that report would have to be given?
    Mr. Ridley: I am not clear to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. The Board of Trade investigators are possibly going to look into the whole of the affairs of the Rolls-Royce company. This would not be in relation to the £10 million loan which was obtained from the I.R.C.; this would be in relation to the conduct of the company. It would have no special bearing on the fact that the I.R.C., rather than anybody else, had made a loan of £10 million.
    Mr. Douglas: The statement from Rolls-Royce on 21st July, 1970, clearly stated:
    "It would not be the intention of the I.R.C. to retain any ordinary shares acquired upon conversion but while I.R.C. continue to hold a substantial interest in the company the Board will agree with I.R.C. on the appointment of a director to represent its interests. The Board is satisfied that with the banking facilities available, the company has sufficient working capital."
    Perhaps I am drawing too close a correlation, but here is a statement on the financial viability and probity of the company. If the Board of Trade investigators press the I.R.C. to look into the background, would the I.R.C.'s report on the viability of the company have to be made available to them? That may be a difficult question. However, will the hon. Gentleman at least look into it?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall look at that. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a tricky legal point which I should like to look into before giving an answer. I shall certainly try to ascertain the answer. In general, the Board of Trade inspectors are their own masters to decide what they have to look into, and the confidentiality or otherwise of documents depends on the nature of the documents. I should not like to try to pre-judge or

    263
    discuss these matters, because they are beyond my competence.
    I advise the House not to accept the Amendment for the technical reasons which I have given. However, we would be interested to hear other contributions which hon. Gentlemen may wish to make to the debate.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: In Committee we spent some time dealing with the portfolio. We had great difficulty in getting from the Under-Secretary specific answers to specific questions. We were rather surprised at this, because the Secretary of State, on Second Reading, in his usual generous manner, gave some very forthright undertakings to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, on 26th January, said:
    "…we should submit ourselves to the full discipline of Parliament and not be prepared to have the means at our disposal of acting virtually in the ignorance of Parliament, only submitting ourselves to it subsequently and not previously."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 353.]
    I wonder why the Secretary of State, in his insistence on the principle of accountability to Parliament, could not appear and clear up this matter in Committee. In justification of the stand which the Under-Secretary made, which I felt was a commendable piece of work, nevertheless, he did not deviate from his natural obduracy and his insistence on not giving more information than he wanted us to have. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have a liking for spending a lot of time talking about nothing. In fact, the hon. Gentleman even went to his Department and obtained copies of the I.R.C.'s annual reports and had them handed out to us. This is the document. We could all do our simple arithmetic quite well before the hon. Gentleman exercised his officials with this arithmetical process. Therefore, we could only thank the hon. Gentleman for duplication.
    By moving an Amendment such as this on Report, we are saying in effect that we know before we start that the Secretary of State will not have any of it. Therefore, its only function can be of a probing nature. We would like to know the extent to which the Secretary of State will keep Parliament informed about the very complex portfolio of investments.
    264
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) mentioned Rolls-Royce and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) made reference to it both here and in Committee. It need not be developed further. We do not want to embarrass the Secretary of State. Why should we? The right hon. Gentleman has his own personal embarrassment. I do not want to take it further. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is unhappy about it because it is a short day since the halcyon honeymoon period of the Blackpool conference. But we are entitled to know how we are to interpret what the Under-Secretary in Committee said is prudent management of the portfolio. What does "prudent management" mean? If it is a continuation of the past experiences of management, we shall be in quite a pickle. Indeed, the advice which has been given to the Under-Secretary and to his right hon. Friend is often at times neglected. However, we are very concerned not only for the portfolio, but about their future. It does not seem as though it will be very long; it would seem to be short-lived.
    When looking at this portfolio we are dealing with securities and a considerable amount of equity approaching £120 million. I should think that in the beginning that was taxpayers' money given to the I.R.C. to invest prudently and, according to its terms of reference, to invest only when no other source of investment was available. That was one of the criteria.
    Having provided the taxpayers' money to finance the I.R.C. to do a job of work in this sphere which industry welcomed, is it not proper that when the Government terminate I.R.C. we should have some kind of accountability? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept the Amendment—no sensible politician would want to force through an Amendment if by chance there was doubt whether the wording was as precise as the intention would be—but will give us an assurance about some accountability and tell us that the embarrassing silence regarding Rolls-Royce will not be repeated concerning some of these securities—for example, if any row evolves about subsequent share dealings in the British Nuclear Design Group and the Nuclear Power Group, in which there is a substantial holding—and that the

    265
    House will be confided in, we shall be reasonably happy. If, on the other hand, we are to have silence, arising from an unfortunate instruction from the Secretary of State on the subject of motor insurance, then we are unhappy.
    If the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept the Amendment, will he at least say that he meant what he said on 26th January and that he will keep the House informed. Will he also consider what he said later in the same debate:
    "Provision is not made in the Bill for specific management arrangements for the portfolio, though I assure the House that I shall have recourse to expert professional advice in the management of those assets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 355.]
    Can we be told the nature of that professional advice and whether the policies of the Government will be relaxed sufficiently for them to take account of that advice? Which will be predominant—the advice, or the policy of the Government?
    Is the Minister willing to keep the House informed, will he tell us about the policies of the Government which will determine the future of the portfolio, and will he tell us of the impartial professional advice that is given to him?
    Mr. Eric Ogden: It may have been the intention of the Under-Secretary of State when he intervened in the early part of this discussion to help the House and provide it with information. If so, he chose an unfortunate phrase when he said that it was his intention to direct the House on to a certain path of information and a certain path of advice. The word "direct" is perhaps not the best word to use in an intervention by a Minister, whether he be a senior or a junior Minister. I hope that he will be able to help the House, if he has your leave, Mr. Speaker, to intervene briefly at the conclusion of this part of the debate.
    It seems that the I.R.C. has the right to make a report and has in fact made a number of reports. Presumably after the passing of this Bill it will have the right to make a final report. In that final report presumably the I.R.C. can include whatever it wishes to include. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will not attempt to dissuade the I.R.C. from
    266
    including in its final report all the information that it wishes to include about the reasons why it made certain investments, either in Rolls-Royce or anywhere else?
    Mr. Charles Simeons: The Amendment, which seeks a report before the appointed day as to the valuation of securities, seems to miss the point. What we are interested in is not the valuation on that day but the progression after the appointed day. It is this aspect which causes the employees of certain companies in which investments have been made a small amount of concern. Judgment which cannot be laid down by an Act of Parliament will be needed as to the timing of the disposal of these securities. The investment made by the I.R.C. in a company which was forced into a marriage was probably made at a higher market value than the value at which the shares stand today. In other words, the value of the shares has fallen considerably, probably because the marriage was not a good one. In the meantime, management is having to make amends for what took place. I am not saying this in criticism of the I.R.C.; it could have happened anyway, but it so happens that the I.R.C. has money in the company and that the Secretary of State in due course will have power over it.
    If such companies are given an opportunity to recover, to put their houses in order and to show that their profits are rising, they will be in a much happier position than if Parliament lays down a procedure which has to be followed whereby they are sold off and thrown on to the market. If the shares were offered to the market and a bidder in a completely different line came along, because of the strength of his own shares he might be in a position to take over the company. The employees in some of these companies—and I have one in my constituency—are concerned about the timing. They are concerned that the share capital will be carved up and that they will become redundant.
    The Secretary of State should be given flexibility so that he can choose the time when the shares are rising after the companies have been given an opportunity to report and to show how they are doing, rather than that he should be tied down to a specific day, which might be

    267
    to the detriment of many companies. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that he will bear this in mind.
    Mr. Douglas: The points raised by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) were points that we endeavoured to cover in Committee. The Amendment calls for something which is already taking place, not something which will take place in the future. We are therefore pressing the Government to give an indication about an historical event and not a future event.
    Mr. Simeons: I accept that, although I still think that the value before the appointed day is relatively irrelevant.
    Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, and briefly, I should like to reply to the points which have been made. I have been asked about the I.R.C. report on Rolls-Royce. The report which was made available to the Government of the day was not the full report, but only a summary of the conclusions and recommendations, so the Government are in possession only of the summary and not of the detail. Whether this may be made available to the inspectors under the Companies Acts I am not yet in a position to tell the House. There is a Parliamentary Question down, the answer to which will be given when the question is due to be answered, and the House will be informed in that way. I regret that I am unable to give an answer off the cuff for fear of giving the wrong one.
    The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) asked about my right hon. Friend's statement in relation to informing the House. The question of parliamentary accountability was fully discussed in Committee, and my right hon. Friend has said that, if on any future occasion public money is to be put into an industry, he will make sure that the House is informed in the proper way. The intention is the same as under the Industrial Expansion Act for the matter to be brought before Parliament. We have acknowledged that this is the right way to do it.
    If the hon. Member for The Hartle-pools looks at the record, he will find that my right hon. Friend spoke these words in answer to an interjection which was dealing with the Industrial Expansion Act.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I do not want to deal with the Secretary of State, I want to deal with the question which is important to us and which we discussed upstairs, where the Secretary of State never paid a visit. I understand that orders relating to the Industrial Expansion Bill follow the affirmative procedure whereas orders under the Industry Bill follow the negative procedure. I am in doubt over the procedural element, which I regard as important, and I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on the subject.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ridley: I was coming to that. The position of the Government, therefore, is to agree with the general proposition of the Industrial Expansion Act; that before new undertakings are entered into to invest in or lend public money for new concerns, Parliament should be informed and consulted in advance. This is the principle on which hon. Members on both sides are in agreement, and this was done in that Act.
    There is no suggestion of more public money being put into any industry under this Measure, and the only power which remains is either to vary or revoke an existing scheme under the Industrial Expansion Act, and this will, in any event, be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, as allowed for under that Measure.
    The rest of this Bill deals entirely with the disposal of existing I.R.C. shareholdings. We had long debates in Committee about parliamentary accountability for these disposals, and hon. Members will recall that I gave certain undertakings, which I will repeat so that there will be no doubt about the way in which the Government intend to discharge that responsibility.
    I said that detailed accounts of any transactions would appear in the annual appropriation account for the year. I recognised, however, that they would be considerably out of date because of the time it takes for those accounts to be prepared. I therefore said that we would make a half-yearly statement of the list of shares and stock still in the possession of the portfolio, so that the House would be informed at half-yearly intervals of the exact state of the portfolio, enabling hon. Members to have full knowledge of what was held.

    269
    I went on to say that, wherever possible, we would announce major sales by some convenient means so that the House would be aware if any major sale had been made. I said, in particular, that we would draw attention to any major sale which could cause a monopoly situation or a situation leading to some sort of concern on grounds other than straightforward industrial considerations.
    The Committee upstairs accepted those undertakings as being in full discharge of our responsibilities, with the Government making all the information available to hon. Members to enable them to decide whether any action of the Government was one which they would wish to resist in debate and, therefore, challenge. We stand by those undertakings, and I believe that they meet the point mentioned by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter).
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) asked about a further report from the I.R.C. The Bill provides that there will be a report at the end of the current year. If the appointed day is after the end of the current year, it is provided that it may make a further report for the period that lies between the end of the current year and the appointed day. The Government would, of course, in no sense try to interfere with any report that it might want to print, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that free speech is a virtue in which we believe as much as he does.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) asked whether we would have regard to the possible awkward industrial consequences that sales of shares might have if we were to choose an unpropitious moment or if an unpropitious bidder were to enter the market for shares. We discussed this matter at some length in Committee, as the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) pointed out.
    I then made it clear—my right hon. Friend also made it clear on Second Reading—that we would have regard to the industrial effects of realising the portfolio. I asked the Committee to give us the maximum flexibility in disposing of shares so that we could achieve the best possible effect in any sale.
    270
    The House need not fear on this score of accountability. Ample information will be made available on all the matters which hon. Members have raised today. I therefore do not believe that it is necessary for us to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    4.35 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): I am conscious of the fact that the matters covered by the Bill have already been extensively discussed, both on the Floor of the House and upstairs in Committee.
    I am also aware of the relatively narrow confines within which the Bill may be debated at this stage. I will, therefore, be brief, and, in doing so, I will deal only with issues which seem strictly appropriate to the Measure, as amended in Committee.
    One of the primary issues which came out in Committee was clearly that which related to accountability to Parliament. This has already been discussed at considerable length, but I wish to reaffirm some of the remarks of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I wholly concur with the easements and assurances which have been given. These assurances have been primarily in regard to the fact that Departmental estimates will have within them details of forecast expenditure and receipts in respect of transactions concerned with the activities to which this Measure gives rise.
    Moreover, these will, in due course, be dealt with in terms of figures in the appropriation accounts, which are published. Individual transactions will be shown in an appendix to these appropriation accounts so that hon. Members will be able to see precisely what has taken place with regard to investments made by the I.R.C. It has been undertaken that a six-monthly statement will be made to Parliament in a suitable form regarding such holdings as are retained from those taken over from the I.R.C.
    A second matter which has clearly evoked a great deal of interest has been that of parliamentary authority. There was strong discussion about the desirability of requiring every order to be

    271
    subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure in relation to the realisation of assets and rights and the fulfilment of obligations which the Government inherited from the I.R.C.
    I understand the purposes which were sought to be achieved by these proposals, but it is clear that to undertake realisations in that way would not be to do them in circumstances which would allow for the most satisfactory form of realisation. In fact, to have to publish all proposals of sales in such an extensive way would, in relation to assets and equity holdings and the like, be liable to cause adverse conditions in which such realisations could take place. With a view to meeting some of the wishes which have been expressed by hon. Members, it has been undertaken that announcements of major sales will be made whenever possible.
    Another matter which has been extensively debated is the need for the maintenance of the regional implications of any realisation procedures which take place under the Bill. We understood the purposes which were sought to be fulfilled by those proposals. I would simply comment that in giving the assurances which I have given on various occasions, I have always sought to make it clear that the whole range of the industrial considerations which surrounded any particular acquisition by the I.R.C. would be taken fully into account in realising these interests.
    This must be taken as inferring that if, in a particular case, there was a strong regional concomitant to an undertaking investment or interest of any kind held by the I.R.C., that would clearly not be ignored in relation to any action that might subsequently be taken. So I think that some broad reassurance can be given to those who are concerned about this issue.
    There was considerable discussion about the possibility of the Industrial Expansion Act being maintained in some form as a vehicle for the implementation of a policy in favour of the shipbuilding industry. The conclusion reached, with which I entirely concur, was that this Act would be an exceedingly unsuitable vehicle for the implementation of a policy in this industry in any case. Indeed, it is worth commenting that it was not used
    272
    for that purpose. We have presented a Bill on shipbuilding matters and when we come to debate it the whole of this matter will clearly be further discussed.
    Finally, I refer briefly to the rather difficult question of the sanctity of documents acquired by the I.R.C. in the course of its relationships with different companies and the risk that the mere passage of them to the Government might induce revelations which the companies never contemplated in their earlier discussions with the Corporation and which might be vexatious to the companies.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has made it clear that great care will be taken to ensure that this does not happen. The companies concerned are being contacted to ensure that they have no objection; and, should they have a strong objection in relation to any document which to their knowledge lies in the Corporation's hands, that clearly will have to be respected.
    The outcome of this is that we have a Bill on Third Reading which is somewhat amended from that which was originally presented, but it is substantially the same. It seeks, as was the original intention, to discontinue the work of the I.R.C. and to cancel the effect of Sections 1 to 7 of the Industrial Expansion Act. The purposes of the Bill have been very fully discussed. I do not wish to add further to the discussion. I commend the Bill, as amended, to the House.
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. Dell: May I first welcome the Secretary of State back to our discussions on the Bill. We missed him in Committee, for a number of reasons. We did not always feel that there was necessarily an identity of view between himself and his ministerial representative on the Committee. After his advocacy of the Bill on Third Reading it may be that the Secretary of State was well advised to leave it to the Under-Secretary, because I do not think that in his speech today the Secretary of State added much to the arguments as to why the House should support this simple act of childish destruction.
    The Bill may have been amended in Committee in one technical respect. However, it has certainly not been improved. Indeed, it would have been impossible to improve it. Because it is the same act of

    273
    doctrinaire destruction as it was in the beginning, we shall vote against it.
    In Committee we received certain assurances. The right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary have referred to them. The first was that where possible—we understand that this will normally be possible—a statement will be made about major sales.
    The second was that sales which create or intensify monopolies will be notified. I understood the assurance in this case to mean that they will be notified in advance. I take that to be the implication of the Under-Secretary's remarks in Committee as reported in column 179 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Gentleman did not make it clear today, nor did the Secretary of State. I take it that that was the assurance that was given on the grounds that it would be impossible for the Government to take action to create or intensify monopoly without giving previous notice of their intention.
    The third assurance given in Committee related to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, where the issue of confidentiality of private information passed by companies to an independent agency was involved. It was agreed on both sides, and as I understood it accepted by the Under-Secretary, that it would be far better if the assurances which have been given that administratively this point would be taken care of were converted into Statute. Although the right hon. Gentleman has told us that this administrative assurance will stand, he has given us no reason at all why there is not a Government Amendment on the Notice Paper converting this assurance into Statute form. It was agreed on both sides that it would be preferable that that should be done. The Under-Secretary indicated that, if he was unable to do that, he would tell the House why it could not be done. We have not been told why this could not be done. I hope that in answering the debate the Under-Secretary will not merely repeat the assurances which have been given in this respect but will say why this cannot be done in legislative form.
    Since Second Reading the Government's industrial policy has developed beyond recognition. There has been the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce, a matter to which I at any rate do not intend
    274
    to refer. There has been the loan to Yarrow from the Ministry of Defence, a loan made by the Ministry despite the doubts that it might throw on the Ministry's traditional policy of fair tendering and made by that Ministry rather than by the right hon. Gentleman's department. There has been the announcement of assistance to Harland and Wolff, which was not made by way of oral statement in the House. When I raised this point with the Leader of the House last Thursday I was told that this was primarily a matter for the Northern Ireland Government though clearly the right hon. Gentleman's Department is involved and must be the main decision-maker.
    In other words, we have had a series of examples, not of disengagement but of involvement. Many of them have been done and announced to the House in a way intended to diminish the prime responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. This presumably is intended to preserve the lingering legend of disengagement which, as The Times said editorially this morning, is a policy already in a state of some disrepair.
    At any rate, over the period since Second Reading it is clear that there has been recognition by the Government that in industrial policy political and social considerations as well as economic considerations count. Though I tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is not merely a serious unemployment problem in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
    The second issue which has clearly emerged since Second Reading is that what we are concerned with in industrial policy is not just principle but is also method. Clearly the Government have decided that in many cases they must intervene. What we are discussing in the Bill is method as well as principle. The Government's policy expressed by the Bill and expressed by the abolition of these two instruments is that where they intend to intervene it should be done, not by independent agencies, but by Government Departments direct.
    I have three comments on that. First, this policy has not been very successful so far. There has been a series of very doubtful decisions, to put it at its mildest. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board

    275
    is one case where the only victims of disengagement have been the bond holders, who had no conceivable responsibility for the situation that arose there.
    My second comment—this is a comment I convey to the right hon. Gentleman because it has been made to me on a number of occasions by industrialists who have had contact with civil servants in the right hon. Gentleman's Department—is that the right hon. Gentleman's civil servants are not clear as to what the right hon. Gentleman's policy is. Perhaps this is not surprising, because the right hon. Gentleman certainly has not made clear to the House what his policy is. His civil servants do not know the criteria by which his policy is supposed to be conducted. Again, this is not surprising, because, despite repeated requests to the right hon. Gentleman—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and I made them on Second Reading—the House has been given no indication of the criteria which the Government have in mind.
    Third, the Secretary of State's civil servants have no idea as to what sorts of decision in matters of industrial policy are likely to be approved by the Cabinet. There have been repeated examples, we understand, of decisions worked out carefully over a period of weeks in Departments which have been turned down by the Cabinet after half an hour or an hour's discussion without proper consideration of the consequences of so doing.
    Out of the "lame duck" policy which the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently announced to the House some months ago there is now developing a policy of government by ineffectual threat. Statements are made in the House and elsewhere along these lines—"We will help you this time but never again, whatever the circumstances"—"We will not finance inflationary wage settlements"—"This is your last chance". Statements of that sort are being made as indicating the spirit behind the various decisions to which I have referred.
    When I say that this is a policy of ineffectual threat, I do not mean that the Government may not carry out the threats. I do not say that the Government might not, in a spirit of "derring do," let some major company collapse,
    276
    whatever the social and economic consequencies, in order to encourage the others. There is some evidence to the contrary in action taken by the Government in certain matters. Leaving aside the Rolls-Royce case, the only victim of this policy so far has been Palmers Yard at Hebburn and the bond holders of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. But I cannot say that the Government do not intend to carry out these threats.
    The policy is ineffectual because it has no effect in producing the results which the Government evidently wish. It does not work. There are ceremonies of rededication on these occasions, but the policy does not work, for a number of reasons.
    First, the problems which many of these companies have to deal with are problems which go far beyond anything within the capacity of management and workers to handle. This is true, for example, of the shipbuilding industry in its particular international competitive situation.
    The policy does not work because people do not respond to threats. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman and the Government imagine that people in this country are likely to respond to that peculiar form of leadership. Third, it does not work because what is mainly involved in these situations, when competitive circumstances permit, is management capacity.
    In the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill, the Government were prepared to admit that responsibility for the condition of industrial relations lay mainly on management. The same is true in the industrial situations with which the right hon. Gentleman has to deal. Again, therefore, this policy of threat, which is rapidly converted into a policy of government by whining and blaming and government by wringing hands at the iniquities of employees, does not work because what is necessary in these situations is new management, good management, but even new and good management can only have its effect slowly.
    The good management or the new management which the right hon. Gentleman may wish to put in in a number of situations may well need further encouragement. For perfectly good reasons, it may need further assistance. It may need

    277
    oversight by people who have less concern with the detail and more with the general policy of the company with which they are connected. Occasionally, management may need stiffening in the conduct of its policy in order to revive and make competitive a firm in which the Government have taken a financial interest. This is true particularly in the difficult situations with which the Government often have to deal. After all, firms normally come to the Government only when the situation they confront is one of great difficulty.
    There has been much debate in this country about what sort of action can be taken or should be taken to improve management. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would listen. I am addressing the House about the effects of the abolition of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and of the powers under the Industrial Expansion Act on actions which his Government have to take in this field.
    Mr. Ridley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would speak to what is in the Bill rather than what will happen as a result of the Bill.
    Mr. Dell: I am sure that you would intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went out of order at any point. What is in the Bill is the abolition of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the repeal of certain powers under the Industrial Expansion Act. I am explaining what the effect is likely to be on his Department when these organisations and powers have gone, as they will go under the Bill.
    I was about to point out that the sorts of pressure on management which have frequently been discussed in this country as contributing to the better performance of management—such ideas as the reactivation of shareholders, which I regard as a forlorn hope, such ideas as giving special responsibility to outside directors, and such ideas as the creation of supervisory boards—were available to the right hon. Gentleman in the form of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the boards which could have been set up in those cases in which he might give assistance to sections of industry for reasons which he would on occasion find good.
    The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, particularly a strengthened Indus-
    278
    trial Reorganisation Corporation, could have exercised exactly that supervision over the Government's investment and assistance to companies which has so frequently been discussed in this country in the context of what could be done by shareholders but is not, and what might be done if, by changes in company law, we established supervisory boards or that type of instrument.
    All this the right hon. Gentleman is throwing away. He is throwing away a valuable instrument now in his hands, and he says that Government Departments will do it instead of the I.R.C. and instead of boards established under the Industrial Expansion Act.
    Government Departments cannot do the job. They may be able to negotiate an agreement in the first place, but what Departments cannot conceivably do is the supervisory task, because they have neither the resources nor the experience. The most recent evidence of that—the right hon. Gentleman has not fully explained the circumstances to the House—is the collapse of the Vehicle and General Insurance Company. The right hon. Gentleman's Department had specific supervisory powers but they did not avoid disaster in that case.
    It is a major tragedy that, instead of being developed and modified in a way which would have enabled it to act in this way on behalf of the Government, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is to be abolished. I say that for another reason. The Government have shown in the conduct of their industrial policy that they need advice. That is shown by the quality of the decisions they have taken in the absence of such advice. Businessmen have been brought into government, with much fanfare. What has happened to them since? No one knows. They have been forgotten. No one knows what they are doing. As so often happens, they have evidently been absorbed into the machine. I should not be surprised if many of them were disillusioned about the situation in which they find themselves. In an organisation like the I.R.C., where the people concerned have their existing functions and companies, senior positions of authority, and are not cut off from the movement of industrial affairs by being absorbed into the government machine, they would have been able to give the Government

    279
    advice. The Government sorely need that advice, as the experience of their conduct of industrial policy over the past few months has shown, but they evidently have no use for that sort of independent advice.
    The principal reason for setting up the Corporation was to stimulate mergers, though its nature changed with experience and the change in the industrial situation over the years of its existence. What is the Government's policy on mergers? We had a policy. The I.R.C. was to forward a few sensible, well-thought-out mergers. The Monopolies Commission was to examine certain mergers against the measure of the public interest, whether they reduced competition without adequate compensation in increased efficiency, and whether they would lead to a misuse of resources. But what is the Government's policy on mergers? The Under-Secretary has told us that a great number of mergers brought about by market forces have had disastrous results. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, as I reminded the House on Second Reading, that the Government will encourage restructuring, and believe in the necessity of size in many instances.
    What is their policy, between those contradictory statements? Will they stop mergers or encourage them? Is the decision of the Government in the case of Bowater-Reed merely an example of the reconciliation of those contrary views of the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary? To encourage size they were going to allow the merger to go through, but because it would perhaps result in a disaster they referred it to the Monopolies Commission. It was an extraordinary decision, born simply of confusion of purpose, from which fortunately they have been rescued simply by the decision of the two companies not to go ahead.
    Mr. Douglas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reference to the Monopolies Commission would have been futile, because the merger, if the companies had agreed, would have been well under way before the Commission could possibly have reported to the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Dell: Exactly. It was a policy of confusion without any conceivable desirable outcome. The Government
    280
    should have let the merger go through, or stopped it and waited for the Commission's report. That type of decision shows that the Government have no merger policy, just as they have no competition policy.
    I asked the Secretary of State at Question Time just over a month ago when he intended to make a reference of a monopoly to the Commission. He said. "Very shortly", but it has not been made yet.
    There have been other changes since 26th January. The economic situation is even more critical. There is higher unemployment and lower investment, mainly owing to lack of confidence in the Government, the change from the investment grant system to tax allowances, the cut in the differential in favour of the development areas, and the cut in cash flow to the development areas. Here we have had a series of extraordinary, contradictory statements from the Government. On Friday, fortunately, we shall have an opportunity to debate them. The right hon. Gentleman added to them yesterday by saying that although no forecast could be made he could make a forecast, and could give an assurance, which shows that he is learning quickly to make politically convenient statements.
    Although the calculations which make the Government think that they can get away with contradictory statements may be very complex, the facts are very clear. There is rising unemployment and declining investment. These are facts of which people are aware; the boot is pinching. Despite all the assurances the right hon. Gentleman may give the House, those are the facts in the development areas.
    I am not claiming that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation or the Industrial Expansion Act could have operated to reverse the downward trend for which the Government are responsible, but they could at least have introduced some amelioration into the situation by selective investment projects.
    Mr. Ridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to one thing the Government have done which could have had any effect upon regional employment so far, leaving aside the future? The right hon. Gentleman is complaining about the present situation. What action of the

    281
    Government is he complaining about that has brought about this state of affairs?
    Mr. Dell: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I suspected that he was not, because of the chatter going on between him and his right hon. Friend. He may find it more difficult to answer what I have said because he was not listening. I spoke of the decisions the Government have taken which have affected employment in the development areas, decisions which have shaken confidence in those areas. There was the decision to abolish the regional employment premium, which is therefore no longer being taken into account by industry in development areas, because it is not something upon which it can rely. The decision to change from investment grants to tax allowances has already led to the postponement or even abandonment of major investment projects in the development areas, or has contributed to that result.
    Mr. Ridley: The right hon. must not talk nonsense. Neither of those things could conceivably have contributed to the present situation, though they may contribute to the future. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I put to him.
    Mr. Dell: Of course they have contributed to the present situation. For example, construction projects that could have been going on at Carrington, near my constituency, which have been deferred, would now have been employing my constituents and constituents of my hon. Friends on Merseyside. Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the Government's decisions have not had a current impact on the employment situation? Of course they have. What has been made clear to the whole of industry is that the Government intend to prevent expansion. This has led to people being cast out of employment who might have been in employment now. There is no question but that the Government's actions are having an effect on the current employment situation.
    One thing we were not told in Committee is what the Government intend to do about certain industrial problems which have been presented to them in the form of reports such as that on the
    282
    machine tool industry. Under the Industrial Expansion Act they would have had powers to assist in dealing with the problems of that industry, as revealed to them by the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Way. What will they do in that sort of situation, or is disengagement to involve that industry whatever the consequences?
    I will not refer further—we referred to it on Second Reading—to the fact that the abolition of the Corporation is a breach of an election promise.
    I hope that the I.R.C. in some form will be revived, if not by this Government then at any rate by a future Labour Government. I would expect—and I am obviously speaking personally—that, if it were revived, it would not be a reorganisation corporation specifically, because I do not think that restructuring would be its only or its primary function. I would expect, on the basis of experience with the I.R.C.—very valuable experience from which a lot was to be learnt by a Government which decided to review its operations instead of abolishing it—that such an organisation might be less independent of the Government, or at any rate while no less independent in the conduct of policy, more subject to policy directives from the Government.
    I would expect it to be an advisory body of high status on specific industrial situations, a protection against the sort of political intervention which I think this Government will turn their hands to in due course. I would also expect that it would not be run on a shoestring, because if it was to have the sort of functions I have indicated and which such an organisation could valuably have on behalf of the Government, it could not be run on a shoestring. But the Government, instead of modifying or learning from experience and improving the organisation we have set up, are throwing it away. It is an act of senseless childish destruction committed in the early days of a Government who manifestly lack experience and judgment. It is a decision which they and the country will regret. Perhaps they regret it already.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. Albu: This is a sad occasion. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time because most of the things I wanted to say have been said by my right hon.

    283
    Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). We shall vote against the Third Reading of this entirely destructive Bill. It is a tragedy when a new Government's first legislation is destructive and contains nothing constructive. But the Government have their majority and they will have their way. That, of course, is not the end of the matter. It does not solve the problems raised by modern industrial society.
    As my right hon. Friend said, the Government could have waited a little longer. Even if they doubted the value of the I.R.C., even if they were opposed to some of the principles on which it was set up, they could have kept it at work with a minimum capital. There was no hurry for repeal. They could have prevented the I.R.C. from going into any other venture while they had time to reconsider its past, the principles on which it was set up and the policies which they themselves wished to pursue.
    Nor was there any need for hurry to repeal the Industrial Expansion Act, because that Act was entirely dependent for its operation on the Government themselves, and if the Government did not wish to use it they need not have done so. I do not know whether they think that they will get any electoral credit out of this, whether they think this is a popular move. Unfortunately, I do not think that this is an issue which arouses great interest in the country. But it does arouse great interest among those of us, in this House and outside it, who have had, throughout our working lives, an interest in economic and industrial development.
    I must repeat what has been said before—that we have our doubts about the Secretary of State's own enthusiasm for the Bill. He has too much industrial experience not to realise that this is not a time in industrial history, certainly not in ours, for doctrinaire economic policies. The Bill will do nothing to change the technological climate. Nor will it do anything, unfortunately, to help solve the problems of industrial and regional reconstruction, which are by no means over and from which we have been suffering for perhaps one hundred years.
    Practically the whole time I have been in the House we have been concerned with these problems. We have had debate after debate on them. First, they were on
    284
    what were generally called the macroeconomic problems. That was the day of the Keynesian economics. When I first entered the House, everything was to be solved by the management of the economy. We have learned that is not enough. During the last 10 or 15 years, our minds have turned more and more to efficiency, technological development, management and the skills of our workers in industry. Successive Governments have had to take action to change the conditions of our industrial life at the industrial level, not at the macro-economic level, at which we were deficient.
    I have said many times in the House that these problems are not new. Warnings about them have been given consistently over at least the last hundred years. During that period, our competitors have increasingly gone ahead of us, with the exception of the inter-war period. That was a special period, due, of course, to the post-1918 inflation on the Continent and the subsequent violent deflation and mass unemployment. Strangely enough, during that period of great unemployment, we had greater restructuring of industry and a higher rate of growth than in many other periods. But I hope the Government are not going back to that. Apart from that period, we have been continuously overtaken by competitors.
    I cannot believe that a Government who obviously need and want to use the skills of business men and have brought in from outside the right hon. Gentleman, as a businessman and industrialist, to help them in industrial policy, do not understand these problems and that they are not going to try to develop some policy other than the policy of 19th century laissez-faire.
    The days of a close relationship between Government and industry are here for good. They will not go. They may vary in their form and in their extent, but no one in any modern society can believe that Government and industry are not closely entwined, for defence reasons if for no other. I do not know what proportion of the United States economy is closely entwined with the United States Government, but in defence—although that appears to be lagging now—and in activities such as space exploration and

    285
    so forth it is enormous in terms of the advance of technology in modern industry. We have serious problems because of the close entwining of the major industrial powers.
    It has been clear for a long time that the market itself is not, at any rate in this country, an efficient mechanism for restructuring and modernising industry and improving its management. It is not as efficient, it appears, as the once much-criticised German banking system, which has always played a much more active rôle in the management of the enterprises which it has helped to finance. This was much criticised in Britain for many years, but I think that we are coming around to a rather different view. If I read aright the thoughts of the right hon. Gentleman, judging by the speech he made at the annual dinner of the I.C.F.C., they bear some relationship to my thinking on this matter. But the City and the banking system and the market have not so far provided a method of improving either the structure or the management of British industry.
    It is an extraordinary thing that we have in this country a large number of merchant banks and that the chairman of one of the largest was the chairman of Rolls-Royce. It is interesting that a merchant bank played a large part in the financing of Rolls-Royce but apparently was not aware of the financial and management problems from which Rolls-Royce was suffering. This applies not only here but throughout the whole of industry. No one can claim that that little body, the I.R.C., could do more than make a small dent in this problem. It was beginning to build up some knowledge, some expertise, some influence. It was a useful body for this purpose.
    It was a tool which the Government could use without directly intervening. I know that the Under-Secretary keeps complaining about the lack of Parliamentary responsibility and so forth but I aways thought that it was Conservative policy at any rate that Government should not intervene directly, too immediately, that the Civil Service was not a suitable mechanism for direct intervention in industry and that some intermediate approach was required.
    I have always pressed for a much closer relationship with industrialists and busi-
    286
    ness men in determining our industrial, economic and tax policies. When we were in office we brought into Government a considerable number of business men who helped us a great deal. The Government have also brought in business men but, as my right hon. Friend said, they have lost them. It is a great mistake to believe that business men will improve the machinery of Government. They know nothing about it and when they get into it they are completely lost.
    I do not believe that any business man could have built up the National Insurance scheme in 1948 any more than I believe that any business man, by himself, without the great number of civil servants, could have introduced the decimalisation of our currency which has been so successfully carried out in the last few weeks. It would be impossible, and that is an answer to those who consider that our civil servants are amateurs. They are not.
    Mr. John Biggs-Davison: What does the hon. Gentleman think of Lord Woolton's achievement at the Ministry of Food during the war?
    Mr. Albu: I did not know that Lord Woolton was a civil servant.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was referring to the hon. Gentleman's comment that business men were no good at dealing with the machinery of Government.
    Mr. Albu: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman. Lord Woolton was a Minister, he was brought in during wartime and in war-time things are very often different. I am not suggesting that we should not have the right hon. Gentleman here. I am not sure whether he will be successful, and I do not know what his hon. Friends think of him. I am glad to have those with industrial experience in the House as Ministers. That is not what we are talking about. I am asking whether it is any use to bring the business man into Government relations with industry. My answer is "Yes". What I am saying is that that is not what the Government are doing. They are not using their business men as advisers on their relations with industry, on industrial or economic or the tax problems facing industry. They are using them to fiddle about, interfering in the administration of

    287
    Government itself, of which they have absolutely no experience.
    Their very training and education is completely different from that of the civil servant. His responsibility is to the Minister who is responsible to the House. Every civil servant knows that, and that is why business men are always utter failures. Of course, I am not suggesting that a few improvements in the typing pool will not be helpful. Of course that will be so. But the suggestion that they can improve the machinery of Government is nonsense. What they can usefully do, and what they should be used to do, is to help the Government in their relations with industry and to advise the Government on industrial policy. That is why a body such as the I.R.C. was so useful. We brought in a number of business men. We brought them into many other parts of our Government as well, and they did a useful job. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that a great deal of what I am saying is so.
    When this Bill is passed we shall have to wait to see how the Government deal with the problem. That is what we want to know; what will the Government do about their relations with the aviation, shipbuilding, computer and machine-tool industries? It is all very fine to say, "Nothing. These must stand on their own two economic feet." If that is so, given the present state of British industry, they will soon be standing on very little at all. We shall find ourselves without some of the most important industries necessary for a modern industrial society, in many of which we are already backward. The whole range of engineering—mechanical engineering, in particular—is still not in a healthy state.
    These are the problems still to be faced and dealt with. No doctrinaire adhesion to macro-economic principles will make any difference to the problems; they will still be there when this Parliament finishes, and whoever comes into the next Parliament will have to deal with them.
    5.28 p.m.
    Mr. Leadbitter: There is an inevitable tendency to repeat Second Reading points on a Bill like this because we are left in the situation described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr.
    288
    Dell) who said that even after Standing Committee scrutiny the Bill succeeds in doing nothing. As amended, it virtually leaves hon. Members on this side of the House as confused as ever. Because of the puerile attempt by the Under-Secretary, without any help from the Secretary of State as to what Government policy was, we have been left in a vacuum.
    We can perhaps best address ourselves to this by taking into account the variety of statements which have been made and the number of decisions reached on regional policy. Whatever else may be said about the Bill, it is a stupid, puerile and ineffective Bill which wasted a considerable amount of time. The Bill is titled wrongly. It is called an Industry Bill, but it is a Bill of disengagement, withdrawal, abdication following the shuttered concept of non-intervention mouthed by the right hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion.
    We could give the Bill some names but we found in Committee that we cannot alter the Title at the beginning, nor can we alter it in the middle or at the end. The Title has to be in accordance with the Amendments accepted. None of our Amendments seemed to find favour with the Under-Secretary who acted for the Government in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. We wanted to see him, to tell him how concerned we were about it. We were worried in case he was making a mess somewhere else, but he never came along. We wanted to help the country to get out of the difficulty.
    The news about this Bill and the other despondent news about Conservative policy had left the populace in a state of puzzlement. It had certainly left industrialists wondering how they were to plan future investment programmes. It left the regional authorities, economic planning councils and boards, various quasi-political and local authority and trade union bodies set up to look after regional affairs, in a state of some concern.
    On the question of regional policy, as with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to motor insurance, he has complete confidence in private enterprise and he does not accept that the Government are responsible for anything which has happened since they came to power. To say the least, that is arrogant. A good politician admits his mistakes occasionally to

    289
    show that he is human, but not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He gives the House a cock-and-bull story about his intentions. In order to satisfy himself that his thoughts are right, he stands before his mirror each morning and talks to himself and convinces himself and then says later that the rest of us do not understand him.
    Will the Secretary of State tell us what combination of industrialists or which single industrialist made representations to him to the effect that the Corporation should be brought to an end? What representations were made from any quarter outside industry? What representations came from any political quarter? Some Conservative-held local authorities will be making representations to him very shortly, saying, "We are worried. What do you propose to do for us?"
    If no representations were made to the Secretary of State, the only conclusion we can draw is that he decided to bring the Corporation to an end or it was decided by the Cabinet. A possible conclusion is that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who I understand is the Prime Minister, might have decided the matter for the Cabinet and then the right hon. Gentleman had to do as he was told. Responsibility for ending the Corporation cannot be laid at the door of anyone else but the Conservative Government. If the Secretary of State is prepared to take responsibility for it, let him say so. If it were a Cabinet decision, let him say so. If no one outside the Government persuaded him to get rid of the Corporation, let him say so.
    The ex-Chairman of the Corporation, Lord Kearton, and his successor and their industrial colleagues on the board, plus the trade union representative, were working in complete harmony with industry. They were making progress during the Corporation's three years of life—and we should bear in mind that the first year was one of apprenticeship and of gaining the confidence of industrialists. Therefore, in practice, a much shorter period was involved in bringing about mergers and making improvements in industry, and in introducing new principles of application in management and concepts of rationalisation which time and again have been applauded by industrialists who
    290
    have had the opportunity to express their opinion impartially.
    The product of that exercise has been the creation of an interesting portfolio of investments worth £120 million. The Secretary of State cannot help but agree that no harm was done by the Corporation. Indeed, the evidence shows that a great deal of good was done. The Corporation had a hand in creating the British Nuclear Design Group in which it had a considerable shareholding. It had a hand in bringing about the Nuclear Power Group—the second string in our nuclear posture. Bearing in mind that we produce more nuclear power for civil purposes than the rest of the world put together, the Corporation's contribution was useful. In a short time the Corporation made a useful contribution in textiles, light engineering, heavy engineering, boiler production and in a range of other manufacturing activities which cut across a very broad section of the industrial infrastructure.
    The House should not ignore the terms of reference of the industrialists appointed by the Minister. The Secretary of State must try to have a sense of humility. He has not a monopoly of business expertise in the House. It was only by fortune, good luck and the grace of God that he got to the top in the C.B.I. He was not the only pebble on the beach there. He must have a sense of humility and accept that the evidence shows that he acted in a way which conflicted with the evidence of industrialists.
    The conditions under which the Corporation operated were that it should exercise a completely independent judgment in industrial matters; that it should suffer no intervention from the Government; and that there should be no veto on any of its decisions by the Minister. It was provided with finance to enable it to work with industry and to help in those sectors of industry where solutions could not be found. The investment of Corporation money was based on one of a number of criteria. The basic criterion was that no Corporation money should be invested if another source was available.
    The Secretary of State is getting rid of a body which has been proved to have done useful work. How can he say that the termination of the Corporation stems from anything other than blatant, misguided political dogma? The same

    291
    applies to the termination of Sections 1 and 7 of the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968. That Act produced three schemes which have been proved to be essential to the regions and will be of benefit to our balance of payments, namely, the creation of two aluminium smelters, one in Anglesey and one in the North, and the I.C.L. computer holdings company.
    I and others on the Select Committee on science and Technology know the important part which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) played as Minister of Technology in the creation of these three major beneficaries of the Industrial Expansion Act. We know the danger to I.C.L. holdings in the light of the recently competitive positions claimed by I.B.M. and Honeywell.
    Does the Secretary of State, after Rolls and other recent examples which have conflicted with his philosophy, still say that it will not happen again? He can only be justified in saying that it is the Government's intention at this stage to use the provisions of the Act, but he cannot have a crystal ball and say that it can never happen.
    The great advantage of the Act was that it gave reserve powers. If that were the best way of dealing with a situation, why not keep it—unless it is because of a dogmatic political posture from which the Secretary of State feels that he cannot deviate in case, at the next Conservative conference, he is charged with contradictions? So on these two counts the evidence shows that there was no case for getting rid of I.R.C. and that it can be a major mistake to get rid of reserve powers which could have been used in eventualities like those which have occurred recently.
    The extent and nature of the Rolls affair was outside the scope of the Bill, but there are many examples of how future needs might have to be met. The right hon. Gentleman is foolish to get rid of something which need never have been used, unless in his judgment or that of the House it had to be invoked. To repeal it completely is silly.
    The Under-Secretary of State, who is the hot gospeller of the Conservative Party on regional policy, answered our simple little Amendment—I supported it,
    292
    so it was bound to the be right—which asked him, under Clause 1(2), to consider regional policy. We put the most reasonable arguments before him, based on decades of experience in the region. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), the ex-Minister responsible for the North, is here. Probably, he is hoping that there will be a change of heart, but I think that that is wishful thinking. The Under-Secretary of State would not take account of this vast experience.
    He asked what decisions had been taken by our Government which were responsible for the present regional policy. The other regions can speak for themselves, but what I say can probably be emulated by them. In the Northern Region, before this Government came to power, we claimed 160 new manufacturing industries. We claimed, on the Board of Trade estates, considerable advances in factory building, over 70 advance factories, over 120,000 new jobs and the creation of government training centres, staffed and built to produce 3,000 newly trained men per annum. We had a road-building programme of £50 million. We had a construction programme of £143 million. We had inducements to industry of over £163 million.
    I do not have to have a brief to read from to give the answers, as the Secretary of State must have when he comes to the House: I have learned the job. I am giving it to him in the most beautiful language I can, so that he can understand it. Therefore, we had over £300 million per annum of aid in the Northern Region. Indeed, the North-Eastern Development Council, which appealed to the Department only recently to be a little more reasonable about the situation in the region, told us that, during the period of Labour Government, £1,000 million was injected into the North.
    The Bill is a serious contribution to the serious lack of confidence in the region, which has caused the present situation. In October of last year, 13 industrial developments certificates were granted, involving factory space of 365,000 square feet. In January this year—this shows the slide—there was one industrial development certificate, involving factory space of 22,000 square feet. Under the I.D.C. policy, the rate of factory building was running at 1,935,000

    293
    square feet in the year before the Conservatives came to power. That is the record; that is the result.
    More than that, inquiries in the region for industrial development have slowed to a trickle. Will the Secretary of State name the 30 industries in the Northern Region and Scotland which have contracted out? If I am wrong on that point, it shows that I am not perfect, but have just generalised a little too much, but all the rest is factually correct, certain and right.
    The Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost—come to the North and declare that important area a special development area. For the last five years in Hartlepools, I have been saying that it is an example in the United Kingdom of progress—the only constituency, in the last year when the Conservative lot was in power, in 1963–64, with a 12½ per cent. unemployment rate. But, when we left office in June last year, the position had been altered. We boasted about bringing in, during that period, 4,000 new jobs, 30 new industries and extensions to existing industries. The proposals included a new central area development and a new port complex. Despondency was thereby transformed into hope and optimism and the situation was intended to be an attraction to other industries. We sought to use our policy as an instrument to deal with unique cases of hardship in West Durham.
    Heaven knows what trouble the present Government will inflict on West Durham by the proposals in the Bill. I shall be asking Questions month after month about the number of inquiries on the North-East Coast resulting from this shift in policy, the taking away of investment grants and the use of the provisions of the Bill. If the Secretary of State is not able to provide the gravy, then surely at some point he must admit that his policies are responsible for the situation. He cannot for very much longer continue to ascribe the present situation to the policies of the Labour Government. All the facts are available to prove him wrong. We must be patient and wait for the point at which he caves in and admits he is wrong.
    294
    The claim has been made that the I.R.C. cannot be helpful in solving the present situation and that the Industrial Expansion Act is not the right instrument. However, it was meant to be part of a package. We know that measures are being prepared to deal with the financial needs of the shipbuilding industry which, sad to say, is still sick and still needs a great deal of help. But the help being offered by the Government falls some £300 million short of what is required by the shipbuilding industry and we shall have to watch the situation with great care.
    It is part of the democratic process that, after angry words are spoken in the House, the normal courtesies prevail. But in the end our duty is towards the country as a whole. I would ask, the Government in the cause of the prosperity of Great Britain and as a result of all the advice we are receiving from experienced people in industry and commerce, from Members of Parliament who know the situation in their constituencies, from economic councils and local authorities, to try to be more reasonable in their policies, to be more resilient and to relax a little more. Let them not threaten people. They have had their months of threats to the trade union movement.
    The intrinsic value of our democratic process is that, at the end of the day, it is the decision of the people in the country who send hon. Members to this House, and we must be careful about our attitudes towards those people. This must apply however weak those people may be—people such as the Post Office workers. If one keeps firing boomerangs in the air dictated only by one's philosophy without any consideration for the people whom one serves, those missiles will return and wrap themselves round one's neck.
    I hope that the regions will not suffer from the Government's policies. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to other points of view, and I trust that he will take reason into account. I hope that he will regard his unhappy experience over the past few months as a great lesson in his political life. The lesson is that in serving the House of Commons one cannot be rigid in one's attitudes. One must be prepared, if the evidence so demands, to change one's thinking.

    295
    The Secretary of State knows how hard I have pressed my point of view upon him and his Department. He may feel that it is purely a matter of parliamentary conflict, but it is not. It is a disbelief in what the right hon. Gentleman stands for. However, I hope that as a man he will rise above the situation and will not repeat these nonsensical provisions set out in the Bill, which are stupid and irrelevant nonsense.
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: I apologise to the House for intervening in this debate, as I was unavoidably absent during the speeches of both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), and I regret having missed those contributions. I have, however, had to serve my penance in having to listen to the speech—or sermon—by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), about which I shall say no more.
    My only purpose in intervening in this debate is to correct a misunderstanding to which I believe I gave rise in my Second Reading speech. In that speech I referred to the position of the G.E.C.A.E.I.-English Electric mergers and said that nobody could say that that merger had been a great success story—
    Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman in that speech mentioned a factory in my constituency. My own experience is that that particular part of the new combine is more independent and more successful as a result of the merger than was the case under the old set-up.
    Mr. Boardman: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to continue, I was about to say that if my words were taken out of context they could be quoted as a condemnation of the management, workers and so on. However, that was not intended. I recognise the great problems of organisation in integrating these three large companies. There have been difficulties, including hardship to those who have become redundant, but I believe that the company has tackled this matter in a realistic and efficient way, even if the results of the amalgamation in some respects may not have been as great as some anticipated.
    296
    I should at this point declare an interest, which I did not know I had when I spoke on the earlier occasion. I find that I happen to be a small shareholder in that company. I would hate it to be thought that any condemnation attributed to me previously was now being turned into praise because of an interest of which I have become aware. I can assure the House that it is not intended in that way.
    When I made my statement it was with the object of explaining that I thought that the I.R.C. had failed in putting together a variety of companies, of which I quoted this as an example; that it was not a success story in regard to the I.R.C. That was my intention and my belief. I went on in that speech to say
    "One might ask whether that Sir Arnold Weinstock would not have done better without the I.R.C. being in the field."
    I then gave credit, if that be the right word, to the I.R.C. which did not belong to it. Perhaps I was misled by what had been claimed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). As reported in column 363 of the Second Reading debate, he criticised my right hon. Friend by saying:
    "The right hon. Gentleman did not mention General Electric—A.E.I.—English Electric, but he knows that, faced with the huge combines of Siemens and Philips, those firms were too small to compete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th January, 1971; Vol. 810. c. 363–416.]
    The inference there quite clearly was that the I.R.C. had the responsibility and the credit for being the catalyst which resulted in this merger. However, I am informed by the Chairman of the General Electric Company, with whom I have been in correspondence on this subject, that that was not so. I understand from him that the G.E.C. decision to make a bid for A.E.I. and the subsequent decisions of G.E.C. and A.E.I. to merge were neither of them prompted by the I.R.C. but were the considered decisions of the boards involved, based on their assessments of the needs of the markets in which they were operating. The right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to claim credit for that merger.
    Mr. Benn: I did not claim credit for it. I was arguing about the need for larger units, and I cited that case. However, I must tell him that the rôles of the Government and of the I.R.C. in

    297
    mergers of this kind are complex. Cases are not triggered off by demands from the Government or the I.R.C. Anyone who knows about these relationships knows that they go on continuously. The Government and agencies like the I.R.C. may be involved at different stages, which may be helpful, or, if the Monopolies Commission intervenes, may prevent such a thing occurring.
    Mr. Boardman: But, at that time, we were discussing the rôle of the I.R.C., and the inference from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was that the G.E.C. —A.E.I. merger became possible because of some rôle that the I.R.C. fulfilled and which will not be capable of being discharged after the passing of this Bill.
    That leads me to another point. If the I.R.C. was unnecessary, one asks why it was necessary for public money to go into the merger at a subsidised rate. However, I leave that question there. The sole point of my intervention midway through the debate was to put right the impression that I thought that the management of G.E.C., which had such a difficult job, was doing it badly. Neither did I want the impression left that this merger was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to justify the I.R.C.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas: I want right away to take up the point which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has raised. I was surprised that he did not refer to the First Report and Accounts of the I.R.C. On page 18, he will see a note saying:
    "An exchange of letters between the I.R.C. and the G.E.C. was published in the formal offer document sent to A.E.I. stockholders on 14th October, 1967. The I.R.C.'s letter confirmed that the proposed combination of the businesses of the G.E.C. and A.E.I. had its full support but added that it was for the shareholders of A.E.I. to decide what was in their own interest."
    I accept that there are other hon. Members with more experience of this form of business enterprise than I have, but I read into that that the rôle of the I.R.C. on this and other occasions was that of an organisation to which enterprises could come to seek advice and guidance about mergers and restructurings.
    I have said before that, in the beginning, the 1.R.C. had a jaundiced recep-
    298
    tion from business. That is a view that I have formed from discussions with business men at a number of conferences. However, once the I.R.C.'s confidentiality, expertise and guidance were accepted by industry, increasingly it became the body to which industry turned for advice and assistance. It was not regarded by industry just as a means of obtaining access to a source of capital. The experience of firms in my constituency gives great substance to what I say and substantiates my point of view.
    I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. I did not want to refer to him in his absence. However, I have no doubt that he will read my reference to him in HANSARD. It may be because I am a little younger than the right hon. Gentleman, but, when I look at him across the Chamber, I am always reminded of his likeness to the famous Hollywood actor, Claude Rains. The right hon. Gentleman recalls to my mind a film entitled "Here Comes Mr. Jordan". In that film, Mr. Rains made a mistake. Acting on behalf of the archangels, he inadvertently ended the life of an individual, and the film concerned his attempts to get the spirit of the person whose life he had ended back into another body. In the film, Mr. Rains was successful.
    In ending the life of the I.R.C., I believe that the Secretary of State has acted inadvertently and against his better judgment. I think that he will spend the remainder of his Ministerial experience trying to put the same type spirit into another body. Already we see him searching round for ad hoc arrangements to fit the prevailing circumstances. I hope that I shall not transgress the bounds of order if I refer to the ad hoc arrangement of Yarrow Shipbuilders. In that case, instead of using the Vote of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Government are using that of the Ministry of Defence and concocting an ad hoc arrangement which allows Yarrow Shipbuilders to buy their way out of U.C.S. so as to assist the liquidity of U.C.S.
    I do not mind the Government doing that. But it is not right for us to allow them to tell the country that they are doing it because they believe in nonintervention. Of course they believe in

    299
    intervention. What we cavil about is the nature of the intervention and the fact that the Government's form of intervention lacks a clear assessment of priorities.
    No matter how much assurance we get from the Under-Secretary of State, the Government are taking a step that undermines £120 million of investment when they seek to destroy the I.R.C. I realise that the Department of Trade and Industry will have a difficult job managing investment and timing exactly how it will dispense with both ownership and elements of control of various kinds. When we ask how the Department will do it, we shall no doubt be told that outside experts will be consulted.
    I think that it is time that we asked how much the Government have paid in fees to outside experts since 18th June. I will not embarrass the particular companies concerned by mentioning their names in this House, because they have a high reputation for accountancy practice. But I should like to know how much the Government have had to pay in terms of public money to outside experts when they could have in the form of the I.R.C., or a modified I.R.C.—the Conservative Party's election commitment was to modify it, not to destroy it—a direct and continuing control in the exercise of its expertise.
    It is not only hon. Members on this side of the House who are making this stricture on the Government. We, and people outside, have been questioning the capability of the joint stock company to finance advanced technology. That may be a matter which it does not occur to hon. Gentlemen opposite to do. However, I suggest that the events and experience of the last few months particularly ought to lead hon. Gentlemen opposite to ask the question: is the joint stock company, created in the middle of the 19th century, capable of financing the advanced technological products of the 20th century?
    The New Scientist and Science Journal of 11th February carries the headline,
    "Bring back the I.R.C."
    This is not a Labour Party publication. I submit that it is an objective vehicle for putting a case relating to modern advanced technology. It states:
    300
    "The questions now are: Can a modern industrial nation afford to back out of any area of advanced technology? Are there industries which are economically necessary—almost irrespective of their burden to the taxpayer? Clearly there are. When capital and manpower are limited it is obviously sensible to back those products which eventually acquire the greatest value-added."
    I suggest that that is not the type of appraisal which the Under-Secretary would make. I can see the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint. It is still, to use a Scottish word, in the atmosphere of the 19th century. Indeed, someone has called him an Adam Smith man. But Adam Smith was Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University and he had a desire to look at the moral qualifications which underpin economic activities. I am not maligning the hon. Gentleman in any way. All I am saying is that his method of approach to these problems is totally out of keeping with the times.
    The article, to which I have referred, also states:
    "Two things are now clearly vital: the first is that the Department of Trade and Industry must draw up a list of priority industries and take swift measures to ensure their healthy survival; the second is that, when the domestic market is seen to be too small to make unit costs competitive, international mergers of interests must be ruthlessly pursued by the government."
    Here is an organisation asking for the I.R.C. to be kept in being and arguing:
    "Above all, Mr. Heath and his colleagues … must now quit indulging themselves in this irresponsible fantasy about private industry's inviolable right to commit hara-kiri. Intervention … is the legitimate behaviour of responsible government. Certainly the present government's dismantling of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation was a short-sighted piece of unnecessary party politics."
    The argument is put cogently and clearly that, in terms of modern advanced technology, the I.R.C. is the type of organisation which we ought to have.
    I should like to turn briefly to the views expressed by the Secretary of State; namely, that if we were to deprive the I.R.C. of finance and emasculate it, then some other form of finance to do the job that the I.R.C. was specifically designed to do had to be created.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, on 5th November, at a dinner of the I.C.F.C., said:
    "The disappearance of the I.R.C. is one of the factors which poses new problems to the

    301
    City of London. It is symptomatic of a more wide-ranging change in the climate of relationships between Governments and the whole varied world of business enterprise, whether that be continued as private manufacturing industry, the nationalised industries, the service industries, farming, the financial institutions, the professions."
    The right hon. Gentleman was arguing for placing on the City of London the obligation to bring forward and to create some form of financial institution which would be capable of performing the role which the I.R.C. had performed in the past.
    We have seen no evidence of any desire on the part of the Government to enter into a meaningful relationship with the City to get the flow of funds, either in terms of cost or amount for the financing of advanced technology, made available to companies entering into it in the United Kingdom. If the Government continue their policy, we shall be pushed into some form of international backwood, and we shall contract out of advanced technology. I do not think that the people of this country will put up with that. In terms of engineering and scientific skills, our people do not deserve that approach.
    If the Government are to abolish the I.R.C., if they are to emasculate the provisions of the Industrial Expansion Act, then I believe that they will regret it. I believe that in their heart of hearts the Government are already regretting it. If they carried out the sentiments of the broad mass of the people who know what relationship a Government in modern times ought to have with industry, they should have the courage, even at this late stage, to withdraw this petty little Measure.
    6.19 p.m.
    Mr. Neil Kinnock: I should like to take up one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). My hon. Friend made the justified allegation that we now have government by emergency. My hon. Friend said that the Government are ad hoc. That reminds me of the description of the Government by a constituent of mine who said that they will "ad" a bit like Rolls-Royce and "hoc" a lot like the profitable sectors of the nationalised industries.
    302
    The Bill certainly fits in which the whole concept of government by expediency. It is strange that in the debate today we have had charges levelled against the Government of simultaneously being a dogmatic Government and a Government of expediency. Beginning with the dogmas laid down in the Conservative Party's Manifesto, compounded by statements in the early weeks and months in power, the Government's dogmas have been tested by reality and they have had to come up with emergency and contingency actions for which they deserve the titles of ad hoc Government and Government by expediency.
    At this time, with unemployment rising, with excess capacity in industry growing all the time and with an investment crisis on our doorstep, it is difficult for anyone who has any interest in or knowledge of economic history to avoid comparing this period of Government and this period in the economy with the experience of the pre-war depression. Often far too close an analogy is drawn between any given post-war period and the crisis of the interwar years. It is too easy for some of us, especially those from the regions that suffered particularly at those times, to draw comparisons with what happened between the wars, but there is every reason, employing all one's objectivity, for thinking that there are comparisons between the difficulties now besetting the economy and the difficulties of the economy and of society then.
    There are two major differences between the economic and social experience of the inter-war years and that of the present time. First, things obviously are not as bad now as they were then —at least not yet. But nothing we have seen from the Government leads even the most optimistic person in the House or in the trade union movement to believe that a return to mass unemployment is an impossibility. Nothing the Government have done so far is a major impediment to or even a brake on the downward path towards national economic depression.
    I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry between them will be able to spawn something that will postpone or for ever abolish from our

    303
    minds the spectre of mass unemployment and mass depression. The regions have for many years experienced higher than average levels of unemployment and the levels are inching up day by day, until in parts of my constituency one man in ten is without a job. This is crisis level if ever there was one.
    The second major difference between the experience of the inter-war years and that of the present is that in the inter-war years it was necessary to evolve a set of weapons to combat the economic difficulties. At least in the post-war period we should have had the advantage of hindsight. It was a national Government inspired and guided by Conservative hands in the 1930s which seriously began the process of engagement and involvement in industry. The Governments of the early and mid-1930s embraced the idea that it was the Government's responsibility to assure a certain level of economic prosperity, until by the end of the war this was a natural, accepted fact of life. It seems to us completely orthodox now to advocate that Governments should have this responsibility. For many years people have been taking for granted that Governments are responsible for maintaining high levels of employment, for generating investment and for seeing to it that no region suffers particularly from any policy. But now, these targets have all been either eliminated or shamefully abandoned by the Government.
    So the real difference between the Conservative of the 1930s and the Conservative of the 1970s is that at least those nasty old Tories we heard so much about then were trying to do something about the difficulties besetting the economy. They were moving towards the inevitable engagement in and involvement with industrial decision-making in a modern economy. The Government today—and they are probably the only Government in the world who are currently doing it—are moving away from engagement in and involvement with industrial decision-making and industrial investment. This is a wholly regrettable and retrograde tendency.
    The Government 30 or 40 years ago were intent on encouraging the will of private enterprise to find its own salvation. Now they appear to be content to
    304
    abandon private enterprise to its fate. It was wrong for the Labour Party in the Election to use the slogan that we were fighting yesterday's men. Given an analysis of the programme which the Government are currently putting into practice, what we are talking about is an atavistic Government, a Government having far more to do with, and a closer relationship and closer similarity to, its distant forefathers than its fathers or even grandfathers, a Government drawing inspiration from a period long before the 1930s when their predecessors started to move towards engagement.
    It is not the fact that engagement has the value of age. It is not that we should respect it simply because it has been around for a long time. It is not that we have evolved to a point where the Government have become responsible for a great deal of industrial decision-making and play a significant part in running the industrial economy. We have moved from the position where involvement in industry by the Government was a straightforward necessity to one in which it is a complete inevitability. The importance of engagement in industry comes from the fact that in a modern technological economy there is simply no alternative. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire pointed out in his reference to the role of the joint stock company in technology, it is simply that modern capitalism and modern industry, in whatever economy it is, the so-called free economy, the so-called public economy or the so-called mixed economy, is simply not capable of capitalising its own technology. There is only one institution capable of doing this satisfactorily and that, to a greater or lesser degree, is the Government. We are fortunate in that our Government are elected democratically. Other countries are not so fortunate. In any society with an advanced technology it is obvious that only one source of investment is guaranteed to be sufficiently secure to provide a modern economy with expensive technology, and that is the State.
    The hard fact about the nature of modern technology is that to provide itself with an even chance of maintaining itself it either has to rely heavily on the State or enter into large combinations. While it is important for us to realise that the modern corporate firm relies on

    305
    the State as a provider, it is also important to recognise that in large corporate institutions there is no direct responsibility on the controllers of those institutions to a democratic society.
    To get the opinions given in the excellent T.U.C. "Economic Review" on the record, and to put the debate into a realistic context, I will quote paragraphs 150 and 151 of the review, which was published this week. Paragraph 150 says that a Monopolies Commission report:
    "estimated that in the 11 years to 1968 the number of 'large' companies in British industry and commerce fell by nearly two-fifths, from 2,024 to 1,253. Out of those, the 40 largest companies, which in 1957 had accounted for 35 per cent. of the net assets of all such 'large' companies, had by 1968 enormously increased their share to 49 per cent. of total net assets."
    The report went on:
    "It is widely accepted that the British authorities, and still more the British public, lack adequate knowledge as to the import/export transactions and transfer prices of such multinational companies".
    The report also made a point which we have frequently made in debating this matter, when it said:
    "The same Monopolies Commission study … estimated that the net assets of the 10 largest U.K. based foreign-owned manufacturing companies in 1968 were £1,143 million, compared with about £400 million in 1957."
    As I said, companies which have achieved this size by sheer technological necessity are not sufficiently responsive to the inspection of democracy. By their action in this Measure the Government have thrown away the only permanent institution which had the function of carrying out this inspection. I am not claiming for the I.R.C. powers and abilities which went beyond its terms of reference. However, people were encouraged because it was a start in a process of accountability which I believe will become a feature of politics and governmental development.
    We are now faced with rising unemployment, excess capacity and falling levels of investment. To a greater or lesser extent, most commentators agree that these difficulties are exacerbated or are certainly not helped by current Government policy. Despite these difficulties, which even the simplest can see, the Under-Secretary said that for him it had been a pleasant initiation into the philosophy of disengagement. On the basis of that statement he could qualify as a
    306
    peripatetic tutor for Nero in teaching the violin.
    In Committee, whenever hon. Gentlemen opposite were defeated in an argument—as they will continue to be defeated whenever they present legislation of this kind—they rested in the cosy armchair of dogma and the assurance of their majority. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out, there comes a time when no Government can be assured of their majority.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire said, there are whole sections of the community—whole groups of people, whole skills; in short, whole communities in the country—who will not permit a modern Government to take such an insular view of their responsibilities. They cannot detach themselves from modern governmental responsibility, and at the end of the day even the present Government will pay—and I mean before they are called upon to account to the electorate.
    The crisis in the British economy will be such that they will have to rediscover some of the institutions and policies, including the I.R.C., which were followed by the Labour Government. In other words, their dogma will be brought up against reality.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. Ogden: For about three hours during this debate my hon. Friends representing all parts of the United Kingdom, with the exception of Ulster, have been united in their opposition to the Bill.
    It is not without significance that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), speaking for Wales, gave precisely the same reasons for opposing the Bill as did my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), speaking for Scotland. Their remarks were reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) and even hon. Members who represent relatively prosperous constituencies in Southern parts of the country have spoken out strongly against the Bill. I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) spoke from a constituency point of view he would express similar sentiments. It is clear that the results of the Bill will, if only in small

    307
    measure, make the future prosperity of every part of the United Kingdom less optimistic and hopeful.
    The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) spoke of a change of mind that he had had from what he said on Second Reading, when, he said, he made an unfair reference to the interest of the I.R.C. in the A.E.I.English Electric-G.E.C. matter. It is always nice to hear an hon. Gentleman opposite say that perhaps he was wrong, that maybe he made a mistake or that he might have been unfair.
    I tried to intervene earlier to point out that in my constituency the largest industrial unit is the English Electric factory on the East Lancashire Road. It has had great difficulties because of the merger, and no one will deny that it lost a major part of its activities because of the reorganisation. However, the part that is left has, in the long term, a much stronger position than was the case a couple of years ago.
    While this may have been a rushed marriage—even Weinstock will admit that he had to move into it 12 months before he was ready—those employed there tell me that they have more independence over their operations now, under the new structure, than they ever had under the old ré;gime. One example was given to me.
    They were bidding from that factory for a major contract which required investment in machine tools and other equipment. That investment was necessary to make the bid. Under the old system, by the time they had got permission to buy the new machinery, they would not have had any chance of getting the contract. It will be seen, therefore, that they have more independence now. Without overlooking the difficulties that have occurred, such as redundancies and reorganisation, English Electric in my constituency is stronger now than it was before. Nor can it be denied that the I.R.C. had a useful part to play in that process.
    The Under-Secretary said earlier, "Tell me where the I.R.C. was able to intervene and will not be able to intervene when the Bill is passed?" I remind him of the part the I.R.C. played in the Cammell Laird difficulties, remembering that,
    308
    again, the Cammell Laird shipyard seems to be more secure, prosperous and effective now than it was under the old set-up. Because the I.R.C. was in operation, it was able to bring in new investment. As soon as the Government announced their intention to abolish the I.R.C., that sort of aid through that type of independent agency could no longer occur, and it could not be made available to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on the other side of the river. Whether or not the Government would have allowed that assistance to be given is another matter.
    For about two and a half hours of this debate the Secretary of State had to sit on the Government Front Bench paying the price of his high office. He had to listen to our criticisms. It does not do a Minister, however high, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, any harm to hear criticisms of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman has learned a lot since he first entered the House.
    It is not unusual for a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or, as he was called, the Minister of Technology, to have a fairly rough ride in his first few months in the House. This Secretary of State is still something of an unknown quantity.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Third Reading, explained that there had been some changes; he said that some items had been discussed in Committee, but substantially the Bill was the same as that which was accorded a Second Reading and that, for reasons which he had already given, he would not take up much time by explaining what it was all about. He certainly did not. We have a rough idea of what the Bill is all about.
    The right hon. Gentleman missed an opportunity to explain what he thought the Bill was all about and to try to convince some of us that he is in favour of the Bill. Even after his nine months in the House of Commons we still do not know what the right hon. Gentleman believes. We certainly do not know which are his beliefs and which are those of his Department and who is the master in the right hon. Gentleman's house. His statements before he came to the House were in contrast to the statements he now makes.
    There was a place in the British economy and in relationships between

    309
    government and industry for the kind of semi-independent role which the I.R.C. was able to play—not only in major mergers and in investment, but in management, contact, communications, and so on.
    During September and October of last year I spoke to the Chairman of the Corporation about the possibility of some changes. It is no secret that the Chairman was expecting some changes to be made. He described it in this way, "The old rôle of the Corporation is undoubtedly ending. The old chapter has been written. We shall have to write a new chapter for a new rôle". Unfortunately, that whole edition is being chopped by the Bill.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East will take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that there is a rôle to be performed by some organisation, an organisation which must have the ability to do the job in circumstances of increasing unemployment, falling investment, and lack of confidence. The I.R.C.'s rôle is ended. The Tories said that all they had to do was to get Ted into No. 10 and everybody would be fully confident and we should have industrial expansion, falling prices and falling unemployment. It is not as simple as that. One of the ways in which confidence and growth could have been achieved was by using the I.R.C. The Tories have destroyed the Corporation for political and not for industrial purposes.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: This has been an extremely good debate. I express my gratitude to the Chair for allowing a Third Reading debate to be used to enable us to consider the Government's policy broadly following the passage of the Bill, which we must admit will go through.
    I, too, must declare an interest, in that the I.R.C. was thought up in the Ministry of Technology—in fact, before I got there —by a member of the Advisory Committee on Technology, of which Lord Kearton was another member, and the Industrial Expansion Bill was my own Bill which I introduced into the House and carried through. To see my stepchild and my own child slaughtered gives
    310
    me a rather greater interest in the Bill than might otherwise follow from my rôle as an Opposition spokesman.
    The Secretary of State is, alas, not able to be with us, though he explained the reason for this to me. As he will be without these two instruments, and knowing the sort of problem that will face him, I wonder whether we shall not hear one day at 3.30 that a receiver has been appointed to the Department of Trade and Industry and no further Questions can be asked owing to the fact that there are difficult negotiations to be worked out with the staff.
    It is a big thing in government to dismantle instruments of government as distinct from policies. We regard this as a very important debate. What makes the debate so important to us is the fact that, by dismantling instruments which could have been left quiescent, the Government have chosen, for reasons best known to themselves, to make it much harder for an incoming Government in future to be able to take action in a situation which might require fairly rapid action.
    Since the Bill was introduced there has been a total change in the situation, created by the decision to acquire Rolls-Royce. It would be improper for me to discuss Rolls-Royce in any detail or, indeed, to refer to any of the matters of controversy. However, I still do not believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have yet absorbed the significance of their decision to acquire Rolls-Royce in a one-Clause Bill. The one-Clause Bill which is now available to them is far more drastic in its implications than the very careful measure which they are shattering by seeking to secure a Third Reading for the Bill today.
    There is no doubt that there are profound implications for the future of public ownership and the way in which future governments may have to act in the Rolls-Royce decision—in the attitude that a Government, when faced with a difficulty, can produce out of a hat a one-Clause Bill empowering the Government to do anything they like in respect of a company, instead of going through the procedures which we carefully laid down.
    Following the dismantling of these two instruments—the I.R.C. and the Industrial Expansion Act—we are left with a

    311
    model for another measure were it necessary for us to act.
    It is a great pity that the Government did not use the instrument that lay at their disposal to deal with Rolls-Royce. I refer to the Industrial Expansion Act which was on the Statute Book. There is no question but that it would have involved presenting a project to the House.
    I have before me the computer project which I presented to the House in 1968. Far more information was made available to the House of Commons by the Labour Government under the Industrial Expansion Act than was made available to the House of Commons on the occasion of the acquisition of Rolls-Royce. We still have not had a White Paper. Under the Industrial Expansion Act no project could come forward unless the full details were laid before the House for its consideration.
    I attach very great importance indeed to the establishment of clear ground rules if government is to be operating in the territory that lies between itself and industry. The whole purpose of the Industrial Expansion Act was that we recognised that there would be occasions which could not always be foreseen when government would have to move into this area and that the best thing to do would be to lay down the ground rules and then apply them when individual instances arose. All that is to be discarded.
    The second point that arises from the dismantling of the I.R.C. touches on another aspect of Rolls-Royce, namely, the future of the company. In his very first statement about Rolls-Royce the Minister of Aviation Supply made it clear that the Government had in mind the possible linkage of Rolls-Royce with European aero-engine companies. I will not comment on the merits of that. We had often discussed such a possibility. It is quite a sensible idea to consider at some stage. However, if the Government want to do it what instrument is to be used? It is necessary to use some instrument similar to the I.R.C.
    All the interest in Europe in industrial policy, to which I referred on Second Reading and which I will not go over again, stems from what the Labour Government did. There is now an industrial corporation functioning in France.
    312
    One is being developed in Italy. One is being considered in Western Europe. At the very moment when, if it were sought to link up in the way that I have referred, we should need such an instrument the Government proceed to dismantle the I.R.C.
    Whatever might be said about the Corporation's domestic function—after all, if one did not like it one could have told it to lie still for a while—it was also operating in the trans-national area.
    That is my first comment, that the Industrial Expansion Act was there for Rolls-Royce, and would have required greater accountability than is possible under the Government's one Clause Bill. But that Act is now to be killed, and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, which will be needed if Rolls-Royce is to be brought into the European aero-engine framework, will not be there, either.
    I feel it almost unfair to blame the right hon. Gentleman for this because, having listened to his speeches, having looked into his eyes and having known him from the time when he was at the C.B.I. and on the National Economic Development Council, I cannot find it in my heart to accuse him of the paternity of this Bill. Its paternity came from elsewhere. But the right hon. Gentleman is, nevertheless, responsible for it, and we have to address ourselves to him.
    This is one of a series of debates going back to January 1966 when the I.R.C. White Paper was published, and it seems an appropriate moment to look back at some of the arguments which were used. Many of us who are participating today are old hands. Like the cast of The Mousetrap, we have been at it a long time. It began a long time ago, we know one another very well, we know everyone's move, there are no surprises in the debate. In particular, we know the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), like an old chess player; we know exactly what he will do. But let us go over the argument again in the light of five years' experience.
    Is it really true that intervention always begins with the Government intervening? On the hustings, in broadcasts and at election time people always say that the Government are intervening and interfering. But the right hon. Gentleman

    313
    knows as well as I do that what happens is this. He is sitting quietly in his office late on a Friday evening, and somebody comes in and says that this or that company is on the point of going "bust". Then the work begins. Is there a Government interest? Is it a defence contractor? What does the Ministry of Defence say? Is there a big export interest? What about the Board of Trade? What about the Treasury? Is there an instrument which we can use? What is the employment position? Has anyone been on to the Department of Employment?
    Government is like that. Industry intervenes in government because the Government is elected to look at the broader interests of the community, not just to be a double-check on the accountant looking at the profit and loss account. There were other occasions—of course there were—such as, for example, on computers when we consciously decided that we should like to bring about a greater strengthening of the British computer industry, but in many cases of alleged intervention it was an intervention from the facts into the Government Department concerned. We never took compulsory powers because we did not need to, because we believed that it was possible to reach agreement in the light of some experience of working with others to try to find a proper solution.
    I shall not go over all the examples which one could cite in which this happened, but, from the QE2 at one end to the Rolls Royce situation at the other, it is clear that the Government are likely from time to time to be faced with problems with which they must cope, whatever their ideological preference may be.
    Although the C.B.I. was critical of the original I.R.C. and the Industrial Expansion Bill, I do not recall a specific objection to its use in practice. The right hon. Gentleman will contradict me if I am wrong. There were things which it may not have liked very much, but, once this machine was there, everybody could see the advantage of having it there.
    Government-industry relations have secondary advantages in that, if the Government know what the problems of industry are, Government policy is more likely to reflect those problems in their own thinking in other areas. Certainly, as an industrial Minister I submitted to my colleagues in the Cabinet papers about
    314
    industrial policy based upon the consultations which we had had with industry more generally.
    Now, the question of "lame ducks". I want to take this out of its present climate of controversy. The phrase "lame duck" was not invented by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It was widely used at the time of the Industrial Expansion Bill. The charge was that, if we had that Bill as an Act, we should encourage lame ducks. I have searched my memory and my conscience, and I want to make a serious comment to the House about lame ducks.
    First, they were generally and broadly described as being those projects under the Industrial Expansion Act or the I.R.C. which would not have survived without their help, and this constituted permanent subsidisation. There never was in my mind, or anyone else's mind, the idea of permanent subsidisation of anything. The cases which were often used as examples of lame ducks did not come under the Industrial Expansion Act at all. People often talked about shipbuilding as one of the great lame ducks. That came under the Shipbuilding Industry Act, and, quite candidly, no Government have any alternative—the right hon. Gentleman knows this—but to try to get the shipbuilding industry going because it is in an area where there is high unemployment, there is a great deal of skill employed in it, and it is worth putting more money in to try to set it right. But it was never with the intention of permanently subsidising production. No one thought that.
    The other area into which Government money has to go is on the civil avaiation side, in launching aid. The question of the RB211, which we cannot discuss in detail today, had nothing to do with the I.R.C. or the Industrial Expansion Act. It was a perfectly straightforward investment in advanced technology. Rolls-Royce did not go wrong because money was available. It was because Rolls-Royce had years of experience as a defence contractor in which it had put up proposals to the Government, the Government had always added 100 per cent. for contingencies, the Treasury had added another 100 per cent. for contingencies, and the Cabinet considered the matter in the light of quite different figures and almost always found that it

    315
    was an underestimate. In the case of this particular engine, the company had probably believed its own estimates. I do not know. Certainly, none of these charges can be attached to the Industrial Expansion Act or the I.R.C.
    Another argument was that there would be no projects if we had the Industrial Expansion Act. We know from experience, however, that the projects come forward from industry. A further argument used was that it would be better to leave investment to flow naturally from the market generally. The right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members opposite are always saying that it is better to give the money back, and industry would invest. But, as the Secretary of State knows, he is faced with a grave slump in investment; the forecasts have all gone to hell and 1971 looks like being even worse.
    Although nobody claims that the impact of the Industrial Expansion Act or of the I.R.C. is massive—the Prime Minister gave the figure that restructuring touched, I think, only 1 per cent.—it is still substantial, and can be very substantial in particular areas where unemployment hits gravely.
    I do not want to sound gloomy, but if, for example, the RB211 were to go and Derby were to be left with the full consequences, how else could one deal with the situation than by being highly selective and highly intensive in where one put one's money to utilise the facilities which are there for expansion? It could be done only by measures similar to the ones which the Government are now throwing away. And the development areas more generally require selective investment.
    How do we want this process organised? Is it to be by civil servants or by business men? I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said about the proper place for business men and the proper place for civil servants. Speaking as one who never had a Civil Service background but who went first to a Ministry, being thrown in at the deep end as head of a Department in 1964 for the first time, I know that my opinion of the civil servants and their contribution to the formulation of policy by advice,
    316
    and their execution of policy when the policy is formulated, could not be higher. But they are not the people to give the sort of advice on the sort of business problems which come to a Minister from businesses faced with difficulty. One must have access to experienced business men, and it really is a great convenience for any Minister of any party to be able to call on the advice of the sort of men who gave their services to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
    These men are available on various other bodies, for example, on the N.E.D.C., where one may have a knockabout once a month on policy and then have a nice lunch. But in the I.R.C. one had a developing body of expertise, of people with distinguished business careers who were ready to give their free time to work on the problem not just of restructuring but of management, and they stood in exactly the right relationship to Ministers. In other words, they were independent. If they disagreed with one, they said so, and one could not ask them to do things which they did not want to do. Indeed, one would have been very foolish to try to ask them to do things which they did not want to do.
    A formidable agency was built up in the I.R.C. All the Government did was to start it. The rest flowed from the way the work developed and from the quality of the men serving on it. To bring all that back into the Department —with the best will in the world—and try to do it from inside the office, where the civil servant knows that he must always speak for his Minister and everything he does is accountable, just will not work. The time-scale of industry is now totally out of phase with the time-scale of our political cycle. For example, the Concorde was thought of in the 1950s, started in 1962, enters service in 1974 and lasts for 20 years, coming out of service in 1994. It outlasts a dozen Prime Ministers and maybe half-a-dozen Governments. If industrial policy and the agency by which it is developed are to be knocked about and chopped about every three or four years, just as expertise is developing, the Government will do grave damage—not irreparable damage, because nothing is irreparable—to the slow development of a rational industrial policy.

    317
    It is no good their trying to separate it from industrial relations. Day after day when I have to put down Private Notice Questions about various things to the Secretary of State I hear him say, "It's nothing to do with me." How can be really expect a sense of responsibility on the labour side when labour says, "But the Government do not care what happens. They are stepping back. All they are doing is to intervene on the industrial relations side. They do not care at all about the development or continuity of our job. They say that that has nothing to do with them." The philosophy is unworkable.
    The Government will get their Bill through. It will go through the House of Lords, lubricated by the good will associated with the other place, and the two instruments will be killed; they will not be there. But the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not the end of the matter. He is feeling for something to replace the children from our period of office which he is slaughtering. We shall come back to the problem, with the precedent of the one-Clause Rolls-Royce Bill to guide us. My right hon. Friend has hinted at the ways in which in due course we—"we" as the community, and not just as a possible incoming Government—shall have to tackle this destructive Bill, which is an example of the shambles of industrial policy into which the Government have got us. I very much hope that the House will not give it a Third Reading.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. Ridley: I should like first to thank those hon. Members who serve on the Committee. Some found it necessary to make their points often and at length, being none the worse for that, and others found it not necessary to say anything at all. Perhaps they may be described as being the better for that. I thank them all for their valuable contributions, of very different sorts, to the deliberations on the Bill in Committee.
    Apart from some more detailed points, the same threads ran through our debates —the philosophy of Government intervention, regional policy, and to some extent! shipbuilding—which have been apparent in this debate. The main question which has been pretty well absent from our debate today is that of parliamentary accountability. I hope that this
    318
    is because to some extent the House feels happier about the provision for parliamentary accountability which we have made, just in relation to the Bill. I do not want to make it wider than that.
    I should like to clear up one small point from an earlier stage of the Bill's passage. I can now tell the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) that the summary to which he referred, which was the I.R.C. conclusions on Rolls-Royce, will be made available to the Departmental Inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation Supply said would happen in answer to a Question.
    I was asked an important question about the confidential documents the I.R.C. possesses which might come into the Government's hands. I have considered again very carefully whether it is possible to draft an Amendment to give practical effect to the concern expressed in Committee that the documents should not reach the Government if they were not destined to do so. I have not been able to frame an Amendment to reconcile the two differing requirements.
    I could not find a way to tell the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) this, because there was no Amendment on the Order Paper on which I could announce the decision to him. I hope that he will forgive me for telling him now. However, I can say that the I.R.C. has made what progress it can without a postal service in consulting all the firms which have laid documents with it. If from this debate the message goes out that the Government would be glad if any firm which has sent papers or documents to the I.R.C. at any stage, and which wishes them not to come into the hands of the Government, would get in touch with the I.R.C. as soon as possible, I am sure that arrangements can be made to deal with the matter. I think that every firm will be written to individually, and we will make certain that the administrative solution is satisfactory, even if we cannot find a legal solution.
    This has been a good debate. Listening to it, I was struck by the very wide range of things in which Labour Members thought the I.R.C. had been engaged, and which they thought it was for. I noted the activities which it was supposed to have been undertaking, and which it is

    319
    supposed the Government are losing for the future: the promotion of mergers, the control of international companies, industrial decision-making at the highest level, the supply of capital to industry, the rescue of bankrupt companies, technological backing and capital for modern industry risk ventures, the replacement of management, and regional policy. All of these were supposed to be the duty of the I.R.C. in the minds of the Labour hon. Members, and they can probably think of other variants of them.
    When the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) started talking about the cast of the "Mousetrap", I could not help wondering whether I was the cheese or the mouse. Labour hon. Members have built up a fairyland in their own minds, thinking that all our industrial problems can be solved by this—I agree—interesting and valuable experiment in setting up the I.R.C., and that in some way the industrial troubles which are upon us, and which will certainly continue to face us in the future, could all have been made to disperse if only we still had the Corporation and the Industrial Expansion Act. We wonder whether Labour hon. Members believe what they say.
    The right hon. Member for Birkenhead seemed surprised that we had referred the Reed-Bowater merger to the Monopolies Commission without preventing it. There were no fewer than three such references during his Administration's tenure of office—the B.I.C.C.-Pyrotenax merger, B.M.C.-Pressed Steel, and G.K.N.-Birfield—all mergers referred to the Monopolies Commission without their being prevented in the meanwhile, so—
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman is right. All those references took place in the very early years of the working of the 1965 Act. It was on the basis of those references that we decided never to do such a thing again. If the hon. Gentleman checks the records he will see that no such references were made after April, 1968.
    Mr. Ridley: I think that that information might have come out when the right hon. Gentleman made his accusation against the Secretary of State. But otherwise there was little mention of mergers in the debate and we got back to the
    320
    good old ground of philosophy. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that two questions are involved here—first, industrial philosophy, and, secondly, the method which is to be employed to implement that philosophy.
    The difference between the two sides of the House is that Labour seemed to be advertising help for all. They seemed to set up a begging bowl for any industry to apply to. This Government's philosophy is not like that at all. It is that we shall disengage from the activities of industry. But, as my right hon. Friend has consistently and properly said, there will always be exceptions, and for it to be imputed that the Government will be inflexible and will never deviate from their philosophy would be as absurd as if we were to accuse Labour of having a philosophy that there will be State money for all industries, no matter how worthy or unworthy. We all have our principles and it is fair to admit that, from time to time, we all find it necessary to make exceptions. That is true of both sides of the House.
    In the instances cited during the debate, the vital interest of defence has been the main motive for the Government's help to both Rolls-Royce and to Yarrow with the taxpayers' money, because it was essential to national defence that these companies should produce the products they were manufacturing. But there are also social reasons—particularly in Belfast, for example. We all agree that the political and social conditions in Belfast made it right for the Northern Ireland Government to rescue Harland and Wolff from its financial troubles. No doubt there will be other cases in future.
    I come to the question of the "lame ducks" or the "propping up", as the right hon. Gentleman called it. It is not that the I.R.C. itself wanted to do this. That was not the job for it. It never was. Whenever it was asked to make a rescue operation, it refused to do so. So hon. Members must realise that their plea to use the I.R.C. for this purpose would have met with no response from the I.R.C. itself. It always refused to have anything to do with that sort of operation.
    The philosophy of the Labour Party creates an illusion in the minds of people that there was, in the Government or in

    321
    the I.R.C. or in the Industrial Expansion Act, a limitless sum of money available which did not have to come from somewhere. It was this attitude, induced in people in their everyday lives, which was one of the reasons why their policy was not successful. I want to say something about regional policy in this connection because many of the speeches referred to this aspect—particularly the speech made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter).
    If we have a situation of limited money supply or credit supply—one which is fairly severe—and at the same time a 14 per cent. annual rise in wages, it follows as clearly as day follows night that company liquidity will be under strain, that many companies will cease to be profitable and have to carry losses, and that some will make redundancies or even go bankrupt. That is the reason for the depression in the regions. It is not the fact that the Government have announced that they are to abolish the regional employment premium in 1974, and any hon. Member who examines his own conscience must admit that that is true. It is absurd to believe that the present difficulties—and there are difficulties, not only in the regions but in the country as a whole—are due to decisions announced but not yet having any economic effect, when hon. Members opposite know full well that the legacy they left us of mounting costs and mounting prices against a background of restricted credit and shortage of liquidity is the cause.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by Sir John Hunter on the consequences of the decision to withdraw the regional employment premium? Does not he understand that Sir John is not a member of the Labour Party but a business man who understands the value of such measures as the premium? The hon. Gentleman cannot dispose of the matter like that. It is the Government's decisions which are responsible for part of the lack of confidence in the regions.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting a little wide of Third Reading.
    Mr. Ridley: I think that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools does not
    322
    understand the difference between the present and the future.
    As to methods, we shall be accountable for our actions. On all occasions when the Government have intervened in situations, we have made a statement in the House, and there was also the one occasion when a statement was made in Stormont because the Northern Ireland Government were responsible. In the case of Rolls-Royce, we introduced a Bill. I do not believe that we shall deviate from the rule that, if special help is given in any case, Parliament will be informed, and if necessary debates can take place. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says—that there must be full accountability for the use of public money, but that is very different from saying that we ought to have ready at hand a weapon, which we may or may not need, whereby we can do this sort of thing on numerous occasions.
    The wish to prevent civil servants from advising and helping in these industrial matters is curious. Under the Industrial Expansion Act, only three schemes were ever made—and all three were produced and discussed and set up by civil servants before even the Bill was thought of or brought before the House. The entire operation of the Act was carried out by officials without any help from business men of any sort. Once the Labour Government had the Act, they never brought in another scheme. With all their business men and advisers, they never found another use for it. Some of these arguments from the right hon. Gentleman sounded a little shallow.
    We have plenty of sources of industrial advice. My right hon. Friend keeps in close touch with a wide range of industrialists on both sides of industry. We have industrial advisers in the Department who are first-class and to whom I pay tribute. We have contacts with all sorts of bodies whose job it is to bring their views to the attention of Ministers. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is the industrialist who appears on a Friday evening in the office and says, "I have a problem which I want to discuss with you". Industry certainly intervenes in Government—I do not doubt that. The question is the extent to which the Government should intervene in industry in return.

    323
    I do not believe that the House can quarrel with the decision to end these two instruments and to bring the Act to an end. We believe that the policy did not succeed in the way it was hoped. In some ways, it created false hopes and illusions and persuaded hon. Members on both sides of the House that there
    was something here which was in some way a substitute for success by hard work and the demands for the market. But it did not exist. I hope the House will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 236.

    Division No. 233.]

    AYES

    [7.18 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jopling, Michael

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

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

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Emery, Peter

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Astor, John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kilfedder, James

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Farr, John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fell, Anthony

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fermer, Mrs. Peggy

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Fidler, Michael

    Kirk, Peter

    Balniel, Lord

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Batsford, Brian

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Knox, David

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lambton, Antony

    Bell, Ronald

    Fortescue, Tim

    Lane, David

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Foster, Sir John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fox, Marcus

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Benyon, W.

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

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Biffen, John

    Fry, Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

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

    Blaker, Peter

    Gardner, Edward

    Loveridge, John

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Body, Richard

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Boscawen, Robert

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    McLaren, Martin

    Bowden, Andrew

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Boyd-Carpemer, Rt. Hn. John

    Goodhart, Philip

    McMaster, Stanley

    Bray, Ronald

    Goodhew, Victor

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Brewis, John

    Gorst, John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Gower, Raymond

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Gray, Hamish

    Madel, David

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Green, Alan

    Maginnis, John E.

    Bryan, Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Marten, Neil

    Buck, Antony

    Gurden, Harold

    Maude, Angus

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Burden, F. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mawby, Ray

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Channon, Paul

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Chapman, Sydney

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Monte, Roger

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Molyneaux, James

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Havers, Michael

    Money, Ernie

    Clegg, Walter

    Hay, John

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Cockeram, Eric

    Heseltine, Michael

    Monro, Hector

    Coombs, Derek

    Hicks, Robert

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Cooper, A. E.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hiley, Joseph

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Cormack, Patrick

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

    Mudd, David

    Costain, A. P.

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Murton, Oscar

    Critchley, Julian

    Holland, Philip

    Neave, Airey

    Crouch, David

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hornby, Richard

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Curran, Charles

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Normanton, Tom

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Nott, John

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Onslow, Cranley

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James MaJ.-Gen.

    Hunt, John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Dean, Paul

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Osborn, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Dixon, Piers

    James David

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Pardoe, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jessel, Toby

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Percival, Ian

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Sheet, T. 0048. H.

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Pink, R. Bonner

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

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Soref, Harold

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Speed, Keith

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Spence, John

    Waddington, David

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Sproat, Iain

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Stainton, Keith

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Raison, Timothy

    Steel, David

    Wall, Patrick

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Walters, Dennis

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Stoddart-Scott, Cot. Sir M.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Stokes, John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Sutcliffe, John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Tapsell, Peter

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Wilkinson, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Temple, John M.

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Woodnutt, Mark

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Scott, Nicholas

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Tilney, John

    Sharpies, Richard

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Trew, Peter

    Mr. Jasper More and

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Mr. Paul Hawkins.

    Simeons, Charles

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Driberg, Tom

    John, Brynmor

    Albu, Austen

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Dunn, James A.

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

    Allien, Scholefield

    Dunnett, Jack

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Eadie, Alex

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ashley, Jack

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

    Ashton, Joe

    Ellis, Tom

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Atkinson, Norman

    English, Michael

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Bagier, Cordon A. T.

    Evans, Fred

    Judd, Frank

    Barnes, Michael

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Beaney, Alan

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

    Kelley, Richard

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Kerr, Russell

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lamond, James

    Blenlinson, Arthur

    Foot, Michael

    Latham, Arthur

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Forrester, John

    Lawson, George

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

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Leadbitter, Ted

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

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Brown, Ronald (Storeditch & F'bury)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Leonard, Dick

    Buchan, Norman

    Carrett, W. E.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

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

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Ginsburg, David

    Lipton, Marcus

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Golding, John

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Cant, R. B.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Carter, Ray(Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    McBride, Neil

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Griffiths, Will(Exchange)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    McElhone, Frank

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    McGuire, Michael

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hardy, Peter

    Mackie, John

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Harper, Joseph

    Maclenann, Robert

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Cronin, John

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Hattersley, Roy

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

    Davidson, Arthur

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Marquand, David

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Horam, John

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Davies, (for (Cower)

    Howell, Denis, Small Heath)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Meacher, Michael

    Deakins, Eric

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mendelson, John

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Miliar}, Bruce

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Hunter, Adam

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Dempsey, James

    Janner, Greville

    Mine, Edward (Byth)

    Doig, Peter

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Molloy, William

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'bn St.P'cras, S.)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Morris Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    326

    327

    Moyle, Roland

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

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

    Murray, Ronald King

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Tinn, James

    Ogden, Eric

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

    Tomney, Frank

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Tuck, Raphael

    O'Malley, Brian

    Roper, John

    Urwin, T. W.

    Oram, Bert

    Rose, Paul B.

    Varley, Eric G.

    Orbach, Maurice

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Orme, Stanley

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

    Wallace, George

    Paget, R. T.

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Watkins, David

    Palmer, Arthur

    Sillars, James

    Weitzman, David

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Silverman, Julius

    Wellbeloved, James

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Small, William

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Pendry, Tom

    Spearing, Nigel

    Whitlock, William

    Pentland, Norman

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Prentice, Rt, Hn. Reg.

    Stallard, A. W.

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Prescott, John

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Strang, Gavin

    Woof, Robert

    Probert, Arthur

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Rankin, John

    Swain, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Taverne, Dick

    Mr. William Hamling and

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Thomas, Rt.Hn.George(Carditf.W.)

    Mr. Donald Coleman.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
  Clause 1

    ABOLITION OF BETTERMENT LEVY AND DISSOLUTION OF LAND COMMISSION
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr, John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'enactment' to end of subsection and insert:
    'with the exception of the functions conferred on the Land Commission by sections 6 to 26 inclusive of the Land Commission Act 1967 which shall be transferred to the Housing Corporation, and all property rights and liabilities to which the Land Commission is entitled or subject immediately before the appointed day is likewise transferred to the Secretary of State with the exception bf such property rights and liabilities to which the Land Commission has become entitled or subject by virtue of sections 6 to 26 inclusive of the Land Commission Act 1967 which is hereby transferred to the Housing Corporation; and accordingly as from that day any enactment passed or instrument made before that day, shall have effect, except in relation to anything done before the appointed day, as if for any reference to the Land Commission there were substituted, in all cases relating to the functions of the Land Commission under sections 6 to 26 inclusive of the Land Commission Act 1967, a reference to the Housing Corporation, and in all other cases a reference to the Secretary of State'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be convenient if we take at the same time Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'be' to end of subsection and insert:
    'transferred to the account Housing Corporation'.
    and Amendment No. 4, page 2, line 22, leave out Clause 3.
    Mr. Fraser: We cannot allow the Bill to pass without examining the loss which the country will suffer as a result of the termination of the Land Commission's acquisition powers. The purpose of the Amendment is to transfer to the Housing Corporation the powers which the Land Commission exercises under Sections 6 to 26 of the Land Commission Act, 1967, to acquire and grant land to those who need it for socially desirable purposes at as cheap a price as possible. I wish to give the House an example why the powers should be exercised.
    The authorities in the Greater London Area have immense problems in finding land for housing. There is overcrowding and shortage of space and the intervention of public authorities is needed to ensure that housing is provided. The local authorities have compulsory acquisition powers, but many authorities in Greater London, including the Greater London Council, choose not to exercise them. A good example is the London Borough of Bexley, which, following the poor example of the Prime Minister, has practically no housing programme. I could name six Conservative local authorities whose total housing provision does

    329
    not come up to even half the provision of Southwark. Therefore, power is needed to acquire land and to use it for socially desirable purposes.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to transfer to the Housing Corporation, which is a housing authority and which could act in the same way as the Special Housing Development Society in Scotland, power to acquire land in areas where local authorities are falling down on the job or where central direction needs to be given. The Housing Corporation is equipped to do the job and to provide an alternative to lagging Conservative authorities in London. The important thing which the Housing Corporation could do is something which I regret the Land Commission failed to do, namely, to grant concessionary freeholds. If the Amendment were accepted, the Housing Corporation could acquire land at existing use value and grant it to housing associations and owner occupiers at less than the full development value. The development value would remain in public hands and therefore would take some of the inflationary element out of land and housing costs and enable cheap land to be provided for owner occupiers and housing associations.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: We shall not have cheap land again.
    Mr. Fraser: That epitomises the philosophy of the Conservative Party. We believe that it should be possible to acquire cheap land and powers which could ensure its provision should not be lost.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: The effect of the Amendment is to clothe the Land Commission in another suit. I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) to preserve the Commission, but the Amendment would not achieve its object and would also cause the retention of no fewer than 950 civil servants to operate a scheme which is unnecessary. By abolishing the Commission we shall save over £2,500,000 on administrative charges alone. This is a wrecking Amendment.
    I wish to raise a point which can be raised only at this stage. What provision does my right hon. Friend the Minister propose to make to help the people
    330
    obliged to pay the charge which arises under the Land Commission Act after the Bill has come into effect? I realise that there is a continuing liability on those people, but I ask my right hon. Friend to persuade his colleagues in the Treasury to be lenient with those unfortunate people left with commitments and who have to discharge them in full. If he could make a minor concession in that respect, it would be a great help to a large number of people who carried out transactions before the July concession.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I thank the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for the clear way in which he moved the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) had a point when he described it as a wrecking Amendment. I know that many hon. Members opposite still believe that the Land Commission has a purpose, but we have discussed that at great length on Second Reading and in Committee. It would be misconceived to resurrect the Commission through the means of the Housing Corporation, which was set up for different purposes and was never intended for the purpose which the hon. Member for Norwood has in mind.
    One of the consequences of the Amendment would be that the finances of the management fund would be transferred to the Housing Corporation. As the Bill says, the fund is insolvent, and therefore a substantial liability amounting to many millions of pounds would be transferred to the Housing Corporation if the Amendments were accepted. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Norwood.
    By proposing that all the land of the Commission which it retains should be transferred to the Housing Corporation, the hon. Gentleman is perhaps missing the point of the remit of the Commission dealing with the land which it was expected to acquire. It was not simply told to acquire what might be regarded as local authority land. It was given a remit to acquire land for mineral working, private development and land suitable for local authorities or for housing associations. It would be a wrong use of the Housing Corporation if it were to acquire land for mineral extraction. That has never been the intention. It would

    331
    not be practicable or acceptable in principle to use the Corporation for the purposes proposed in the Amendments. I therefore ask the House not to accept them.
    A great deal of the land disposed of by the Land Commission has been offered to and accepted by local authorities. Perhaps that goes some way towards fulfilling the purpose which the hon. Member for Norwood had in mind when tabling the Amendment. The Commission's intention when disposing of land is to offer it, in a large number of cases, wherever reasonable and practicable, to local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to accept my assurances that, in practical terms, we have done all we can to help in what is a deliberate political decision to terminate the Land Commission. The hon. Member may not accept that. I can understand that—if I were in his position I might not accept it—but that is the will of Parliament and within that we try to administer it as humanely as possible.
    Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I apologise for being absent from the House when the Amendments in my name were called, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for moving the first of them. I heard the Minister's reply with interest. I am sure that he understands the point, but perhaps the House would forgive me if I go over it again.
    It is generally accepted that one of our gravest social problems is the housing problem, the problems of the homeless, of three million families living in situations which no one can accept as satisfactory, in slums or overcrowding, in houses which lack amenities which we all regard as essential. The Bill will aggravate that situation by removing one of the weapons with which we could effectively deal with this problem. I am not satisfied that the main points with which the Land Commission could deal can be dealt with in any other way than by a national body to collect land, bring it forward for development and itself develop it.
    The Amendments would transfer those functions of the Land Commission under the 1967 Act dealing with the collection and bringing forward and development of land to the Housing Corporation, to
    332
    enable it to perform the housing function which the Land Commission could perform. I accept that the Land Commission, as a relatively new body, has not yet performed these functions, but I hope that all hon. Members accept that there is a need for a national agency which can provide housing in areas other than those of housing need.
    Our greatest problem is that, where there is housing need, there is no land, and where there is land, there is no housing need. This is obviously not a complete equation, but it balances very closely. To rely on local authorities, whose responsibility must be primarily to their own residents, to solve the housing problems of other areas is to ensure that the housing problem is with us perpetually.
    Many examples were given on Second Reading of local authorities resisting proposals for the development of land in their own areas by or on behalf of other local authorities. Only a body like the Housing Corporation or the Land Commission or a national housing agency can ensure that land is brought forward to solve the problems of stress areas outside those areas. Of course there are provisions which enable local authorities to act as agents for others, but this does not work very effectively, because a local authority acting as a agent against its wishes will not be very diligent in performing its functions.
    Many hon. Members will appreciate that we have a problem in local authority housing of lack of mobility. I know of many people who are living in urban areas in a council house which they were delighted to receive when they first got it, opposite the factory where they used to work. Now they have retired, but they are still living opposite the factory; whereas families living miles away who desperately need housing close to their work cannot get it, because the family which has retired is still living in this house. Any family which has acquired a council house has no right to a council house in any other area, unless it can find someone who is willing to swap. This serious problem is gravely aggravating our housing problems.
    A national agency which can provide housing which would enable people from North Kensington to move on retirement out of the stress area to live by the sea,

    333
    or which would enable a family at present living in North Kensington to move to another area where there may be work, is badly needed. This cannot be done through local authority housing.
    It is all very well for the Government to refer to Circular 10/20, in which they say that local authorities will have their backing and encouragement in implementing proposals to solve our housing problems, but local authorities in the areas with the most acute housing stress do not have the land which they could develop, while local authorities which do have the land do not have the stress or the responsibility or the desire by their ratepayers and electors to solve these problems. On the grounds both of mobility of labour and of people wishing to move on retirement, a national housing agency is urgently needed.
    The Housing Corporation is not perhaps the ideal instrument to perform this function, but there is the power in the Housing Act, 1964, which constituted the Housing Corporation, as follows:
    "If, after the Corporation have acquired any land, it appears to the Corporation that there is no housing society, whether in existence or about to be formed, to which the land can suitably be sold or leased, and that the land is capable of being used to provide housing accommodation for letting, the Corporation may prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the Corporation themselves to undertake all the operations required for the provision of such housing accommodation …"
    I should like to see the Housing Corporation exercising those powers much more vigorously. The Amendments would transfer both the functions and the land which the Land Commission at present holds to the Housing Corporation, so that the latter can extend those powers to start tackling the housing problems at a level at which they can be resolved.
    I do not believe that, in the absence of a national housing body with responsibility for providing housing all over the country, for relieving pressures in stress areas by developing estates on the South and East Coast and other areas where people may wish to retire, or still other areas where jobs are available, this can be achieved. This is one of the functions of new town corporations, but they are not the sole answer. A national housing agency of the kind that the corporation could be
    334
    is essential for a solution of the housing problem.
    The Minister said that if the funds of the Land Commission were transferred to the Housing Corporation, a deficit would be transferred; but also transferred would be land, which, the last Report of the Land Commission shows, has a value of over £8 million, which is a good deal larger than the deficit. So both land and liabilities would be transferred.
    I see no objection to the corporation having a great deal of valuable land which is capable of development, as well as the accompanying liabilities. No owner-occupier regrets the fact that he has his house even though he also has a mortgage on it. The Housing Corporation would be in a similar situation. It may regret the liability but that by no means outweighs the advantages of having the land.
    I therefore urge that, in considering the Amendments, the House should gravely weigh the disadvantages of abolishing the one instrument which we have—perhaps not a perfect one or one which has yet proved itself—for tackling our housing problems nationally. These problems cannot be resolved other than on a national basis. There have been many recent illustrations of the difficulty of resolving these problems. The Francis Committee's Report, which was published only a few days ago, illustrates the appalling conditions in much of the private sector.
    I do not wish to go back over the proposals in regard to the abolition of the betterment levy. I believe that some such experiment will have to be made again because the fundamental problems of housing are closely related to the cost of land and to the problem of whether it is right that the 53 million people who are crowded into this island should have to pay house prices which reflect the enormous increases in value which have accrued by reason of the pressure of demand for housing.
    Our Amendments are not intended to be wrecking Amendments but seek to save the provisions which are essential to the solution of housing problems. They are in no way contrary to the Government's election commitments. One of the Conservative Party commitments was a promise to try to resolve the problem

    335
    of bad housing conditions. This is one of the necessary weapons in resolving those problems and I urge the Government to think again about this matter. I hope that the Amendment can be accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.52 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am conscious of the fact that this has been a controversial Bill, and we have explored at great length the arguments of hon. Members opposite who were responsible for bringing the Land Commission into existence. When in Opposition we were unable to find that their policy justified the introduction of the Land Commission and the betterment levy which was associated with it. We believe that there are more effective policies, and these are the policies which the present Government propose to deploy in partnership with the local authorities. One of the fundamental differences between the two sides of the House springs from our conviction that this problem cannot be solved unless there is a real partnership between local authorities and central government.
    We have an underlying suspicion of any instrument of central government policy which sets out to override the wishes of the democratically elected local representatives. This was one of our principal objections to the establishment of the Land Commission in the first place. We believe that the policies involving consultation and suggestions to local authorities on the need to release more land are much more likely to achieve the additional land that is required.
    One cannot consider the Land Commission without reference to betterment levy. We on this side of the House are convinced that where there is a case for taxing the gains on land this can be dealt with adequately through the existing capital gains machinery, which was originally used for this purpose by the earlier Conservative Government. This is the position to which we have now returned following the abolition of betterment levy.
    The betterment levy caused a tremendous amount of hardship and its effects
    336
    continued long after adjustments were forced on the Labour Government as a result of the pressure which arose. This tax probably caused greater hardship for people in the way in which it was administered than any other tax with which this country had been confronted. At one stage there were such difficulties and so many hardship cases built up that some 70 letters a week were being sent to Members of Parliament who were being asked to deal with real human difficulties. I accept at once that, in face of the hardship caused, the Labour Administration amended their own legislation.
    Mr. Denis Howell: No.
    Mr. Heseltine: It is not right for the hon. Member to decry the point that there was real hardship.
    Mr. Howell: I am not decrying the point, but the fact is that action was taken to put that matter right and that sort of situation has not existed for the past 18 months.
    Mr. Heseltine: I wish to be fair, and I accept that in order to deal with a small number of cases the previous Government took action, but the fact is that the hardship continued. During the deliberations on this Bill I and other hon. Members have quoted examples of the hardship that was caused because of this form of taxation. We did not believe that it was either fair or necessary. Our view was that it did much to accelerate the rate at which land prices rose. Land prices have risen by about 100 per cent. over the last five or six years: the fastest rate of acceleration occurred at the time the betterment levy first came into effect.
    Mr. James Dempsey: Could I refer the Under-Secretary to what happened in Fort William when it was decided to develop the pulp paper mill? The cost of land then jumped by 700 or 800 per cent. That was long before the passage of the Act and long before betterment levy was ever considered.
    Mr. Heseltine: It is always possible to introduce individual examples, but general national statistics do not support the figure given by the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the general increase on average was about 100 per cent. in the

    337
    five or six years immediately preceding our election.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: The statistics show that when the regulations originally introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, were withdrawn, the bonanza began and land fortunes were then made.
    Mr. Heseltine: I would have to look at the detail, but I would say that the period of 1959 approximated to the period of one of the greatest leaps forward in the acquisition of privately-owned houses. This was a time when the earlier Conservative Government took the housing programme, involving public and private housing, to an unprecedented level. The trend went on after 1959.
    Mr. John Silkin: If that were so, why was the then Minister of Housing, Mr. Henry Brooke, attacked so strongly for not building sufficient houses?
    Mr. Heseltine: There were never sufficient houses. This was something the Labour Government faced when they failed to reach their 500,000 target and saw their programme year by year fail to reach the levels it had reached in preceding years.
    I do not wish in this debate to start swopping these sorts of experiences. Everybody realises that building houses is a very complicated matter and many factors are involved. All I am saying is that the Conservative Party believe that in relation to the housing programme the betterment levy only accelerated land prices and had an adverse effect on the supply of land coming forward for development. We thought it right to commit ourselves to an early repeal of the betterment levy and to the abolition of the Land Commission. This Bill carries out that election promise. Nothing that has been said changes our conviction that this is the right Bill to have introduced. Our party believes that this is just one more of its election promises which it is bringing to early fulfilment. I have every confidence that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. John Silkin: This Bill has been marked by a pleasant and agreeable Committee stage conducted by a pleasant and agreeable Minister. Where
    338
    we willingly pay tribute to the personal qualities of the Minister, we regret that we cannot pay tribute to the Bill that he introduced. When it entered its Committee stage in all respects it was an odious Bill. It has emerged from its Committee stage and its Report stage still an odious Bill.
    It is justified on two grounds only. The first is that the betterment levy, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) championed and with which all hon. Members on this side agreed, caused hardship. But hardship to whom? The Under-Secretary keeps going back to the early days when on one occasion 70 letters were received in a week. What the contents of the letters were he never tells us. However, the difficult about which he spoke was rightly and democratically changed in this House, as he knows—
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that while I did not see the letters they were seen by his Government and the contents were sufficiently clear to persuade right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to change the existing law.
    Mr. Silkin: Undoubtedly, that is so; but that is what we are all saying. It is difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman jobs back to a matter which was corrected perfectly satisfactorily more than 18 months ago.
    The hon. Gentleman then goes on to say that another hardship will be alleviated by a return to what a Conservative Government used to do. I do not follow this, because the capital gains tax to which the profits and losses on land will be subject is the capital gains tax of 1965. That was a Labour Government tax, and not the Conservative Government's short-term tax introduced in the Budget of 1961 or 1962. In other words, we shall not be returning to the philosophy or taxing policy of a previous Conservative Government.
    Here I must enter one caveat. There are those on this side of the House, though I am not among them, who have suspicious minds and fear that this Bll is only the first stage in a rather sinister and grisly process towards the abolition of the tax on capital gain as we know it. If that is so, the community should

    339
    be made aware of the fact that, by the passing of this Bill, at least £12 million will be thrown away this year, at least £31 million will be thrown away next year and that £11 million a year thereafter will be thrown away and lost. It will go into the pockets of those who have been fortunate in their land deals Good luck to them if they have been. However, the community as a whole has a right to be considered.
    Incidentally, these figures are very conservative in both senses of the word. The Minister has said that he is no mathematician, and we agree with him. He has added that he is not certain of the figures. They may be higher. He justifies them on the ground of the existence of the capital gains tax. However, he does not deny that a sum totting up to something like £60 million over three years, even on the most conservative figures, will be lost in revenue. That sum of £60 million wantonly thrown away by this Government without any reason could pay for a lot of school milk, a lot of children's meals and a lot of old age pensions.
    The second point concerns the Land Commission. Its aim was a brave one. Had it been given time, it could very well have justified its existence. It was not given much time. Its aim was simply to provide land, to hold land and to buy land for the community so that it could be used wherever necessary for the benefit of the community. It was an extension of what we do already with new towns. To say that the powers of the local authorities are sufficient is to ignore the limited ability of a local authority to purchase and hold land, and I think that the Under-Secretary agrees that it is not always desirable for a local authority to hold land. But some national institution should do it.
    In slaughtering the Land Commission, the Government are slaughtering one of the best and most likely methods of bringing land into some form of disciplined development. At the moment, it is too haphazard, too piecemeal and too lacking in any logical content in its development.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends and I regret the passing of this Bill. I do not have to advise them to divide against its Third Reading, because I know that they
    340
    intend to. But there will come a time—and it may not be too long ahead—when a more permanent method of dealing with the nation's land incorporating some form of levy will be brought into existence which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be able to destroy. When that moment comes, the community as a whole will benefit just as it is being cheated of its rights at the moment.
    8.7 p.m.
    Mr. John Farr: I welcome the end of the Land Commission, and I do not share the expectations of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who foreshadows the re-creation of the Commission in a few years time. Tonight, the Commission is being buried once and for all. It is perhaps appropriate to describe the atmosphere in the Chamber as being rather akin to that of a funeral parlour. It is appropriate to the occasion, and I hope to write a short epitaph for its tombstone.
    The right hon. Gentleman was not a member of either of the two Committees which considered the Commission in 1964 and 1966. In that connection, it is more than a little frustrating to think of the hours and weeks that we wasted to no purpose.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the cases of hardship in a fairly flippant tone. He suggested that some were trivial and that many, if not all, were rectified by the adjustment to the Act made by the last Government. However, he is quite wrong in that respect. Although the number of hardship cases that I used to receive was reduced from a flood to a trickle after the previous Government acted, a persistent trickle remained.
    Even today I have a tragic case of a constituent who was compelled to move from his house in a clearance area. He stuck it out because it was a nice house. Eventually, the developer came along and said to him: "You are going to get a compulsory purchase order served on you for your house unless you move. To save you the time and trouble of going through all that, I shall give you a few hundred pounds extra if you will get out quietly." My constituent and his wife did not want to leave. However, they left and bought another house with the

    341
    money. No sooner were they in that new house than they were assessed for levy on the extra money which they got for moving, reluctantly, from their old house, in which, incidentally, my constituent had been born. That is the type of hardship which continued under this wretched Act until the end of its life which, I understand, is culminating tonight or will culminate when the Bill goes through another place.
    Hon. Members on both sides have many examples like the one which I have just illustrated. I am sure that all hon. Members are glad to see the whole lot wrapped up tonight.
    I should like to put two questions to my hon. Friend. The first concerns the date of termination of chargeable acts which, in the Bill, has been written down as 22nd July, 1970, after which no further levy will be raised. Is it possible for an Amendment to be made, perhaps in another place, to alter this date if not to a considerably earlier date, at least to the date of the General Election, 18th June last year, when the British people, in giving the Conservative Government a mandate for the next five years, at the same time gave a good-bye to the Land Commission and, so to speak, emphatically rejected all that the Land Commission stood for and, I should think, gave my hon. Friend a good case for making the date at least five weeks earlier.
    If possible—I believe that my hon. Friend referred to this point in his speech on Second Reading—some of us on this side would like to see all the wretched machinations of the Land Commission—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that we are on Third Reading. I hope that he will, therefore, stick to the contents of the Bill.
    Mr. Farr: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I immediately bow to your desire. I was referring to the date in the Bill and expressing the hope that possibly it could have been made considerably earlier. However, I understand that that would be difficult, if not impossible, because a considerable amount of unravelling of past transactions would have to take place.
    342
    The second matter about which I want to ask my hon. Friend concerns the disposal of land which, I think, is dealt with in Clause 3. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance tonight that this disposal will be undertaken in a speedy and energetic manner? In parts of the Midlands there is a great shortage of housing land. I should like to be assured that it will be offered to the highest bidder, whether a private builder or a local authority, so that houses are provided at the earliest possible date and the large acreage of land which the Land Commission still holds is put to some useful purpose. Can my hon. Friend give me any idea when he expects the completion of these disposals to have taken place, and has he a time table in this respect?
    I welcome the end of the Land Commission. It sees the end of many hours of wasted time by hon. Members on both sides. As we foreshadowed in those Committee days of 1964 and 1966, the Land Commission did nothing but make land more scarce and more dear. We on this side are very glad to be rid of it.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that the House would wish me to pay tribute to Arthur Skeffington who worked with me in setting up the Land Commission with energy, enthusiasm and devotion. I could not have had a more loyal colleague. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in mourning the loss of a dear friend.
    No pretext has been given for the Bill. The betterment levy, at the time that it was discontinued, was working smoothly and was accepted as being fair. Revenue was rising steeply to £65 million.
    The Land Commission was beginning to play a useful and significant part in bringing land forward for development.
    The only excuse for this legislation is that which has been given again by the Under-Secretary of State tonight—that the Government are carrying out their electoral mandate. We heard the same excuse for the Industrial Relations Bill and for the Immigration Bill yesterday. Each of these Measures will prove to be an albatross, and we shall have the unedifying sight of the Government with three hung round their neck.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to our amicable discussions, and the

    343
    Bill is particularly regrettable because we have made considerable progress since the bitter controversies when the Land Commission was first introduced. We no longer have the controversy about compulsory purchase. Its necessity is accepted.
    The first objective of the Land Commission White Paper, that the right land should be available for development at the right time, is now agreed by everyone. The argument is about means.
    With very little conviction, the Minister and the Under-Secretary say that we can rely on the local authorities. However, they know that we cannot. The local authorities are equipped with all the powers to achieve their object and they have been successful in bringing land forward for their own public purposes. However, we are concerned with bringing land forward for private development, and we know from experience that the local authorities are not able to tackle the job.
    In Committee the Minister conceded that there should be some supplementation to the powers of the local authorities and that this should be done in an ad hoc way, as has been done in the case of the new and the expanded towns. The Minister conceded the case for a national agency where it is impossible to get "full development from ratepayers' money". That is just the problem which we face. It is impossible, or very difficult, to support private development from ratepayers' money. It is certainly impossible to do it on an adequate scale.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): The right hon. Gentleman has quoted me as supporting some national agency. I do not know whether it is a misprint in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I cannot recollect supporting any national agency for this purpose.
    Mr. Willey: I agree at once. "National agency" are my own words. However the Minister cares to take it, he was talking about ad hoc authorities. They were national authorities, because they were distinguishable from local authorities. I concede that I have called such a body a national agency.
    Why should the Minister do this? The hon. Gentleman is committed by the
    344
    electoral mandate. But there are two other reasons. One is that I believe that the Government are deliberately trying to discourage development. I also believe, as has been said in earlier discussions, that the Government were alarmed, as I pointed out on Second Reading, that if the Land Commission had been allowed to carry out its current programe it would have built up a land fund of £35 million to £45 million which certainly would have established it once and for all as a national agency effectively helping development. If the Minister remains in office long enough—and I bear him no ill will—he will live to regret, as his predecessors have regretted, that there is no national agency to bring forward land for development.
    Equally, there is now general agreement on the second objective of the Land Commission White Paper. Everyone agrees that a substantial part of the development value created by the community should return to the community. Again we are concerned with means. The Government say that we need not do this through betterment levy; it can be done through capital gains tax. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is the real purpose of the Bill, and that is why it is such a squalid and sordid Measure. By a sleight of hand, to take the Government's own figures, they are providing £12 million this coming year, running up to £31 million, as a tax-free bonanza, which will total £100 million over the likely period of office of the Government. This £100 million will substantially go to large landowners and land speculators. We proved in Committee just how few people will benefit from this bonanza. The last Report of the Land Commission showed that 40 per cent. of the levy was accounted for by 444 transactions. The Bill will mean that some people will be tens and some people hundreds of thousands of pounds better off.
    As my right hon. Friend said, we must consider this in the context of what the Government are doing. The Exchequer revenue is a single entity. While the Government are dishing out £12 million to landowners and speculators, people who go for dental treatment are having to contribute an additional £12 million to the Exchequer. Whose hardship is the Government concerned about? Can it

    345
    be that wealthy landowners and land speculators are so badly treated that it is necessary during this coming year to provide them with £12 million tax free? When we consider that this is being done, not only in the context of dental charges but in the context of charges for school meals, school milk and prescriptions, we have the classic case of Tory priorities.
    It is to his credit that throughout our discussions on the Bill the Minister has been uncomfortable and ill at ease. He has lacked his usual self-confidence and has given figures which have confused us and confused him. He has every reason for discomfort. The Bill is nothing but a squalid and sordid pay-off.
    8.25 p.m.
    Dr. Glyn: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I am delighted to assist, as they say in France, at the funeral of the Land Commission. I feel sure that there will be few mourners in the country. A large number of ordinary people were badly hit financially by the effects of the Land Commission, and they will certainly welcome the Bill.
    The Bill fulfils an election promise. We are dismantling a piece of machinery whose functions can be perfectly well exercised by other Departments. Although the Land Commission was represented by some solid and good men, it had a deficit of £20 million, of the taxpayers' money, but I will come to that point in a moment. I am not suggesting that the investment of that money was unwise. The Land Commission had a duty to buy the land and no doubt the land was bought at the best price.
    I want to discuss the disposal of that land, and I suggest to the Minister that business operations should not be the first consideration. There is a great shortage of land for development, and, without flooding the market in a particular area, my hon. Friend would be wise to make sure that the land is disposed of at a reasonable speed. I will concede that if the land were retained for a long time the price it would fetch eventually would be higher, but since there is a shortage he should, without causing a glut of land in any one area, make sure that the land previously owned by the Commission is disposed of as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Idris Owen: My hon. Friend has suggested that there should not be a glut of land in any one area, but does he not agree that a glut means a price reduction?
    Dr. Glyn: I agree that it would mean a price reduction, but the Minister must give careful consideration to how much land should be freed in a particular area, whether for private or public development. My hon. Friend has suggested that if the land is sold quickly there will be a glut and if he waits a long time he will get a higher price, but the Minister must look at it in a sensible manner and see how best the interests of the area can be served. How he should perform this operation is entirely up to him.
    The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) has brought to a head a subject of great importance. He is quite right in saying that this operation will now be taken over by the capital gains machinery. What happened under the Land Commission was that a land owner said to himself that he wanted EX thousand for the land and he therefore added to the price the amount of tax he would have to pay. This inevitably caused an increase in the price of land. One danger is that we shall be perpetuating the increase in the price of land, because the percentage which will be taken by the capital gains tax will still be added to the price. I think there is a case for no capital gains to be applied to land which is to be used for housing.
    I will not deal with some of the sad cases which have resulted from the Land Commission. A few have occurred in my constituency and the Minister will be aware of at least one of them. I raised on Report a matter which is more apposite to this debate, and I trust that the Minister will deal with it. Since this legislation is really retrospective, I hope that he will extend the period during which people must find the money for transactions which were completed before 23rd July, 1970.
    I cannot see either the legality or equity in the present arrangement. This is essentially a retrospective Bill in that by the time it has gone through both Houses of Parliament and received the Royal

    347
    Assent, its provisions will be retrospective. I see no reason why the Minister should not say to the Treasury that a great many people incurred liabilities before 23rd July whereas, had they sold on 24th July, they would have been liable for less tax.
    Because of the delay in issuing the levy under these provisions, many people were not called on for a contribution—they did not receive their buff envelopes—for about three years. I am not suggesting that their debts should be liquidated but just that where there are difficult cases people have been badly caught out, there should be discretion exercised by the Revenue, prompted by the Minister, to allow an extended time for those debts to be paid.
    I welcome the Bill and hope that the Minister will answer not only the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and I have raised about the liquidation of land, but will give a spark of hope to those unfortunate people whose transactions were completed before 23rd July.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to Clause 3 and the disposal of land. He said that the land should be sold to the highest bidder and be brought forward for housing development as soon as possible. Is he aware that there is absolutely no guarantee that the highest bidder will choose to develop the land straightaway? Indeed, if he should be a national developer he may choose to hold on to it and to keep it in reserve for a considerable time.
    The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) and I have spoken on a theme to which I wish to refer briefly. It is no coincidence that the three of us are new to this House. By that I mean that we are not involved as some hon. Members are in the history of these matters. We are seriously concerned about the way in which the Government see the rôle of the small builder.
    I recall raising this matter with the Minister on a previous occasion, but time was short and I am sure that inadvertently he was unable to deal with my
    348
    question. As the small builder plays a useful part in society, I should like to know the Government's intentions and hopes for him. The small builder usually knows the locality and must live with the local people after he has completed his building. If he perpetrates any gross horrors, he must answer for them later.
    If the Minister can tell us what the effect of the Bill when enacted will be on the small builder who acquires land, he will go some way towards reassuring us that the Government have these problems in mind. It is no good the Government pushing through legislation without any thought of the consequences which will flow from it.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Many Labour Members of Parliament represent city dwellers living in terrible housing conditions. Those city dwellers need land at reasonable prices for houses. This land lies mainly at the periphery of the big cities. Once planning permission is given to build on that land, what was previously a potato field becomes overnight a gold mine. Fortunes have been made, are being made, and will be made in this way—paid for by the community in higher house prices.
    The last Labour Government attempted to relieve the community of this penalty. The Conservative Government are shifting the burden back on to the community. Many hon. Members opposite will admit that when we discuss landed estates we are touching the very heart of the Conservative Party. The Bill is a hand-out to their friends. It is a hand-out of £31 million a year by 1973 which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said, would have gone to put right some of the things which the Government are doing wrong. It would have obviated the increases in school meal charges and avoided the cuts which are being made in free milk and house building.
    Not only is this a hand-out to landowners. It is a hand-out to big landowners—estates of £100,000 and more—because the small landowner—the owneroccupier—has been exempted by the amending legislation.
    I shall speak for only one minute more before resuming my seat. I feel strongly on this issue, as do many of my

    349
    hon. Friends. This is a class Measure in favour of the rich and against the interests of the poor. I warn hon. Members opposite that land prices cannot and will not be allowed to soar in the way they are doing. When the Government are defeated and replaced by a Labour Government, something will have to be put in the place of the legislation which the Government have removed.
    Discussions are proceeding at present. It is not for me to say what the alternative will be.
    Mr. Peter Trew: Why not?
    Mr. Allaun: Because there are several alternative proposals. I believe that the Land Commission, far from going too far, did not go far enough. It will be necessary to have a more effective piece of legislation in future, because we are dealing with big property. Big property employs big brains—the best lawyers in the country—to defend its interests. We shall have to have something effective to prevent evasion.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has been fairly lenient on the promise of one minute which it heard. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be led too far astray.
    Mr. Allaun: I will conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that something along the lines of Lewis Silkin's Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, will be necessary, so that, where the value of land increases, not through the efforts of the owner, but through the efforts of the community, that increase in value should return to the community which creates it. That is a concept which simple people can see outside the House. We shall implement that concept and reverse this Measure.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. David Weitzman: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but, having listened to the speeches so far, I am tempted to intervene because I am intrigued at the way in which it is said, "We are bringing in this Measure because we have a mandate for it". Hon. Members opposite say they have a mandate for this Bill, for the Immigration Bill, for the Industrial Relations Bill, and so on. We have all had experience of elections and we know how they are fought. How
    350
    ridiculous it is to talk of having a mandate specifically for a Measure of this kind, as though the electors realised that a Conservative Government would be pledged to bring in such a Bill and they answered, "Yes".
    I, too, mourn the demise of the Land Commission and the Act under which it was established. It was an excellent Measure. No doubt, it had imperfections. It was brought in to deal with a crying need: sufficient land was not available, land was being obtained by speculators who were making a fortune out of it, and the community, which ought to have had the benefit of that land, was being deprived of the right to it. The Land Commission, therefore, was brought in for the specific purpose of obtaining land and putting it to use in the interests of the community.
    It was an experiment and, as I say, it had its imperfections. There were difficulties and there were hardships. Many of the hardships were cured. It is said that there still remains a trickle of hardships. Very well; a trickle of hardships also could be dealt with. But the Land Commission was not permitted the time in which to develop the benefits for which it was intended.
    What will the Government put in its place? I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), who spoke about the difficulties today, the great housing need, the lack of land, and the problems which local authorities have in acquiring land, particularly when the land is outside their area. What will the Government put in its place?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to lead the Minister into alternatives and will restrict himself to what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Weitzman: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am trying to address myself to what the Bill does. I realise that on Third Reading one may speak only about what the Bill contains. The Bill abolishes the Land Commission. I am pointing out that, with nothing put in its place, the community is deprived of an instrument which met a real need.
    The Government are taking a disgraceful step in abolishing an institution which

    351
    should have been allowed to develop and which would have proved of inestimable benefit to the community at large.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. Dempsey Mr. Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie) rose—
    Hon. Members: Oh. Let us get on with it.
    Mr. Dempsey: I have not spoken in this debate or in the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill. I have not troubled the House with speeches, and I think it an insult that hon. Members opposite should make insinuations about being brief. In fact, we are galloping through this business too quickly. It is a serious Bill. It leaves a serious vacuum in our instruments for the protection of community development. Any hon. Member who has views to express should be entitled to express them without insulting references from the other side.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair heard no such references.
    Mr. Dempsey: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did, and so did my hon. Friends.
    We are discussing the abolition of the Land Commission. What protection will there be for the community now? After all, land is one of the most important sources of community development. Land, labour and capital are the three elements upon which our society develops, as it has throughout the ages.
    We are discussing legislation aimed primarily at reducing the availability of land for essential social development. There is no doubt that the land owners will sell to the highest bidder. Even though private enterprise wishes to develop an industrial estate, as it has in my constituency, land owners will sell to those willing to develop another project if that would earn them more money. So there will be no priorities for community interest and expansion.
    When we talk about the availability of land we talk also about its utility value. The Minister has overlooked the many factors that caused the Labour Government to introduce the Land Commission. For example, at Fort William there was the exploitation, which is a very mild term to use, of the land once it was
    352
    decided to develop a pulp mill there. The price rose by 700 to 800 per cent. The land owners, not the community, creamed that off, yet the community developed the land. It is only fair and decent that where the community is responsible for expansion of that nature, a social project of that nature, those who develop it should benefit. He who pays the piper should call the tune.
    Some hon. Members might not understand what is happening in my part of the country, so I shall tell them another reason why it is necessary to have some control over the sharks. In my part of Scotland normal feu duty, the cost of a piece of ground on which a house is built, was £2 10s. a year. Speculation brought that up to £40 for the same size of ground and for a similar house to be erected. That may be charged for anything for 30 to 60 years, and at the end of the day the land owner still owns the ground. That is sheer exploitation of the people's needs for homes and essential community establishments. The Government have overlooked the importance of protecting people and communities against such exploitation.
    I recall very vividly our failure to build a much-needed general hospital because—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not trespass on the good will of the Chair yet again. We are not dealing with feu duty nor with general hospitals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the content of the Bill.
    Mr. Dempsey: If you had given me just another minute, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I could have proved conclusively, even to you, that this matter reflects on the cost of essential services to our community. You have some experience of this yourself. I was about to say that we had a coal pit burning bing converted overnight into a Garden of Eden by the land owners because we required the land for hospital building. We must protect the community against such sharks. In the vaccuum created by the Bill there must be provision for the protection of communities throughout the country.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland has just issued a statement about a large

    353
    town development at Stonehouse in Lanarkshire. What protection are we to have to ensure that the land required will not have to be bought at exorbitant prices? Where is the protection in the Bill against that sort of thing? I have done my best to ascertain to what extent in the Bill individuals, communities, local councils and private developers will be protected following the removal of the Land Commission, which ensured that, when developments of that type took place, the benefits went to the community. Now, the benefits will go to the land owners. It is as simple as that. It is as clear as water—clearer. I have no doubt that those land owners have been rewarded by the Conservative Party for their contributions to Tory Party funds which helped win the last General Election.
    Many hon. Members opposite have referred to the fact that this Bill is an election promise. I understand that and accept it. But what about the promises to reduce prices at a stroke and to reduce unemployment? We have not heard about them so far. This Bill is, in fact, more than an election promise. Through it, the Conservative Party is repaying the land owners for the assistance they gave towards its victory at the last election.
    Dr. Glyn: I do not think that the other promises were contained in the election manifesto. Nor do I see how the hon. Gentleman can relate them to the Third Reading of this Bill. I would be glad if he would help us.
    Mr. Dempsey: The Minister himself referred to the election promise, as did other hon. Members opposite. If they can quote it as a salient feature of their argument, surely I can quote it also.
    I am deeply disturbed that this sum of money—estimated to be ultimately about £60 million—will be lost to public funds. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we need that money. We can do with it in Scotland to provide houses and jobs for our people, to start the general hospital building programme which has so far not materialised and for many other material purposes for which the Government are responsible. This is a sad day for the House of Commons because we should be ensuring the birthright of our people that money spent
    354
    by the community on social benefits should go not to the land sharks and speculators but to the original source from which these benefits come—the people and the communities to which they belong.
    8.54 p.m.
    Mr. Denis Howell: On Second Reading and in Committee, we were told that the Bill was necessary in order to provide land, to reduce the cost of land to ensure fairness to the owners of land. But at last, on Third Reading, we have had the admission from the Government that the Bill was introduced as a political decision—a decision that is distasteful to many of us, as the Under-Secretary of State admitted. That is the essence of the matter. The Bill is not before the House on the merits of the issue. There has not at any stage been any attempt to examine the merits of the Land Commission or the questions which arise from it.
    It is significant that at no stage has the Secretary of State for the Environment thought it right to be present even for two minutes. [Interruption.] I am told that the Secretary of State is watching the big fight. I have a sporting interest. Many of us want to watch that fight so I shall do my best, in the interests of sport, to provide that opportunity—with the co-operation of the Minister.
    Nevertheless, this is a big fight, people have to be knocked down and I do not want to go fifteen rounds to knock down the Minister. I have to go for the first or second round. The situation in which the Bill leaves the country has to be summarised so that our Opposition can be properly expressed. This Bill is one of the great scandals of this Administration, and one of the first. As most of my hon. Friends have said, this is a bonanza, a hand-out, lolly for the boys. It is an opportunity to provide £43 million in two years for the people who put the Conservative Party in power.
    Where does this money come from? This is £43 million contributed directly as a result of rising land prices, brought about by community activities, by local authorities, by creating new communities. This is a question with which the House has had to deal over the years and although the Bill gets rid of the Land Commission and the betterment levy it

    355
    is fair to say that we have not got rid of the scandal of rising land prices and the exploitation of land—all of those things which cause grievance to large numbers of decent people. These troubles will occur again and again and they will come here to be solved. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) saying that the Labour Party are giving consideration to the scandals that will flow from this.
    This hand-out of £43 million is taking place at the same time as the country is in desperate economic circumstances. The decision to hand it out has been taken without any regard to the economic consequences of the industrial life of the country, particularly trade union life. What does the Minister think, what do hon. Members opposite think, will be the effect on responsible trade unionists? They have been asked to moderate their wage increases. What will they think when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are blatantly handing out this money to the better-off people in society?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"]—Hon. Members may say "Rubbish", but would they like to justify this to trade unionists in their constituency, would they like to tell the postmen why they should be content with 8 per cent. while the Government are dishing out £43 million to landowners? It is an impossible proposition to argue. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) here. He talked about this being like a funeral. If there is any comparison with a funeral it is when the Minister stands up, like a family solicitor reading the will.
    My second point is to do with the cost of land. Time and again hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that the Land Commission has put up the cost of land. If it has, it must follow, as night follows day, that the abolition of the Land Commission will reduce the cost of land. That is an absolutely ludicrous proposition. The hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) should know better. The cost of land is not determined by the taxation on land. It is determined by the best market price which the seller can get for it. The taxation factor is small. The Government have produced not a shred of
    356
    evidence to show that the Bill will have any effect in reducing the cost of land.
    Thirdly, the provision of land is the great social rôle which the Commission was designed to play and was increasingly playing. There is tremendous pressure on land in the great conurbations of London, the West Midlands and Lancashire because people do not have houses in which to live decently. The abolition of the Land Commission will aggravate that situation. It will not produce any more land.
    The Government's policy is to create a partnership with local authorities. Last year they sent out a circular, 10/70, asking local authorities to co-operate with them in bringing forward land for housing. But local authorities which have the land do not have the problem. The authorities in the county areas are elected by people who will not help to solve the overcrowding and slum problems of London, Birmingham and Manchester. They cannot do it on political grounds. It is not in their interests to do it. They intend to hold on to their pleasant country areas.
    What do the Government propose to do to bring forward land so that houses can be erected in those areas? On Second Reading the Government said that local government reorganization would help. We have now had the opportunity of seeing their proposals. They propose to hedge in all the big urban areas as tightly as possible and to provide no land for the authorities to solve their housing problems. The proposition in respect of the new West Midlands authority is ludicrous. It is to create a new authority with Coventry at one end and Wolverhampton at the other with Birmingham, West Bromwich, Smethwick and other places in the middle.
    I should like the Minister to tell us what he and his friends believe will be the situation concerning the availability of land, not just for local authorities, but for private builders. It is a mistake to think, as hon. Members opposite think, that we on this side of the House are opposed to the provision of land for owner-occupiers. We are not. We introduced schemes like the mortgage option scheme to help people with low incomes to buy their houses. But again and again the small builder, who is hit hard,

    357
    knows that he cannot get land. This was a unique role which the land Commission fulfilled. It obtained parcels of land and packaged them together and provided the £500,000, or whatever it was, necessary for the sewers and access roads which medium builders and some large builders could not afford to do. All that has gone and nothing has been put in its place. We wait to hear what the Government have to say on these matters.
    Although the Bill will abolish the Land Commission, it will not abolish the problems which it was set up to solve. It will not help the social conscience of the nation with regard to the profiteering out of land prices. It will certainly not reduce the price of land for house owners. It will certainly not provide the land where we need it for people who are overcrowded. For these reasons, because it leaves a vacuum which must be filled at some time and to which we shall have to return again and again, we on this side will certainly vote against the Bill.
    9.6 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said that the Bill was one of the great scandals of this Administration. On the contrary, the Measure which this overtakes, the Land Commission Act, 1967, was the greatest scandal of the previous Administration in the hardship which it brought to the small owners of property and the complete failure to carry out any of its objects, either reducing the price of land or making land available.
    I join the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in mourning the loss of an old friend of both of us, Arthur Skeffington. Some hon. Members can fight across the Dispatch Box and across the Committees and still be very great friends. I am very proud to say that Arthur Skeffington and I, in all the years which we knew each other—17 years in the House—were always very great friends, and at the same time often able to fight. He could fight. He put his case well and he was always a friend to his political enemies.
    I would also thank the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and the hon. Member for Small Heath,
    358
    for the conduct of the opposition to the Bill. We are now reaching the end of the Bill in this House, and we have had reasonable arguments and have not wasted time on discussions. Each side has brought forward the right points to discuss.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Windsor (Dr. Glyn) referred to the demise and burial of the Land Commission. I do not want to prolong the final obsequies. The sooner we get through the funeral rites of this unlamented corpse, the happier we shall all be. The Opposition have tried hard to give it the kiss of life, but it would be better to give it a decent burial now, to get it out of the way, so that we can proceed with our much more effective, relevant and positive policies, such as making land available, reorganising local government, preparing regional strategies and so on.
    These are other promises which we made in the election. Perhaps the Opposition treat those promises with the contempt with which they treated our promise to get rid of the Land Commission. I cannot understand the Opposition's argument, that we should not be bound by something which we said in our election manifesto, that it is wrong to argue that, if one said it in one's manifesto, one has a mandate to do it.
    This is the argument solemnly advanced today and at previous stages of the Bill—that we must not say in Government that we have a mandate for this or that we gave a promise to do it. If we are carrying out our promises, we are told, we are doing the wrong thing. We are carrying out our promises, and we are proud to do so.
    I had hoped that the final burial service of the Land Commission would have been on the appointed day of 1st April—
    Mr. Denis Howell: Very appropriate.
    Mr. Page: As the hon. Member says, it would be very appropriate to bury the Land Commission on All Fools' Day, but our programme is getting a little behind. I foresee that if the programme in the remaining stages runs smoothly, the appointed day will be 1st May. I do not think this matter raises difficulties because the vital date for betterment levy

    359
    is 22nd July. Any chargeable acts or events which occur before that date remain chargeable to levy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked whether we could alter that date or set it back. Although at an early stage we considered whether we could make this retrospective, we feared that to give concessions to those who had not paid levy would have been unfair to those who had already paid. It is necessary in any reform of taxation to date the matter from when the reform is announced rather than from any earlier date. Had we made this matter retrospective, it would have been necessary to re-assess those who had been assessed to levy on the basis whether they were liable for capital gains tax. Administratively it would have been difficult, and traditionally tax changes are not made retrospective because of the uncertainty which would be caused in tax matters.
    Probably the solution to this matter lies in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, who asked whether we could give those who had been assessed a longer time to pay when the chargeable act or event had happened some considerable time in the past. Such people probably would have spent the money which they had acquired from selling property or may have bought other property with the money and would now be faced with a payment of levy out of a small capital or income. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall give every consideration to those who find inconvenience and difficulty in paying. The Land Commission in the past has given great consideration to this point and when eventually the matter is handed over to the Secretary of State we, too, will give consideration to those who find difficulty in paying.
    One argument used by the right hon. Member for Deptford is that, because we are relieving certain people of tax, we are throwing away some £12 million in one year and further amounts in a second year. Surely this is an argument on the lines that if a tax raises revenue then no matter how bad it is, it must be kept because it raises money for some good purpose. The Opposition are putting themselves in the role of a Robin Hood, or Dick Turpin in this case, by taking money through a bad tax because they
    360
    believe that they can spend it for good purpose.
    The right hon. Gentleman's second argument against the Bill related to capital gains tax. However, since these are profits from land, there is surely no reason to have two kinds of taxation on those profits. When the levy is abolished by this Bill, those who make a capital gain in disposing of land will still be liable to tax; those who trade in land will always be liable to the normal income tax on profits which they make in trading. We are putting those gains and trading profits out of dealings in land on the same basis as profits on dealings in any other property.
    The right hon. Member for Deptford said that there must be a national institution to take over the land powers of the Commission. In that, he was repeating the argument that we heard in Committee that no local authority should be regarded as sufficiently capable or trustworthy to carry out the task which has been allocated to it. We have confidence that local authorities will carry out this task, and we have more faith in them perhaps than have the Opposition.
    Before I conclude, I think that I should report the position of the staff of the Commission and the property remaining in its hands. The rundown of staff has proceeded smoothly. The latest figure of staff in post is 227. That was the figure on 1st March, and it compares with 385 on 12th January. It is expected to be reduced to 100 by 31st March, when only the Croydon office will remain open. In due course, that will be taken over as a unit of the Department of the Environment. The 100 staff will be absorbed elsewhere as the outstanding levy assessment and collection work is cleared. That will be done over a period of two or three years. I am pleased to say that all the remaining staff—that is, the difference between the 100 who are to be retained and the 227 in post at the moment—have jobs to go to, some to private work which they have chosen and others to different appointments in the Civil Service. I am happy to say that we and the staff together have solved all the problems which at the outset presented quite a big difficulty.
    Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is to happen to the premises in

    361
    Newcastle? In the North-East there was a considerable advantage in getting the Commission's headquarters at Newcastle. What is to happen to the premises?
    Mr. Page: If neither the House nor the right hon. Gentleman will hold me to it, I believe that the Treasury has its eye on the premises. I do not think that there is any intention to dispose of them.
    Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Why not?
    Mr. Page: It is the Government's policy to try to disperse offices, and this seemed a good opportunity.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: More civil servants?
    Mr. Page: No. As I have said, we have reduced the number of staff. We have reduced it in the Commission from about 1,000 to 100.
    Mr. John Silkin: I know that the Minister will not wish to make an unfair point. All that he has done is to remove staff from one formerly existing Government organisation to another. The truth is that there are 5,000 more civil servants today than there were when the previous Government left office.
    Mr. Page: The reduction has been achieved in some cases by the staff finding employment in private offices. In other cases it has been achieved by filling vacancies which would have been filled in other ways, by redundancies and not by increasing the total number.
    What remains to be done is the outstanding levy assessment and collection. At 1st May there will be assessments of levy to be made of between £9 million and £10 million, and the total amount remaining to be collected on 1st May is between £27 million and £28 million. I expect that this will be collected over the next three years at the following rates: in the year 1971–72, £15 million; in the year 1972–73, £10 million; and in the year 1973–74 and perhaps later years, though I hope not, £3 million. We hope to clear it in about three years.
    I will explain the position concerning land remaining in the possession of the Land Commission which will be handed over to the Secretary of State. The land currently held comprises 2,473 acres. The land which it is intended to acquire to
    362
    round off some of these estates comprises 222 acres. That makes a total of 2,695 acres to be disposed of.
    One interesting figure out of the 2,695 acres is that 1,170 acres are to be sold by private treaty to local authorities. I think that this shows that the local authorities are prepared to take un the land which the Land Commission had acquired and, in some cases, to develop it themselves to the point of building houses and so on upon it and, in other cases, to develop it with roads and sewers and to sell it off to private enterprise in plots. The amount being sold direct by private treaty to builders is 204 acres, but there are substantial amounts up to 512 acres to be put up for auction.
    Mr. Farr: Why is the whole lot not put up for public auction so that the best available price is obtained for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Page: In many cases property was bought with the object of its being taken over by the local authorities. In some cases there is already a contract with local authorities, subject perhaps to planning permission and other arrangements. I think it right that, in cases in which there was a deliberate purchase of property for the purpose of comprehensive development by local authorities, the Land Commission should dispose of it in that way.
    A substantial amount of land is being put up to public auction, and the Land Commission's disposal policy concerning land for builders, whether large or small, comes under three heads.
    First, there is the land which was bought for small builders at their specific request because they were in difficulties with the owner or where ownership was unknown. This is still to be passed over. The small builder will have an opportunity of acquiring that land.
    Secondly, there are the small sites which can be disposed of without the need for road works and drainage where the sites are either too small to be lotted or can be conveniently lotted. That land also is available to small builders.
    Thirdly, there are the larger sites which need supply services and roads or require planning permission before they can properly be sold. Those are to be sold as a whole and not split up. After all, the

    363
    Land Commission must deal with its property in a commercial way. It is under an obligation to do so.
    That deals with the point raised by some of my hon. Friends about land for small builders. In suitable cases the land is being offered to small builders where it is possible to lot it out in small parcels. But where it obviously needs considerable development, it is to be put up for auction as a whole.
    I mentioned the 1,170 acres which are to be sold to the local authorities. The willingness of local authorities to take up that amount of land for development is interesting as a sidelight on the question of what will take the place of the Land Commission in bringing forward land for development.
    Circular 10/70 indicated what we think will be the right agency. It is too soon to say what effect Circular 10/70 will have on the release of land for development. The full picture will not emerge until early this summer, when it should be possible to make a full statement on this.
    However, encouraging signs are emerging from discussions with the authorities concerned. Despite the ridicule which the hon. Member for Small Heath has poured on our policy, it is showing some progress, and land is coming forward for the public sector and for private enterprise. I can tell the hon. Member for Small Heath, who pressed this, that Coventry Corporation has announced its intention to accelerate sales of surplus land to builders. Staffordshire County Council has agreed to pass on information about the availability of land and to discuss means of development—
    Mr. Denis Howell: The reason why Coventry Corporation is bringing land forward for private sales is that the Corporation, scandalously, has stopped all council house building.
    Mr. Page: Coventry is determined to bring forward land in this way. Portsmouth Council has announced the release of more land following a recent review—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wander too far, as some previous speakers have done.
    Mr. Page: I know that the interruptions are in connection with an entertainment other than mine in the Box. I was asked this question by the hon. Member for Small Heath, but I will not continue to give examples, although I have half a dozen more in my notes. I assure him that the policy is producing results and that it will not result in the disastrous increase in land prices which occurred from the beginning of the term of office of the last Administration and continued throughout their term.
    The Land Commission's failure to stabilise land prices was highlighted in an article appearing in the February issue of Economic Trends which pointed out that land prices had actually doubled between 1963 and 1970, the largest increase of 40 per cent. occurring in 1968 and 1969, which were the two active years of the Land Commission. So the Land Commission did result in an increase in prices, and there was a slackening off in prices during 1970.
    I do not claim that the rise in land prices will be stopped by the introduction of the Bill, but I am confident that the measures we are taking to make more land available for development and to remove the scarcity value in the element of land prices will at least slow down the rate of increase, and we shall be able to say that we have carried out our promises, at which hon. Gentlemen have been scoffing so much during the debate.
    Question put: —
    The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 217.

    Division No. 234.]

    AYES

    [9.28 p.m.

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Bell, Ronald

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Astor, John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Bray, Ronald

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Benyon, W.

    Brewis, John

    Awdry, Daniel

    Biffen, John

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Blaker, Peter

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Batsford, Brian

    Body, Richard

    Bryan, Paul

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Boscawen, Robert

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

    Buck, Antony

    Hicks, Robert

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Burden, F. A.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

    Percival, Ian

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

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Carlisle, Mark

    Holland, Philip

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Channon, Paul

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Pounder, Rafton

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hornby, Richard

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Clegg, Walter

    Hunt, John

    Raison, Timothy

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Coombs, Derek

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Cooper, A. E.

    James, David

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Cordle, John

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jessel, Toby

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Costain, A. P.

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Critchley, Julian

    Jopling, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Crouch, David

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Crowder, F P

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Curran, Charles

    Kilfedder, James

    Scott, Nicholas

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    King, Evelvn (Dorset, S.)

    Sharples, Richard

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Dean, Paul

    Knox, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lambton, Antony

    Skeet, T H. H.

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Lane, David

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Soref, Harold

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Spence, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Sproat, Iain

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stainton, Keith

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

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

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Eyre, Reginald

    Loveridge, John

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Farr, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stokes, John

    Fell, Anthony

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    McLaren, Martin

    Sutcliffe, John

    Fidler, Michael

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Tapsell, Peter

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    McMaster, Stanley

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Fortescue, Tim

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Foster, Sir John

    Maddan, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Fox, Marcus

    Madel, David

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn, Mrs. Margaret

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

    Maginnis, John E.

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Fry, Peter

    Marten, Neil

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Maude, Angus

    Tilney, John

    Gardner, Edward

    Mawby, Ray

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Trew, Peter

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Miscampbell, Norman

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J, B.

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

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Goodhew, Victor

    Moate, Roger

    Waddington, David

    Gorst, John

    Molyneaux, James

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Gower, Raymond

    Money, Ernle

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Gray, Hamish

    Monro, Hector

    Wall, Patrick

    Green, Alan

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Walters, Dennis

    Grylls, Michael

    More, Jasper

    Warren, Kenneth

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Gurden, Harold

    Mudd, David

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Murton, Oscar

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Neave, Airey

    Wilkinson, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Normanton, Tom

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Nott, John

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Onslow, Cranley

    Younger, Hn. George

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Havers, Michael

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hay, John

    Osborn, John

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Heseltine, Michael

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Mr. Keith Speed.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Barnes, Michael

    Albu, Austen

    Ashley, Jack

    Beaney, Alan

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Allen, Scholefield

    Atkinson, Norman

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bishop, E. S.

    366

    367

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Orme, Stanley

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Horam, John

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Paget, R. T.

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Pendry, Tom

    Cant, R. B.

    Hunter, Adam

    Pemiand, Norman

    Carmichael, Neil

    Janner, Greville

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

    Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

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

    Prescott, John

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Clark, David (Coins Valley)

    John, Brynmor

    Probert, Arthur

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Cohen, Stanley

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

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Coleman, Donald

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

    Davies, Denzit (Llanelly)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Judd, Frank

    Roper, John

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rose, Paul B.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Kerr, Russell

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Delargy, H. J

    Kinnock, Neil

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund

    Lamond, James

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

    Dempsey, James

    Latham, Arthur

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

    Doig, Peter

    Lawson, George

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Sillars, James

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Leonard, Dick

    Silverman, Julius

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Driberg, Tom

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Small, William

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Spearing, Nigel

    Eadie, Alex

    Loughlin, Charles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Stallard, A. W.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Ellis, Tom

    McBride, Neil

    Strang, Gavin

    English, Michael

    McCartney, Hugh

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Evans, Fred

    McElhone, Frank

    Swain, Thomas

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    McGuire, Michael

    Taverne, Dick

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

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mackie, John

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Tinn, James

    Foot, Michael

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Tomney, Frank

    Forrester, John

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

    Urwin, T. W.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Marquand, David

    Varley, Eric G.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Meacher, Michael

    Wallace, George

    Ginsburg, David

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Weitzman, David

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Mendelson, John

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Bruce

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Whitlock, William

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Molloy, William

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hamling, William

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Moyle, Roland

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Murray, Ronald King

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Ogden, Eric

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Hattersley, Roy

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Mr. John Golding.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

GRANGEMOUTH-FALKIRK DEVELOPMENT AREA
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
9.39 p.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: The Minister will agree wholeheartedly with at least my first proposal, which is that anyone who is initiating a discussion on the subject of the Grangemouth-Falkirk development area should first pay tribute to the work done by the late Professor Donald J. Robertson of the University of Glasgow in drawing up the economic section of the Survey and Plan and also to the work undertaken by Professor Percy Johnson-Marshall. If I stress the work done by Professor Robertson I mean no disrespect to Professor Johnson-Marshall. Professor Robertson's demise is a great loss to Scottish economics and, indeed, to United Kingdom economics, and his advice to Governments of all political colours will be sadly missed.
I shall divide my case into three unequal sections: first, to look at the economic propositions involved; second, to look at the issues of land area and population dispersal; third, to look briefly at the sociological considerations.
The area embraced by Grangemouth-Falkirk has considerable natural advantages of geographical location for the attraction of industry. One could argue, from the standpoint of economic history, that it cradled Scotland's first Industrial Revolution. Thanks to certain developments in the past ten years or so, it is beginning—or was beginning, certainly, and, I think, is beginning—to look to the future and take part progressively in the second industrial revolution. But, as Professor Robertson pointed out in his Survey and Plan, these advantages are not of themselves sufficient to ensure economic growth.
Two propositions of economic importance are paramount in relation to the development of Central Scotland: first, that a major aspect of Government thinking must be directed to restricting growth in the South-East of England. Here, I quote from Professor Robertson's section of the report:
"Immigration into that area"—
370
that is, the South-East—
"is becoming an increasing problem, and for this reason, if no other, it is reasonable to assume that the present policy of favouring the development of Central Scotland will continue".
He was writing prior to 1966, when his plan was promoted. In view of the present Government's intentions, one may question whether adherence to the restriction of growth in the South-East of England is being maintained with the same vigour. One must look at the implications of the changes in the Government's investment incentive policy and in the emphasis on industrial development certificates for the development of Central Scotland as a whole.
The second proposition of economic importance is, in Professor Robertson's words:
"We may assume as a fact that Central Scotland is part of an economy which is likely to run at full employment and be short of labour."
There are, therefore, two pillars, as it were, upon which this plan for the Grangemouth-Falkirk area is erected. One is that there would be restriction of development in the South-East of England; the other is that the general atmosphere in the United Kingdom economy would be one of full employment and that there would accordingly be some shortage of labour.
In tackling these two aspects of the matter in the period 1966–70, the Labour Government ensured in this area the growth of manufacturing employment. Their plan put forward a level of 800 additional manufacturing jobs per annum, and as early as 1969, in answer to a Question put by my predecessor, the indication was that the target for job increases for 1975 had been reached.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have raised the question of job gains and losses in Scotland, but, no matter what the argument may be for other development areas, it is clear that the emphasis on regional incentives and I.D.C. policy created for this area a growth of job potential well in excess of the targets envisaged in the Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) represents that part of the area which has been most instrumental in producing a build-up of job growth,

371
namely, the port of Grangemouth. In this build-up, the Burgh has been amply assisted by a system of investment incentives based on cash grants. Hon. Members have been critical of the growth of capital-intensive industry in Scotland as a whole, but it is true that in this area there has been such a growth. It ill behoves hon. Members opposite to criticise this when the Secretary of State recently, clutching one of the few straws available to him on projected or real industrial expansion in Scotland, welcomed the announcement of further capital-intensive expansion by the British Petroleum Company at Grangemouth. We also welcome that expansion. We only hope that it will reach fruition, because I understand that this is a projection for expansion. Perhaps the Minister will give us further details. I have no doubt that the company will be looking long, and doing its discounted cash flow sums, in considering the effect on this type of expansion of the new form of tax-based incentives. I should welcome information, if the Minister has it, that this is a much more firmly based piece of expansion than appears at first sight in the Press.
Second, we have had indications that, although Imperial Chemical Industries is experiencing difficulty elsewhere, at least in this area there is an indication of job stability, if not expansion. All the investment projections of that firm are under consideration, but I do not wholly lay the blame for this at the Government's door. I.C.I. has important developments in the Grangemouth area. Its whole investment projections are in doubt post at least 1975. That is in the relatively distant future. But, if one thinks of expanding in chemicals in 1975, one's cost exercises and some indication of one's cash flow position must be considered in the very early 1970s.
However, as the survey and plan point out, despite the growth of the Grangemouth complex the area does not have a buoyant employment structure. That contention, made in 1966 and published in 1968, is valid today. I do not want to appear in any way jealous of what is happening in other parts of Scotland or the United Kingdom. I am not in the least jealous of the momentous problems
372
that the West of Scotland area has, but we must have from the Minister, who had meetings with the Advisory Council the other day, an idea of what he thinks of the employment structure now.
A serious feature in the lack of buoyancy is the decline in the numbers employed in the casting industry. Although both political parties have managed to bring to Scotland industries which should have used castings, there has been little sign that the casting industry in the area has been flexible enough to adapt itself to the potentialities of new manufacturing industries moving in. The casting industry in the area exemplifies a characteristic of Scottish decline. I am making a generalisation; I know that there are one or two exceptions.
When a market disappears or alters, the Scottish entrepreneur seems incapable of changing or adapting existing skills and capital equipment to new uses. We seem incapable of anticipating changes. I remember visiting one casting firm a long time ago. It had been very famous for lion-head fountains. But those fountains went out of use 50 or 70 years ago. It had made its name with that product and when the market for it disappeared it found little desire in terms of entrepreneurial skills to adapt.
The second characteristic of the problem in relation to Grangemouth and the Falkirk-Grangemouth area in general, and in relation to the capital intensive nature of the industry there in particular, is the almost total failure to obtain what we loosely call "spin-off" from the capital development. This point may relate to issues which are extraneous to the industry itself, but I shall refer to it later.
I turn now to the second main point on land use and population dispersal. A considerable area to the north-east of Grangemouth was suggested in the plan for industrial development by large land-users. To my knowledge, little has been done to exploit that site. However, for the future, consideration ought to be given to a feasibility study of reclaiming the mud flats on the Forth at Skinflats by using surplus ash from the Longannet power station. The Minister might care to look into this with the Scottish Development Department. It may be possible to pump this surplus ash—which

373
will be a problem to the power station in years to come—across the Forth and use it together with the unsightly remnants of a coal bing in the area to reclaim the mud flats. This could be a valuable industrial site. I would not like to put a figure on the cost of reclamation, but it should be considered if the Scottish Development Department has not already undertaken some surveys.
A further possibility of land use as it affects my constituency—and others are involved as well—is the infilling of the Union Canal. I know that this is the subject of an inquiry and I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to tell me tonight exactly what is going to happen, but I hope that once the reporter has made his submission to the Secretary of State the Scottish Office, in view of the cost involved, will expedite the transmission of the Secretary of State's views to the responsible bodies as soon as it can.
Attendant on these problems of economic and physical planning are the issues of administrative control. I want the hon. Gentleman to pay particular attention to these issues in view of the way in which the Government have used this area, in terms of its total integrity, as a district. Virtually the whole area covered by the plan is, as far as I can see, a district in the central region of Scotland. I appreciate that there may be difficulties because of the negotiations which the Department wants to embark upon in relation to boundaries but, having made allowances for that, I cannot just dismiss in the present context considerations of administrative control.
I say this advisedly without casting aspersions upon the valuable work done by people in local authorities, but it might be said that this growth area has attracted new industry despite the presence of local friction. I note from today's White Paper that the Minister seems assured on the basis of the proposals contained in the White Paper for the reform of local government that a new spirit will emerge. I would like him to be a little more forthcoming as to the basis for that.
I hope he will assure us that he has managed to convey to the local authorities, among whom there is a friendly rivalry, the need to come together to create a single administrative unit in the
374
not too distant future. Even if we get this in 1975, in the short run these difficulties will remain unless a clear lead is given by the Scottish Office. It is not sufficient for the Minister to meet the Advisory Committee from time to time and to advise on the appointment of an industrial development officer. What Professor Robertson called for was a major administrative reorganisation and I submit that this means that industrial development cannot be treated as an appendage. It is not something to be added, as an afterthought, to the other functions of local government.
When I look at the proposals for the reform of local government I see that there is little said about management. Management is the key. What we have to concentrate our attention on is how to manage to attract industry to the area. It is not sufficient to think that we can do this by employing one industrial development officer, giving him some secretarial assistance and sticking him in some poky litle office under the thumb of existing bureaucracy. Present local conditions are not oriented towards the attraction of industry—they are very good for empire builders. What we need is an empire built round the "attraction of industry" policy. Industrial development must be at the heart of any new thinking for the district and the region. If we are asking for the appointment of one development officer he will have to call on other resources and might be frustrated by existing bureaucracy.
Yet there are five Scottish universities within easy access. What continuing influence and interest, if any, has Glasgow University in the working out of this plan? There is an excellent Department of Economics and Social Research there and many of the people who compiled the plan are still there, such people as Kevin Allen and others. We can call on five Scottish universities, particularly Glasgow and link this with the new Scottish business school. How can we solve the problem of attracting industry by appointing one man at a cost of £12,000 to £15,000 a year? This strikes me as a failure in thinking. I urge the Minister to give consideration—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]
Mr. Douglas: The new University of Stirling has an industrial projects section whose services should be used in carrying out feasibility studies of existing industries and the possibilities of new industries.
What must be considered in any area—I am not arguing particularly for the Falkirk-Grangemouth area—is the element of potential growth in the new industries, which we loosely call spin-off, and the possibility of finding and utilising new markets for existing skills. This involves market appraisal, and no one industrial development officer will do that job. Local authorities are being encouraged in kidding themselves into thinking that if such an officer is appointed all the problems will be solved.
As Professor Robertson argued, what is required is some form of industrial development board for the growth areas which would have access to the technological, economic and scientific know-how of all these institutions and the new Scottish Business School, plus—and this is the weakness in the Scottish set-up—access to financial expertise. What I am arguing for this area I would argue writ large for the whole of Scotland. We need a business school type of organisation linked with financial expertise to public and/or private capital. A weakness in the Scottish set-up is the inability to obtain quickly risk capital for ventures touching on advanced technology. This is why it is pitiful that today we gave a Third Reading to a Bill abolishing the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. In this context an organisation of that type, linking possibly public and private capital, is absolutely indispensable.
Lastly, but not least, I turn to the sociological considerations. There has been a considerable scaling down of the estimates in the population projections. I know that these were projections and not firm estimates, but the survey plan envisaged a possible population for the area of 250,000 by the mid-1980s. The projected increase in the area covered by my constituency was 41,000. I understand from discussions with the local authorities that the reassessment is that
376
the population increase should be scaled down to about 35,000 in the mid-1980s.
Can the Minister give some reason for that regressive scaling down? After a considerable examination taking two or three years, these eminent individuals believed that, based on its job attraction possibilities, this area should be capable of being a metropolitan complex and have a hinterland to hold a population of 250,000. Have the local authorities fallen down in the number of houses they have built? Has the attraction of industry policy failed? Have there been administrative difficulties? Has the Scottish Office, under Government of both parties, failed to provide the assistance necessary to build up the population?
If this population growth is to take place, then we must remember that, even at the lower end of the scale, great stress is placed on the locality. Apart from the local authorities, bodies like the churches must be assisted to help to give the area a coherent and distinct identity.
As I explained, this area was the cradle of the first Industrial Revolution. Some of the ravages of it have yet to be cleared up. If new population is to come in and if we are to have a broadly based area—if, in other words, Falkirk is to be the metropolis, as the plan envisaged—some assistance must be given to bodies like the churches so that they can persuade the new population to come together in a community. In this connection, I pay tribute to Rev. Norman Swann and I commend his organisation to the Minister's attention.
I have raised many points and while I do not expect the Minister to answer them all tonight, he must be aware that the people of Falkirk and Grangemouth expect them to be answered in the near future. The Government cannot deny answers to these questions for too long. They cannot withdraw from this type of economic planning in Scotland. Nor can they withdraw from the considerations on which the then Conservative Government embarked in their plan of 1963.
If I may be permitted to say so, "This is your baby, Mr. Minister. Do not leave it out in the cold. If you do, at least a few of my hon. Friends will not be squealing but will be pestering the living daylights out of you".
10.7 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) has not only raised a number of important points but has performed a valuable service tonight. He has used the opportunity of this longer than usual Adjournment debate to give a comprehensive survey of the Grangemouth-Falkirk development area. The people of not only this part of the country but of Scotland generally will be grateful to him for having laid some vital questions right at the Minister's feet.
My hon. Friend and I have adjoining constituencies, and both Grangemouth and Falkirk are in my constituency. Indeed, they are the nucleus of the area. If this part develops in growth, that growth will take place for the most part in my hon. Friend's constituency, though, as I say, Falkirk and Grangemouth are at the centre of it. Our two constituency interests are, therefore, closely linked.
This area has for a long time been, and remains, capable of great growth. The range of industry in the two towns which form the centre of the area is potentially growth-worthy, and I say that in the fullest sense of the term. For example, in Grangemouth we have the docks and chemical industry, while in Falkirk we have the casting industry, with British Aluminium. In both towns there is a considerable accretion of smaller, newer industries, most of them having developed in the last ten years. This growth has been going on for a considerable time and is likely to continue. If this area cannot be developed into a growth area proper, what sort of area can?
I differ in emphasis from my hon. Friend in one respect. To some extent local authorities and their officials have done well in attracting new industry to this area. Indeed, Grangemouth has for a considerable time been an example to Scotland in the attraction of new industry. I am not simply referring to appendages to big industries, such as chemicals and oil, but to additional industries. They have built their own advance factories. I do not know what more a small burgh could have done.
Falkirk has attracted a considerable amount of industry. There has not been a complete reliance on the old industry
378
of casting and the British aluminium industry. There has been a considerable growth of a number of other types of industry. Therefore, the area has managed to develop a good deal under its own steam.
There is one point on which I differ from my hon. Friend. Although I agree with him almost entirely, there is some difference of emphasis. He talked of the casting industry as not being very ready to adjust itself to modern times. In the 1950s, when the foundries were in difficulties it took a long time, but in due course the foundries adjusted themselves. They went into plastics and other matters—so much so that if one went into a foundry in Falkirk one got the impression that it was not a foundry but a factory because it had changed so much. Although this process took some time, it did at last get round to change, with the typical Scottish calmness, and perhaps slowness in regard to change.
My hon. Friend was right to say that in present circumstances there had not been the same kind of buoyancy. For example, when the steel industry opened an establishment in Scotland, I feel that the Falkirk iron industry did not take as much advantage as it might have done of that situation; various ancillary activities might have been pursued. However, we must remember that the Falkirk iron industry when under pressure did not prove itself to be unbuoyant. At the moment this area still has growth potential, even without much additional help. One feels that whatever local government or central government does it will continue to expand.
There has been a feeling of delay over growth projects. This is the case that I put to the Government, though I must point out that the delay has not occurred entirely in the last nine months. The idea of a growth area did not start in the locality. It is not a matter which the local people thought they could develop and handle. It is a matter which, from the beginning, was always conceived as a development strategy stretching beyond the area itself and requiring central intervention. This is why it appears to many people that at present the whole project is becoming bogged down. It is left in the hands of local authorities which, although composed of a great many competent and

379
forward-looking people who possess the best will in the world, still have not managed to move on as one would expect. It is now surely time for Government intervention to get the whole project going.
I do not wish to take up any more time since I know that the Minister will want time to reply. I had intended to speak for only two minutes, but I have been a little longer since we have had the good fortune to have a longer Adjournment debate than is usual. I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to give us some hope.
10.15 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. Kenneth Younger): I thank the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) both for taking the trouble to initiate this debate and for the most impressive way in which he put across his survey of the industrial and economic difficulties of his constituency and those neighbouring his constituency. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) for his intervention which, as always, showed his deep and long knowledge of the area. I would like, too, to be able to mention the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) who, I know, would have liked to be here. We all hope that he will soon recover and be back with us.
This is a timely occasion for the debate. It so happens that it was only yesterday that I had a meeting with the Joint Planning Advisory Committee for the Falkirk-Grangemouth growth area. It was the first occasion that I have had a chance to meet the Committee, and it was a most useful and helpful meeting. I was grateful to have that meeting, and I am grateful now to report to the House some of the matters discussed at the meeting, because they were all very relevant to what has been said tonight.
Let me first make it clear that the original designation of the Falkirk-Grangemouth area as an important growth point in Central Scotland made originally in the 1963 White Paper still very much stands. I told the J.P.A.C. that the Government hopes, as did their predecessors, that it will do all that it
380
can to move ahead and get the plan under way.
It is fair to say that there was general agreement among those present yesterday. Everyone felt that matters had not gone as fast or as far as any of us would have liked to see in the past few years in getting the plan off the ground. I am certain that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who had a great deal to do with helping the project along in many ways when he was in office, will agree that it has not got as far as he and all the rest of us hoped. What we discussed yesterday was what immediate steps can be taken to get the project off the ground again as soon as we can.
The first problem before us was the long-standing one that the Committee has had to decide, whether to appoint an industrial development officer and, if so, how and to what extent. I emphasised yesterday that this is not a decision that I can make for the Committee. It is not one for a Government Minister to make. It must be taken by the local planning authorities together, not because of some rusty old convention that that is the only way in which it can be done but because the local planning authorities are the only people with planning powers under the present system. They must remain so until we have the reform of local government in effect. Therefore, we must work through the local planning authorities and take them with us, and all our efforts must be geared to persuading and helping them to get together sufficiently to put the necessary steam behind the preparation of these plans.
I told the Committee about one other matter which may prove helpful. I believe that the publication of the Government's White Paper indicating the main lines of the reform of local government provides a new situation in which these authorities can see more clearly in what direction they should be going in the years ahead. There is all the difference in the world between discussing whether to appoint an industrial development officer in the abstract and discussing it against the background of knowing broadly what the new local government boundaries will be.

381
I suggested to the Committee, therefore, knowing their difficulties, that they should consider one of two alternatives: either to agree to appoint an industrial development officer for an area roughly covering what will be the eventual Central Region under the new local government White Paper reforms; or, if that proves too difficult or impracticable, to appoint one for the new district area covering the present area of Falkirk and Grangemouth, and then, if wished by the authorities, the other districts in the region can do the same. It is not for me to press them to do one or the other, but I did, and I do again, press them to get on with the job of deciding what they want to do in this sphere and of getting someone on the ground to speak up for the Falkirk-Grangemouth area, or perhaps the Central Region, in the industrial promotion which is going to be very much needed throughout Scotland.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire touched on this point with a most interesting series of suggestions, particularly suggesting the need to bring universities into the studies necessary in this matter. I believe that there are two separate functions. One is the function, which certainly may and should be needed, of calling in universities, with all their expertise, to carry out studies on particular problems and points which may need to be studied from time to time. There are five universities within easy reach which can and should be called on by the local planning authorities or, better still, by the J.P.A.C. as and when needed.
In addition, there is and must be a need for a specifically charged officer to deal with industrial development. This needs to be organised in Scotland on a more professional basis than ever before if for no other reason than that our competitors are already in this sphere in a bigger way than we are. This is why I hope that Falkirk and Grangemouth will have an organisation of its own to contribute to what I hope will be an all-Scotland effort, under the auspices of the Scottish Council, to see that Scotland's voice is clearly heard outwith Scotland on the need to attract new industry.
The members at the meeting also felt that they would like to get on with the planning and implementation of the study
382
which was published in 1968 and which has lain under consideration, but little more, since.
We had a long discussion about population targets. I should make it clear that the fact that we are now talking about a population target of 35,000 by 1991, whereas five years ago we were talking about a population target of 50,000 within a slightly different period, in no way reflects any change or lack of drive in this area. It is merely a reflection of the change in the forecasts for the United Kingdom population increase generally. Five years ago the experts were telling us that the population in Britain would or ought to expand by approximately 20 million in the next 25 years. They have now revised these figures to more like 12 million in the same period. It therefore follows, if we are to heed the advice given by the population projectors and experts, that we must scale down our projections for each of the other areas. The same thing has happened in other areas. We had very much the same kind of discussion in Tayside when I was there not long ago.
I welcome what the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire mentioned about the expansion announced about a week ago by B.P. for an oil refinery at Grangemouth. I cannot give further details now. However, the announcement by B.P. makes clear the way in which its mind is working. It has promised to make a further announcement as soon as it is able to do so. It is most encouraging to think that B.P. is thinking in these terms. It would be most encouraging both to the area represented by the hon. Gentleman and to Scotland as a whole to have at Grangemouth what would amount to the largest oil refinery of its kind in Europe.
The hon. Gentleman made one or two interesting suggestions. The first was the feasibility of reclaiming considerable quantities of land at Skinflats. I will look at this most interesting suggestion with great interest and care. As he knows, a considerable amount of land has already been reclaimed on the other side of the Forth, with considerable success. There is also land at Skinflats extending to 1,800 acres which is suitable for the development, 500 acres of which is already owned by Stirling County

383
Council, so there is a nucleus of land available for industrial development.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the in-filling of the Union Canal. As he said, there is an inquiry in progress, and it would not be proper for me to comment either way on that, as the Secretary of State may or may not become involved in it. As soon as the results of the inquiry are available, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no unavoidable delay by the Secretary of State in helping to make the decision and getting the work under way.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the administrative organisation of the area. I agree with him that dealing with many different local authorities covering the same area is not the most ideal method of organisation in the working out and following up of a large and important development plan such as this. We have, however, no alternative but to work through the local authorities in the area. Two suggestions were made at the meeting I had with the J.P.A.C. yesterday. One was that I should impose New Town powers over the area, and the other was that I should in some way invest the J.P.A.C. with powers that it could exercise over the other authorities in the area. I firmly reject that as a possible method of working.
However much one might like to give a body such as the J.P.A.C. powers to act under its own hand in the processing of these plans, one simply cannot divorce the executive action from the democratically elected representatives of the local authorities who have the power to raise the money to do the work, who have the responsibility for fulfilling the planning Acts and the responsibility for producing the necessary infrastructure, and so on. It would not be "on" to give to another amorphous body, without direct responsibility to the electors or for raising its own finance, the powers to do, over the heads of the local authorities, what it or we may wish to be done.
I took it from the meeting yesterday that the local authorities' representatives
384
clearly understood, that they are the people with the power until local govern-men is reformed. There was a general spirit at the meeting of wanting to get on with putting forward this plan which, in the opinion of us all, had not gone as fast as we had hoped. I am, therefore, hopeful that we shall now get the local authorities working together through the J.A.P.C. and doing one or two things as quickly as they can. The first is deciding to appoint an industrial development officer to fly the flag for the area. The second is to work out in concert with each other the first steps in implementing the necessary infrastructure for the plan.
I hope that no one will think that the area around Falkirk and Grangemouth is in any way an unsuccessful one, even though the development has not gone as fast as we hoped. In the last five years this area has been one of the most successful parts of Scotland. It alone has registered an increase in population as against many other parts of Scotland which have registered a decrease. It has the best communications anywhere in Scotland. It has two motorways constructed through it. From next month it will have the fastest train service in Scotland, between Glasgow and Edinburgh, running right through it. There are the docks at Grangemouth where large sums are being spent on putting in new lock gates. There are two airports within reasonable proximity to it.
If I were to be fortunate enough to be appointed the new industrial development officer—which I shall not be—I should know that I had marvellous pieces of ammunition to put into brochures in favour of the area. Falkirk/Grangemouth is a growth area. In the Government's view it will remain a growth area and will receive every possible help from the Government to get going as fast as possible towards the growth targets which we all hope it will achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Football Betting Levy Board
  Football Betting Levy Board
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Negative Income Tax
  Negative Income Tax
  Vehicle Excise Licence Duty
  Vehicle Excise Licence Duty
  British International Transport Industry
  British International Transport Industry
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Excise Licences)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Excise Licences)
  Decimalisation
  Decimalisation
  Domestic Credit
  Domestic Credit
  Inland Revenue Computer Centres
  Inland Revenue Computer Centres
  Blind Persons' Guide Dogs (Tax Allowance)
  Blind Persons' Guide Dogs (Tax Allowance)
  Food Prices (Transport Costs)
  Food Prices (Transport Costs)
  Investment Overseas
  Investment Overseas
  Strikers (Income Tax Repayments)
  Strikers (Income Tax Repayments)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Liquor Duty
  Liquor Duty
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Cost of Living Index
  Cost of Living Index
  Pet Foods (Tax Revenue)
  Pet Foods (Tax Revenue)
  Public Schools (Registration as Charities)
  Public Schools (Registration as Charities)
  2½p Coin
  2½p Coin
  Unemployment Pay, Social Security Benefits and Sickness Benefits
  Unemployment Pay, Social Security Benefits and Sickness Benefits
  Earned Incomes (Increases)
  Earned Incomes (Increases)
  Gurkha Appeal Fund
  Gurkha Appeal Fund
  Northern Ireland (Vehicles)
  Northern Ireland (Vehicles)
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Allowances (Surtax Payers)
  Family Allowances (Surtax Payers)
  Earned Income Tax Relief
  Earned Income Tax Relief
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Sheep Shearing (Cyclophosphamide)
  Sheep Shearing (Cyclophosphamide)
  Broccoli
  Broccoli
  Fishing Vessels (Grants)
  Fishing Vessels (Grants)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Farmers' Co-operative Societies (Grants)
  Farmers' Co-operative Societies (Grants)
  Agricultural Tenancies
  Agricultural Tenancies
  Live Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Live Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Annual Review
  Annual Review
ENVIRONMENT
  Food Shops (Rates)
  Food Shops (Rates)
  Cornwall (Roads)
  Cornwall (Roads)
  Tamar Bridge
  Tamar Bridge
  Motorways (Lanes)
  Motorways (Lanes)
  Western Circus, East Acton (Road Works)
  Western Circus, East Acton (Road Works)
  Birmingham Bus Services
  Birmingham Bus Services
  British Rail (Subsidies)
  British Rail (Subsidies)
  House Building (Expenditure)
  House Building (Expenditure)
  Housing Starts (London)
  Housing Starts (London)
  House Building (Cornwall)
  House Building (Cornwall)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Post Office Corporation (Finance)
  Post Office Corporation (Finance)
CIVIL SERVICE
  State Servants and Ministers (Medical Examinations)
  State Servants and Ministers (Medical Examinations)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Stimulants (Sale)
  Stimulants (Sale)
  Magistrates (Allowances)
  Magistrates (Allowances)
  Northern Region (Urban Aid Programme)
  Northern Region (Urban Aid Programme)
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Prisoners on Remand
  Prisoners on Remand
  Inquests
  Inquests
  BANANAS
  BANANAS
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  CENTRAL CAPABILITY UNIT
  CENTRAL CAPABILITY UNIT
  MINISTERS (SECURITY)
  MINISTERS (SECURITY)
  EMPLOYMENT
  EMPLOYMENT
  NEWTON AYCLIFFE
  NEWTON AYCLIFFE
  MEMBERS (CORRESPONDENCE)
  MEMBERS (CORRESPONDENCE)
  AGRICULTURAL IMPORT QUOTAS
  AGRICULTURAL IMPORT QUOTAS
  APPROVED SCHOOLS (MINIS TERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  APPROVED SCHOOLS (MINIS TERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)
  POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  ROLLS-ROYCE LTD.
  ROLLS-ROYCE LTD.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  National Gallery (Admission Charges)
  National Gallery (Admission Charges)
  British Museum Library (Admission Charges)
  British Museum Library (Admission Charges)
  Redbridge Technical College
  Redbridge Technical College
  Scientific and Technological Research and Development
  Scientific and Technological Research and Development
EMPLOYMENT
  Workers, Durham (Wages)
  Workers, Durham (Wages)
SCOTLAND
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Scottish Fisheries Board
  Scottish Fisheries Board
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Secondary School Teachers
  Secondary School Teachers
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Broccoli
  Broccoli
  Prices
  Prices
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  British Petroleum Company Limited
  British Petroleum Company Limited
WALES
  Disabled Persons, Carmarthenshire
  Disabled Persons, Carmarthenshire
  South Wales (Steel Mill)
  South Wales (Steel Mill)

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

PROBATION OFFICERS' CAR ALLOWANCES
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The rates of mileage allowances payable to persons who are authorised to use their private cars on official business are as follows:—

(a) Trainee probation officers:

As for civil servants—see (c) below.

(b) Probation officers:

Motor cars with an engine capacity of

501–99 c.c.

1,000–1,199 c.c.

1,200–1,699 c.c.

Essential user

Lump sum

£81

£90

§102

First 7,200 miles a year (per mile)

2·8p

3·2p

3·6p

Over 7,200 miles a year (per mile)

1·7p

1·9p

2·2p

Casual user

Per mile

5·3p

5·9p

6·7p

[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government at what mileage rate is reimbursement made for the use of private cars for:

(a) trainee probation officers;

(b) probation officers; and

(c) civil servants.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, trainee probation officers receive allowances at the same rate as civil servants, while car allowances for probation officers are in accordance with a scale recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee for the probation Service. I will, with permission, circulate a table showing the details of both scales in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the table referred to:
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for the Answer he has given, and particularly obliged for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of what he proposes to have published. I shall need to study it, especially as it is in a currency with which I am unfamiliar. May I ask the noble Lord, first, how long ago this scale was agreed upon and whether any negotiations are currently proceeding?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the current rates were introduced with effect from October 1, 1970. I speak subject to correction, but I am not aware that any negotiations are taking place on car allowances, although on the subject of the next Question I shall have more to say.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I say, I shall need to study this table. At first sight, although I am absolutely certain the noble Lord is giving me the truth, I am not sure that he is giving me the whole truth.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he said that the allowance for car mileage for trainee probation officers is the same as for civil servants. He then went on to say that the allowance for probation officers seems to be determined by the probation committee. Does that imply that a local probation authority can pay a trainee probation officer whatever they think or do they lay down a scale which happens to be, as he said, the scale applying to civil servants?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will want to study the table. What I said was that the scale for probation officers was recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service, which is a body on which both the probation officers and the employers are represented. The trainee probation officers come under the Home Office and are paid now on a salary basis by the Home Office. While they are undergoing training, if they are entitled to claim car allowances they do so at the Civil Service rate.

PROBATION AND CHILD CARE OFFICERS' PAY
2.41 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the starting rate of pay, at a comparable age and with comparable qualifications for:—

(a) probation officers:

(b) child care officers.]

LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the normal entry salary for a probation officer after professional training is at present £1,215 a year for a young graduate and £1,341 a year for a mature person. For social workers, including child care officers, the scale recommended by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services stipulates at present a minimum starting salary of £1,317 a year for those who are professionally qualified, but under a revised scale coming into effect on April 1 next no minimum is stipulated. The actual starting pay of a local authority officer is a matter for the authority to determine having regard to qualifications and experience.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again I am obliged to the noble Lord for the details he has given which again I should like to look at more closely. In short, can he tell me whether the rates are the same for a probation officer as for a child care officer?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it depends on the point in the salary scale at which the probation officer joins, and the increments depend on his qualifications, training and experience. But after April 1 this year it is probably true to say that the local authority welfare worker will on the whole be doing somewhat better as regards pay than the probation officer.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, if I may say so, is being just a little evasive. I am obviously on that basis, as I now understand it, he asking him to compare like with like, and

5
is saying that the welfare worker is paid more than the probation officer. I wonder whether this is justifiable. Is not the Probation Service being regarded as the Cinderella of the services? Is there any justification at all for this?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is very difficult to compare like with like because the local authorities have no maximum salaries; they are entitled to pay what they like to get the people they like. It is true that there has been very great expansion in local authority social work departments recently. The Government greatly value the contribution by the Probation Service, and I can say that representations which have been made recently to my right honourable friend on the subject of probation pay are at present under consideration.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that young graduates entering the Probation Service can start at £1,215. But is it not true that if he or she decided to go into the local authority service and not into the Probation Service he or she could get a starting salary of £1,650 per annum?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I speak subject to correction, because these are detailed matters, but I do not think that would be the case at present under the current rates of pay.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I refer the noble Lord to a letter he sent me on February 1 of this year?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I will study my own correspondence with greater care.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord again on this matter? The impression that he has tried to give to your Lordships' House is that there is very little, if any, difference between the one Service and the other. If it can be shown that there is a difference, will he look at the matter again sympathetically?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there is not a very great difference at the present time; but, as I said, I think that
6
from April 1 the gap will open up. Representations on the subject of pay for the Probation Service have bee a made to the Home Secretary. This is a matter in the first instance for the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service who have held two meetings on this subject recently. The question of pay for the Probation Service is now under review, and the considerations that the noble Lord is advancing will certainly be taken into account.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I know that the salary scales for probation officers are under review at the moment. But is it not the case that, since the Probation Service scales are national scales and immutable, and since the local authorities can pay, in effect, whatever they have to pay in order to get the people they want, in practice at the present time child care officers ire receiving about £300 to £400 a year more than probation officers of similar age, experience and qualifications?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great experience in this field and, as I have said, the recent expansion of social wok departments throughout the country has meant that local authorities are now taking on more qualified social workers. As a result, since there is no ceiling on the salaries that can be paid, there has tended to be a move upwards. These are exactly the considerations that my right honourable friend will have to take into account when he receives representations from the Joint Negotiating Committee.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, in asking this supplementary question, may I declare an interest? I am a youth club warden of five years' experience, the club having a membership of 850. I am on a salary of £1,120 a year, being the I.L.E.A. scale. Will all these salaries please be taken into consideration.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Question related to the Probation Service, but I note what the noble Viscount has said.

HUNTERSTON AREA: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider it safe or wise to propose building three deep water ports, a modern steel mill and an oil refinery within 1½ miles of Hunterston "A" nuclear power station in North Ayrshire in view of the fact that planning permission for the power station was only approved on the grounds that it was sited in a sparsely populated area.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that all planning applications in the Hunterston area will have to be referred to him. He has asked me to assure this House that he will not consent to any development unless he is satisfied about nuclear safety aspects, including the arrangements for emergency action in the unlikely event of an accident at the power stations.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for her reply, may I ask whether she is aware that an evacuation plan has been in existence since the station began? May I ask her, further, whether she is aware that there is considerable apprehension in the area of explosions in either the oil refinery or the steel mill, or even in a tanker in ballast, which might affect the nuclear reactor? I would further ask my noble friend whether there has been a re-assessment of the danger of this occurring since the public inquiry took place last year?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the emergency arrangements are still in force. The oil refinery proposal has not yet been approved, and there have not yet been firm applications for any of the other developments which were the subject of the public local inquiry. On a preliminary assessment, however, it was decided
8
that prima facie there was no reason why developments should not take place. In any case, once detailed applications have been put forward they would have to be approved between the developer, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and finally the Secretary of State and the Nuclear Inspectorate.
LORD HOY: My Lords, in view of the long delay that has taken place with regard to proposed development at Hunterston, and of the fact that at the present time Scotland has 118,000 unemployed, can the noble Baroness tell us when the Government are likely to reach a decision on this project?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the Question refers to various projects. There have been no firm applications, either for the deep water ports or from the British Steel Corporation. There has been one firm application for the oil refinery. This has been examined by the Nuclear Advisory Safety Committee, who have found that were this refinery to be established it would not be incompatible with nuclear safety. But of course there has been new development since the inquiry, and there has been a circular from the Department of Trade and Industry to all interested parties, and if they so wish, another inquiry will have to take place.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, with great reluctance, I must press my noble friend further on this matter. Is she aware that quite recently the site for a nuclear power station on the Tamar was turned down because it was too close to Plymouth? What seems to be contemplated here is the building of a small "Plymouth" round a power station. Does my noble friend really believe that this is either safe or wise?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee had specifically examined the proposals for the oil refinery. Furthermore, at the local inquiry there was a statement from the Nuclear Inspectorate about the various factors which would have to be taken into account in any industrial development. These factors still stand, and it cannot be taken for granted that any industrial development will be

9
approved without the procedure which I have already described to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, if it is agreed that this really is safe, may I ask my noble friend to give an assurance that it will be given wide publicity, in order to allay the considerable local apprehension about what is going on at the moment?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords, I can certainly give that assurance.

CLYDE ESTUARY: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, if the deep water of the Clyde estuary is unique in Europe, it is proposed to allow it to be exploited by an American oil company rather than for the direct benefit of Scotland.]
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, planning applications are considered on their merits, irrespective of their country of origin. The proposal by the Chevron Oil Company, to which the noble Earl presumably refers, is still the subject of public inquiry and I cannot discuss its merits.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the site chosen for the oil refinery will displace 30 families, interfere with four extremely profitable farms and pollute an entire beautiful section of the Clyde coast which has a growing tourist industry? Does she really believe that this is in the interests of Scotland, when it is for the benefit of an American oil company?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend's prognostications will not be fulfilled so far as pollution is concerned, because there are very tight arrangements regarding pollution control. The Question refers to the deep water of the Clyde estuary as being unique in Europe, and
10
not only the oil refinery, but the other industries which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, would have great social and economic benefits for Scotland were it possible to attract them here.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, further to the Answer of the noble Baroness, and as the Scottish home market for oil fuels is already catered for, so far as one can see, for many years ahead by existing refinery provision, can she say, first of all, what balance-of-payments advantage is expected to accrue from the export of surplus products of a refinery of the order of 3 million tons capacity a year? Secondly, can she say what she expects will be the indirect employment spin-off arising out of a refinery which itself will employ only a couple of hundred people? No doubt it will produce petro-chemicals as well.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, at the inquiry, the reporter, Mr. Keith, Q.C., accepted that an immediate benefit of £18 million would accrue to the balance of payments. There was some dispute as to what the continuing benefit would be. Regarding future developments in Scotland as a whole, I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry took into account the proposed expansion of that Grangemouth Refinery, and they have, of course, circulated this memorandum to all the interested parties to whom I have already referred.
LORD HOY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness remember that these people want facilities in the Clyde which are not available elsewhere, and simply to put a test of nationality on people who want to come in ought to be frowned upon in Scotland? No hotelier in Scotland will refuse custom simply because the applicants are American.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am grateful for that question, because it is perfectly true that in Scotland we have been able, happily, to attract a good deal of overseas investment, and we hope to attract more.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that while there may be a few people with a sincere but nevertheless vested interest in keeping

11
industry out of this area, as my noble friend Lord Hoy has pointed out, there are 118,000 people in Scotland with a vested interest in getting industry into the area?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is exactly the kind of consideration which exercises my right honourable friend, but he has first of all to receive the planning application.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Baroness answer the question which I asked before, namely, what she would expect to be the indirect employment spin-off from a refinery of the scale envisaged, employing only about 200 people directly?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not answer the entire question in detail. I do not think I could answer the last part of the question, because it has been estimated that there would only be about 375 people directly employed, and I am not yet in a position to consider the results of a petro-chemical complex as a whole.

CLOSURE OF THE "DAILY SKETCH"
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to ask a Question, of which I have given Private Notice, namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the closure of the Daily Sketch.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, my noble friend Lord Aberdare will answer that Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
May I inform your Lordships that the House authorities are anxious, now that the postal strike is over, that the Moses Room should revert as soon as possible to its normal use as a Committee Room. I would therefore ask your Lordships to check whether you have any mail there and to remove it. It will not be possible for mail to be kept indefinitely, and means of its disposal will have to be considered if it is not collected during this week.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move, That Standing Order No. 43 be amended as follows:
In line 10, after "commitment" insert "(or re-commitment)".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I remind your Lordships that last May this House amended Standing Order No. 43 to allow the discharge of a Committee stage if it appeared to the Peer in charge of the Bill that no Amendment had been tabled and that no Peer wished to speak in Committee. This procedure has been used on a number of occasions and I think your Lordships will agree that, by and large, the small change has been a useful one.
However, when we amended Standing Order No. 43 the question of discharging a Committee on Re-commitment stage had not been considered by the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee subsequently recommended that a Re-commitment stage should be treated in the same way as an ordinary Committee stage, namely, that the Peer in charge of the Bill should be able to discharge the order of Re-commitment. Your Lordships will doubtless recall that the Second Report of the Procedure Committee was approved by this House on March 2, and the Motion standing in my name merely implements the Procedure Committee's recommendations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 be amended as follows—
In line 10, after ("commitment") insert ("(or re-commitment) ")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

RENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on recommitment of this Bill. Before the House goes into Committee, I should inform your Lordships that this is a pure Consolidation Bill, which has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. Although it is

13
a Consolidation Bill, as it is also a Scottish Bill it falls to me to have charge of it in the House. Your Lordships may remember that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who takes charge of English Consolidation Bills, undertook to inform the House of the category into which a particular Consolidation Bill fitted and to draw the attention of the House to the Joint Committee's Report. The undertaking appears in the Second Report from the Procedure Committee which was agreed to by the House last Tuesday. I am glad to confirm that the same practice will be adopted in regard to Scottish Bills.
In their Report, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills draw two points to the attention of the House. In the first, they correct an anomaly which arose as a result of an omission in the amending provisions of the Rent Act 1965 by inserting the words "or receiving" in Clause 103(1). The effect of the Amendment is to equate the legal position of a person who receives a premium with a person who requires the payment of a premium in the circumstances set out in Section 29(1) of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act 1954. In the second, they extend permissive functions of local authorities existing in certain of the enactments being consolidated to the whole of the legislation consolidated in the Bill. Subject to these points, the Committee are of the opinion that the Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(Baroness Tweedsmiiir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: This Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and there is a further Amendment to be moved in Committee this afternoon. I shall therefore go through the Bill in the usual way.
Clauses 1 to 136 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 12 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Restriction on rent increases]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved the following Amendment:
Page 115, line 33, leave out ("seven-shillings and sixpence") and insert ("37½p ').
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical Amendment and is necessary to convert the amount at present shown to its equivalent in decimal currency. It arises at this stage because, when the Bill was before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in January, the fact that the Bill would not be passed mid after Decimalisation Day, February 15, was overlooked. Perhaps your Lordships will be glad to know that 37½p are in fact exactly 7s. 6d. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I notice that by the Amendment as printed the noble Baroness not only takes out "seven shillings and sixpence" which appears in the Bill, but also takes out a hyphen which does not.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 14 to 20 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
3.4 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report he now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 9 [Prohibition of certain activities etc. relating to opium]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to ("it") in line 28.
The noble Lord said: my Lords, perhaps I should preface my remarks with a few words of apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. Noble Lords who were present at the time will remember that the proceedings on February 11, the third day when the House was in Committee on this Bill, were concluded, owing to the pressure of

15
other Business, before the noble Baroness had adequate opportunity to move all the series of Amendments to Schedule 4 concerning the level of penalties. We had a fairly full debate on the first Amendment of the series, in which the noble Baroness and certain noble Lords addressed themselves to the general considerations affecting levels of penalty for drug offences, and in my reply I tried to deal with some of the principal arguments lying behind the whole series.
The noble Baroness decided not to press that Amendment to a Division, but I think she would have liked to say a little more on some of the later Amendments. I indicated that it would be possible for the Committee to adjourn to another day for this purpose, but I agree that the noble Baroness was left in a very difficult position. I have already apologised to her privately, and I hope that I am not out of order in doing so again, for the Record, at this point in the Bill's progress.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together since they both deal with the same point. The two Amendments have been tabled to meet the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, during the debate in Committee on February 9 on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to delete subsection (1)(c) of Clause 9. That is the provision which makes it an offence for a person,
"to have in his possession any pipes or other utensils for use in connection with the smoking of opium or any utensils used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking."
Noble Lords opposite were concerned with the position of a person who owned, for example, an opium pipe as a collector's piece. I explained to the Committee that the paragraph as drafted was intended to affect only a person who had such a pipe or utensil in his possession with the intention of using it for opium smoking or in the preparation of opium for smoking. The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Foot, however, submitted that the provision might equally well apply in the case of a person who had pipes and utensils in his possession that were capable of being used for the purposes in question.
After listening to those arguments, I gave an undertaking to consider whether the drafting of the provision could be improved so that its intention would be put beyond doubt, and that is what these two Amendments are intended to do. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is deleted and replaced by some new wording which makes it absolutely clear that the offence of possession of opium pipes and utensils is contingent upon their actual use or intended use. Use or intended use can be either by the possessor of the pipes and utensils himself or by another acting with his knowledge and permission. So far as utensils used in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking are concerned, the new sub-paragraph provides that they must have been used for this purpose either by the possessor himself or with his knowledge and permission.
A consequential effect of this change is to remove from Clause 9 subsections (2) and (3) which invoke the statutory defences under subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 5. As the unamended clause stands, it is a defence to a charge of possessing pipes or utensils for use in connection with opium smoking, or the preparation of opium for smoking that the accused had taken possession of them either for the purpose of preventing another from committing or continuing to commit an offence, or for the purpose of delivering them into the custody of a person lawfully entitled to take custody of them. In the Amendment the offence of possessing an opium pipe or utensil is now defined in such a way that there is no possibility of an offence being committed in the circumstances envisaged by these defences. As I said in opening, my Lords, these two Amendments result from the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I hope he will feel that the changes proposed meet the points which concern him. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, speaks to the subject of this Amendment, as I am sure he will wish to do, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the explanation he has given to the House of the events which occurred on the third day of the Committee stage of this Bill in relation to my noble friend Lady Wootton

17
of Abinger. I should perhaps explain to the House that she herself is unfortunately unable to be with us for the Report stage to-day. She has a long-standing commitment to visit Portland Borstal, and I know that she set out at a quarter to six this morning. In view of her very great interest and knowledge of the subjects which we are due to discuss, it is a matter of very great regret to us all that she cannot be here this afternoon.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, may I briefly say that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, meets the point entirely. Perhaps I shall not be considered out of order at this moment if I add that, although I am not happy with the Bill as a whole at the moment, and shall have more to say about this on Third Reading, I am sure many noble Lords would like me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on the way in which he has handled the legal and administrative Amendments which have been put up to the Bill. It is quite something with a controversial Bill of this nature, to which a large number of Amendments were put down for Committee stage, that when we reach the Report stage every single Amendment, with the exception of one drafting new point, should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. This is a measure of the way in which he has met our points. If this is a sign of the tact, the sense and courtesy which we may expect from him, we are going to have a much happier time with the Immigration Bill than I ever expected.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out from ("possession") to end of line 46 and insert—

"(i) any pipes or other utensils made or adapted for use in connection with the smoking of opium, being pipes or utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in that connection or which he intends to use or permit others to use in that connection; or

(ii) any utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in connection with the preparation for opium smoking."—(Lord Windlesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Attempts etc. to commit offences]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 23, leave out from ("any") to end of line 27 and insert ("other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. In Committee, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, speaking in support of an Amendment tabled by Lord Kilbracken, criticised the drafting of Clause 19 and suggested that it was unnecessary to have two subsections. Lord Conesford also felt that the clause was unnecessarily wordy; while Lord Kilbracken, I think, was not alone in finding the drafting somewhat confusing. Accordingly I undertook to look at the clause again, and I have now done so in consultation with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The upshot is this Amendment, which will reduce Clause 19 to a single paragraph instead of the two subsections as originally drafted. The clause as amended will now read:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence,"
Noble Lords who have followed this matter will note that the Amendment excludes the possibility, however remote it might be, that anyone might be charged with an attempt to commit an offence. In the debate in Committee, Lord Kilbracken, moving his Amendment to leave out "or the foregoing" From subsection (2) of Clause 19, submitted that he would not have thought it possible for a person to attempt to attempt to commit an offence, and Lord Dilhorne agreed. Lord Foot suggested that if these words were excluded the provision might in future be interpreted as allowing for a person to be prosecuted for attempting to attempt to commit an offence. It is very unlikely that anyone would seriously consider prosecuting for an offence in those terms, but the Government completely agree with the noble Lords who put these points in Committee that an offence which is clearly an absurdity ought not to be written into the law.
However, the Amendment does make it an offence to attempt to incite another

19
person to commit an offence under the Act. Attempting to incite another person to commit a crime is a common law offence already carrying unlimited penalties, and it is therefore desirable that as regards drug offences it should be made a statutory offence under the Bill so that the limited penalties laid down in the Bill will apply. An example of attempting to incite, given by Lord Foot in the course of the debate in Committee, would be if a person sent a letter to another inciting him to commit an offence but the letter did not reach the person to whom it was addressed, or else it reached him and he did not read it. I should therefore like to thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and other noble Lords who have drawn attention to the possible confusion that might have arisen under the clause as originally drafted. As a result, I believe we now have some simpler and clearer language in the Bill, and I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Amendment, which I think arose from my Amendment, thanks to the support that I received from the noble and learned Viscount. I wish that I could accept it without reservation, and perhaps it is a little ungracious not to do so; but I must say that I am a bit surprised by the inclusion of that little word "other" at the beginning of this Amendment, because, as the noble Lord has just told us, the subsection now begins out of the blue, as it were, with the statement:
"It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act …".
One cannot help asking: other than what? Now the noble Lord knows, and I know, that it means, "under any provision of this Act other than this section", but I suggest that that is not what, in the ordinary use of language, the clause says. I do not see why the word "other" has to be included, because, as the noble Lord has pointed out, it is really impossible and ridiculous to talk about attempting to attempt to commit an offence as being something that can be contemplated. In that case the word "other" is quite unnecessary and I think should be omitted. However, I personally have chased this hare far enough, and I am quite happy to take this Amendment as it stands.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. This particular clause is a lawyer's paradise. After the debate in Committee I took the opportunity to consult our own legal advisers, the draftsman, and the noble and learned Viscount the former Lord Chancellor on two occasions, and the wording that now appears on the Order Paper is the product of that process. I do not suppose that one can ever satisfy every possible doubt, but I think that the House may feel that this wording, which has now had a very careful and close scrutiny, is the best we have been able to come up with.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Offences relating to the doing of things outside the United Kingdom]:
3.20 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. In the debate in Committee on February 9 on the Question, That the clause stand part, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, expressed reservations about subsection (1) of the clause which provides that a person commits an offence in the United Kingdom if
"he does any act preparatory to, or in furtherance of, the commission in any place outside the United Kingdom of an act which, if committed in the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence under this Act."
The noble Baroness questioned whether it was right for a person to be punished for assisting in an act which, although it would be an offence if committed in this country, might not be an offence in the country where it was to take place. Lord Dilhorne also drew attention to the considerable difficulty which had been experienced by the courts in defining what is meant by the words,
"an act preparatory to the commission of an offence."
Consequently I undertook to study these points.
As I mentioned in Committee, the provisions in Clause 20 are not new ones; they reproduce those contained in Section 13(d) of the Dangerous Drugs

21
Act 1965, and have been a feature of the United Kingdom drugs legislation for over twenty years. They reflect the obligations assumed by the Government and other parties to international Treaties to co-operate in penalising activities with regard to dangerous drugs in one country having, or likely to have, an effect in another country. The relevant Treaty provision is now to be found in Article 36 of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. Subparagraph 2(a)(ii) of that Article provides as follows:
"International participation in, conspiracy to commit and attempts to commit, any of such offences, and preparatory acts and financial operations in connection with offences referred to in this article shall be punishable offences as provided in paragraph 1."
My Lords, since the Committee stage we have carried out some research into the origins of the drafting of Article 36 of the United Nations Convention in 1961 which revealed that the words, "preparatory acts" go back to a Convention for the suppression of traffic in illicit drugs signed in 1936. These provisions were intended to help those countries which had no developed juristic system to deal with attempts and conspiracies to commit offences. However, with the modernisation of legal systems throughout the world, there is now, clearly, less need for this kind of help than formerly. In any event, having given further thought to this matter, we now take the view that the provision of subsection (1) of Clause 20 is not essential for the strict implementation of our obligations under the Single Convention. On reconsideration, therefore, of the potential value of this provision in relation to the very learned criticisms expressed in Committee, the Government have come to the conclusion that subsection (1) of Clause 20 is not essential, and need not be retained. That is the reason for this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend I feel, as one of those who supported her, that I should say how much we appreciate the fact that the noble Lord has accepted what was the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and has expressed it in the form of this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Powers to search and obtain evidence]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"( ) conceals from a person acting in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) above any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are mentioned in that subsection; or
( ) without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books or documents as are so mentioned where their production is demanded by a person in the exercise of his powers under that subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Noble Lords may remember that in Committee we had a long and interesting debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on the implications of Clause 23(4)(b). The noble Lord moved an Amendment, the effect of which would have been to remove the whole of subsection (4) of that clause and to insert a similar provision immediately after subsection (1). His object was to make clear that the offence of concealing or tailing to produce books, documents, stocks or drugs related solely to the circumstances contained in subsection (1). In the course of the debate, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, observed, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, agreed, that paragraph (a) of subsection (4), relating to the obstruction of a person in the exercise of his powers under the clause, was applicable to the circumstances of the whole of the clause and not merely to those of subsection (1). Both Lord Foot and Lord Dilhorne, however, as well as other noble Lords who spoke, strongly urged that the drafting of paragraph (b) of subsection (4), and its position in the body of the clause, should be looked at again to ensure that the offence of concealing or failing to produce related only to subsection (1).
My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet this point. Its effect is to remove the existing paragraph (b) of subsection (4) and to put in its place two new paragraphs (b) and (c), the first dealing specifically with concealing such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are mentioned in subsection (1) and the second with failing to produce any such books or

23
documents. I have taken the precaution of discussing this Amendment in advance with Lord Foot and Lord Dilhorne and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having produced this Amendment which, I may say, entirely meets the point I had in mind. During the Second Reading debate, I said that I was glad—and I thought that everyone else would be—that this Bill was in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham; because although we might not expect to be able to make any major changes in it, the noble Lord would certainly listen to any Amendments which were put and would give them his careful consideration. I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord for the way in which his consideration of these various Amendments has been translated into the Amendments which appear in his name to-day. I think that the whole House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord for the way in which he has handled this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Prosecution and punishment of offences]:
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are all consequential upon Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to Clauses 19 and 20 that the House has just agreed. I therefore move them formally en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 1, leave out ("19(1) or (2) or section 20(1)") and insert ("19 ")
Page 20, line 7, leave out ("section 19(1) or (2) or section 20(I)") and insert ("that section ")
Page 20, leave out lines 11 to 22 and insert ("means the offence under this Act to which the attempt or, as the case may be, the incitement or attempted incitement mentioned in section 19 was directed.").(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 20, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point that has not been previously raised in your Lord-'
24
ships House. Subsection (4) of Clause 25 provides:
"In England and Wales a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence under this Act as examining justices shall not commit the person charged for trial without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions"
except where the accused has elected to be tried by jury; and subsection (5) is a corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. These two subsections follow similar provisions in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, which prohibit a person being proceeded against on indictment unless proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Attorney General or by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
To find the origin of this procedure we have to go back to 1923, to the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Act of that year, when the problem of drug dependence and drug misuse in this country was totally different from what it is today. What was originally intended as an additional protection for an offender who did not merit more than summary punishment has now become a requirement which only too often operates against the interests of those charged with drug offences. Removal of these provisions could result in an accused person being committed for trial on indictment, with the higher penalties that that would entail, in a case which the Director of Public Prosecutions might have thought not to merit the higher penalties; but with the great increase in recent years in the number of prosecutions for drug offences and the consequent increase in the experience of the courts and police in handling them, the significance of this possibility is now considerably less than it was when the provision first appeared in 1923. It is considered unlikely that the removal of these provisions would appreciably affect the number of drug cases committed on indictment.
In a debate on the Report stage of the Bill in another place, the Member for Wimbledon, Mr. Havers, moved an Amendment to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 25. The honourable and learned Member, with support from both sides of the House, pointed out that as the number of drug offences continues to grow it becomes increasingly unlikely that the Director of Public Prosecutions can investigate each one of them. Everyone interested in the administration of

25
justice is concerned about the long delays between committal and trial; and Members in another place felt that an Amendment on these lines would help to minimise delays by cutting out some cumbersome procedure without adversely affecting in any way the position of the accused.
In reply, the Solicitor General undertook to look again at this clause. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now received the advice of the Law Officers on this point and there have also been consultations with the Government of Northern Ireland. As a result of this further consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that this provision is not necessary and accordingly I have tabled this Amendment in your Lordships' House to-day. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sorry to have to strike what might be a jarring note in this very harmonious atmosphere, but I must register a strong objection both to the timing and the content of this particular Amendment. With regard to the timing, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would readily admit that it has appeared at a very late stage in our deliberations. He himself reminded us that it was not raised in the Committee stage during the three days of Committee discussion in this House; nor was it discussed in any detail in another place, for it was not raised once during their "one and a half" Committee stages on this Bill although the clause had been put forward by two successive Governments.
As the noble Lord quite rightly said, it was discussed only very briefly and in the early hours of the morning on the Report stage in another place immediately preceding the Third Reading of the Bill and the honourable Member who moved the Amendment did so in an attempt to reduce the possible delays it might cause in cases being heard. I hope the House would agree that I should be the last person to wish for lengthy remands—and particularly remands in custody—but on that occasion the Solicitor General, replying to the discussion on the Amendment said:
"In view of the high penalties which the Bill provides for the major offences, it makes sense to preserve the requirement for the
26
Directors' consent to committal. It is on that basis that the truncated, emaciated version of the 1923 provision survives in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 9/12/70; col. 602.]
A little later, in the same speech, he went on to say:
"There is this residual need for some control on committal in the serious case which might not survive if this provision were to disappear altogether."
As I understand from the explanation we had from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when moving it, this particular Amendment would remove this control altogether. During our lengthy Committee stage several noble Lords—
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I am sure that she would not wish to give a misleading impression. Her quotation was accurate; but the Solicitor General ended by undertaking to look again at this particular point.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I apologise for not mentioning that. I was only anxious not to detain the House by very lengthy quotations. The Solicitor General did agree to look at the matter; but, in my view, if the Government, having looked at the matter, were in favour of putting down an Amendment on the lines of that tabled to-day, they should have brought it before the House sooner; they should not have tabled it at a time when our conventions and customs preclude us from considering it in some detail. Moreover, the delays due to the postal strike resulted in many of us not seeing this Amendment until it was included in the Marshalled List which, I believe, was published last Friday but which I myself did not see until yesterday evening.
My Lords, turning to the content of the Amendment, we know from our earlier discussions that several noble Lords are concerned about the level of penalties provided for in this Bill. They are very high indeed, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, himself referred to this particular point when introducing the Bill on Second Reading. We are all conscious of the level of penalties. This, I am sure, was the reason why the Government and their predecessors originally included the continuation of this particular control in the Bill. Furthermore, the Sub-Committee on Drug Dependence of which my

27
noble friend Lady Wootton was Chairman, in paragraph 89 recommended:
"The existing provision under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 whereby proceedings on indictment are subject to the fiat of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be retained."
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Wootton is not here to tell us in greater detail why the Committee made that particular recommendation which I believe was unanimous and was accepted to the point that it was included in both the original and the successor Bill.
I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared to consider withdrawing this Amendment to-day and possibly re-submitting it at a later stage. This would give us more time to consider its implications and possible repercussions. I hope that he will agree to this now in the light of what I have said. Otherwise, I personally should not feel able to agree to this Amendment at this particular moment of time and I hope that my noble friends will support me in this view.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to give what support I can to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I have not yet made up my mind whether it is right or wrong to take this provision out of the Bill, but I think it would be a great mistake if the House were to allow this Amendment to go through, and this provision to be deleted from the law, in face of the opinion expressed by Lady Wootton's Committee that it ought to stand. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said just now that the requirement that the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be obtained before a person could be committed for trial on an offence of this kind was originally introduced into the law as long ago as 1923. He said that the situation had changed considerably since then and that there were many more cases. But it has to be borne in mind that in the consolidating Act of 1965, only six years ago, it was not thought fit to delete this provision from the law. So as recently as that it was decided proper to keep it in. Does the noble Lord contend that there has been some change between the situation in 1965 and the present day as to the number of cases or the nature of the cases to justify cutting out now what was
28
deliberately kept in the law in the Act of 1965?
The other question I should like to ask is this. The noble Lord said that if it is necessary always to get the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions before you can commit somebody to trial, it will mean delay in people's being brought to trial. If that is to be argued, ought not the noble Lord to be prepared to tell the House what is the Home Office experience? Have difficulties been created. Have the Home Office looked into this matter and investigated in what number of cases delay has been involved as a result of requiring the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions? I would support what the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has said. In this situation we ought to be given the opportunity of looking at the matter more closely before we make a decision; and it would be appropriate, as the noble Baroness suggested, if the Amendment were put on one side now and discussed at a later stage when we have all had an opportunity of considering it.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. What is the position of the examining magistrates? The police decide to bring a case—they may, or may not, have consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions—and it comes before the examining magistrates. Before they can commit to trial they have to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In a case of this description, when the police decide to prosecute, if in doubt they normally consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. The examining magistrates hear the case in outline and then decide whether they should allow the case to go to trial or to adjourn it on the lines indicated by this paragraph. Surely that is a cumbersome and unnecessary type of procedure, and it would be much better to let the normal course of a magistrates' court operate than to have two half-way stages.
Furthermore, the individual concerned, if he comes before examining magistrates, will have to indicate there and then whether he desires to be tried by a jury. That may not come out until the preliminaries have taken place, and may lead to considerable confusion as to what the magistrates should do. It is far too cumbersome, and I hope the noble Lord will take it back with a view to having another

29
look at it to see whether he can meet this particular type of objection.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I appreciate that this Amendment is an important one and that it appears late in the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It is not the case, as the noble Baroness suggested, that the Amendment appeared only in the Marshalled List. It was printed on February 25, so it has been available for some time.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The last thing I wanted to do was to mislead the House on this matter, and that is why I deliberately checked up this morning in the Printed Paper Office, where I was assured that it did not appear until it was transferred straight into the Marshalled List.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we shall have to clarify that point between us. My own memory is that it was introduced in the first of the three lists. I have during the course of this debate checked again, and the information that I have is that it was printed on February 25. But let us not pursue that point; I accept that the Amendment appears late in our proceedings, and it is for that reason that I gave a rather full explanation of it. In tabling this Amendment, the Government were well aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in paragraph 89 of her Report on Cannabis, recommended that this particular procedure—the need to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions—should be retained. At the same time, we have to recall that the police, in practice, are not likely to prosecute a case on indictment unless they are really sure that there is adequate evidence to warrant such an action. If they are in any doubt, whether or not there is a statutory provision requiring them to do so they frequently do consult the Director of Public Prosecutions.
For these reasons, it seems to us that the removal of this obligation from Clause 25 would be unlikely to make much difference in practice. What we have to consider are the bureaucratic arguments for going through this procedure and obtaining the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as against the delay that is likely to occur (it may not be the only factor, but it is a contributory factor) between the first
30
hearing in the magistrates' court and committal to the higher court.
But having said that, I see no reason why I should not accept the course that has been suggested by the noble Baroness, with support from noble Lords who have spoken. This debate has been a useful one for the Government. As was rightly pointed out, when it was considered in another place it was late at night and I think only three honourable Members spoke in addition to the Solicitor General. Therefore, without giving any undertaking at this stage, I will withdraw the Amendment so that we can consider the matter again, if appropriate, on Third Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, since my noble friend Lady Serota has no right to speak a second time, I should like on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House to thank the noble Lord for the step he has taken. I am certain that it is the right one, and it gives an opportunity for all noble Lords to consider the matter I can assure the noble Lord that when the Amendment is re-presented on Third Reading we shall deal with it expeditiously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLOSURE OF THE "DAILY SKETCH"
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission this may be a convenient time for me to reply to the Private Notice Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the impending closure of the Daily Sketch. I will do so in the words used by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
"The Associated Newspapers Group have announced that they will merge the Daily Mail and the Daily Sketch by mid-May. Although I very much regret the disappearance of a National newspaper, it was not unexpected, particularly in view of the failure of the national newspaper industry to come to grips with its well-known problems. The Department of Employment are in touch with management about arrangements to give all possible assistance to those who need help in finding other jobs."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. May I say that we on this side of the House share with the Secretary of State deep regret that yet another national newspaper is disappearing. We also must regret the consequent unemployment, particularly in an industry where one can only say that it is already overstaffed. I wonder whether, particularly with regard to the importance of newspapers within the public media, the Government should not now have urgent talks with the employers and the trade unions to see whether rationalisation of the industry can be speeded up. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government have assessed in any way the effect on loss of revenue from advertising, if the "leaks", to the effect that there is going to be a national commercial radio service are true, and what effect this will have on the other national newspapers which are already struggling?
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I also join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement? May I ask one short question? What had he in mind when he used the expression "well-known problems"?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. The "well-known problems" are the problems of overstaffing which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and which have been highlighted by at least one Royal Commission and two subsequent Reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I will certainly take note of the views of the noble Lord on the rationalisation proposals. He will not expect me to comment on what is, after all, only an uninspired "leak" about commercial radio.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I assume that there has been no assessment as to the consequences of such a set-up?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it would be impossible for me to commit myself on that.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord. First of all, can he indicate what will be the scale of the redundancy
32
payments to the redundant journalists, and how it compares with the redundancy payments which are common to work-people who have become redundant in general industry? Secondly, since the noble Lord refers to the desirability and intention of the Government to seek other employment alternatives for these redundant journalists, can he indicate in view of the state of the "unemployment market" at the present time, where these men are likely to be placed?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in reply to the first question, as the noble Lord is aware there are statutory entitlements to redundancy pay. I understand from Associated Newspapers that they are in discussion with representatives of their employees on the whole question of redundancy payments, and that they are hoping to find a way of paying more than the strict minimum. On the second question, as I said in the Statement, the Department of Employment will give all assistance to these men to find alternative employment, in so far as they are able to do so.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to a Press report in a reputable quality newspaper this morning, it was stated that the cost to Associated Newspapers, who are responsible for the absorption of the Daily Sketch, will amount to almost £4 million? That seems a vast sum of money in redundancy payments proportionately to the number of men who are to be made redundant.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I cannot comment on that; this is a commercial matter for Associated Newspapers.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, Associated Newspapers gave as one of their reasons for their difficulties the loss of advertising revenue. This is not just a question of overmanning, important though that may be. Would the noble Lord therefore not agree that the question put by my noble friend Lord Shepherd is very much germane?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I agree that the loss of advertising revenue has been partly responsible for the collapse of this newspaper, but I cannot go any further than that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if advertising revenue is to be creamed off to yet another medium, there will be less for the national newspapers, with the result that those newspapers will be in greater jeopardy than they are at present?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is a rather speculative question and I should not like to speculate on it; but of course the same applies to commercial television.
LORD HAMNETT: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the death of any national newspaper at any point is a threat to social democracy? As the remaining ten national newspapers are practically dependent for their existence not on circulation but on advertising revenue, is it not time for the Government to take a look at the allocation of national advertising on the lines suggested by the second Royal Commission on the Press (this is particularly so with regard to the allocation of Government advertising), so that the remaining national newspapers may not be in such a perilous state as they are at the moment?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions. I will certainly see that they are drawn to my right honourable friend's attention.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the introduction of commercial radio is likely to give employment to quite a number of journalists?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are now getting rather far away from the original Statement.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
3.58 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 36 [Meaning of "corresponding law"]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 25, line 32, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("that") in line 34 and insert ("to the effect")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together since they concern the same point. The effect of these two Amendments will be to re-word subsection (2) of Clause 36, which deals with the meaning of the expression "corresponding law", so that it will read as follows:
"A statement in any such certificate as aforesaid to the effect that any facts constitute an offence against the law mentioned in the certificate shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters stated."
Subsection (2), as it stands now, makes a certificate conclusive as to the effect of a "corresponding law" and as to whether particular facts constitute an offence against it. Subsequent to the Commitee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, drew my attention to this provision and pointed out that it ought to be possible for an accused person to bring expert evidence to the contrary. The Government accept that this change could be made without causing undue difficulty to the prosecution, and the Amendment is designed to permit this. The certificate will, however, continue to be conclusive as to whether or not an overseas law is a corresponding law in the sense described in subsection (1), and the Amendment will not change the position in that respect.
I might also add that the noble Lord drew my attention to one other matter on this clause. The sidenote to Clause 36 at the moment reads, "Meaning of 'corresponding law'", although, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, pointed out, there is a point of substance here as well as a point of interpretation. Therefore, although the sidenotes are not part of the Bill and consequently no Amendment is needed to alter them, when the Bill is reprinted this sidenote will be altered so that it will read, "Meaning of 'corresponding law' and evidence of certain matters by certificate". My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind reference to me. I am bound to say that I earnestly hope the prosecution will rely upon this subsection in only rather exceptional cases, because it is, in my submission, objectionable upon two separate grounds. First, it enables the Executive to state

35
what facts constitute an offence. That is not, properly speaking, an Executive function at all but a function of the Judiciary. Secondly, it enables the Executive to do this by means of a certificate. Of course, the objection to proving anything by means of a certificate is that a certificate cannot be put in the witness box so that the truth of what it says may be tested by cross-examination. So I would hope that only in cases where the prosecution are satisfied that the evidence which they seek to prove by means of a certificate is quite incontrovertible and is not going to be disputed by the defence, will they invoke this subsection and prove this part of their case by means of a certificate: and in all other instances, where there is likelihood of any dispute about the matters to be proved between the prosecution and the defence, which I hope will be the majority of cases, I hope that the prosecution will prove their case by the time-honoured method of calling witnesses who can be cross-examined.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I go further than my noble friend in this matter. I believe that this subsection is in fact incurably defective. It contains a very serious defect. What the two subsections together say, even as amended, is that it is for a foreign Government, when called upon to do so, to pronounce as to whether a certain set of facts add up to an offence against the law of that country. As my noble friend has said, it is of course always objectionable and anomalous that the Executive in any country should be called upon to pronounce what the meaning of the law of that country is. As he has said, that is a matter for the Judiciary. This defect is incurable.
I would illustrate my argument, if I may, by referring to the notorious Sweet case, the case in which a lady was prosecuted for being concerned in the management of premises when those premises were in fact used for the consumption of cannabis. What I should like the House to consider is this. Supposing that some other country—let us say France—had a law similar to this clause of the Bill. A prosecution in France, in considering prosecuting somebody there, could apply to the British Government to say whether a certain set of facts constituted an offence in English
36
law. Supposing the French Government back in 1968, or whenever the Sweet case came up, had applied to the British Government and said, "Will you please tell us whether the following facts constitute an offence in English law; that is to say, a person is concerned in the management of premises and those premises are in fact used for the consumption of drugs or cannabis?" The answer they would have been given, almost certainly, before the Sweet case reached the House of Lords, is "Yes. An offence is committed, and it does not matter at all in English law whether the person concerned knew that the premises were being used in the way concerned." In other words, this is an absolute offence and there is no question of mens rea. That is almost certainly the certificate which would have been given by the British Government in those circumstances to the French prosecution. And of course it would have been wrong, because the House of Lords eventually decided that this was not an absolute offence and one always has to prove knowledge or always has to prove mens rea. Therefore, what would have happened is this. The French prosecution would have been given a false statement, an inaccurate statement, as to what the state of British law was and what facts added up to an offence.
It goes further than that. Supposing a person was being prosecuted in France and this certificate was delivered to the French court. How could the person being prosecuted possibly challenge what was said in the certificate? How would it have been possible? When the court is told by the British Government that it is illegal if one is concerned in the management of premises which are used for the consumption of any drugs, and that is so whether one knew about it or not, how can the person challenge it? It is impossible to challenge. The only way in which he could challenge it would be to say, "Let this matter go back to a British court and let the British court decide whether the judgment of the Executive upon this matter is right or wrong." Of course, that is something which is quite impossible for the accused person to do. Therefore, although my noble friend has achieved a considerable advance in cutting out from this clause the words "conclusive evidence"—and it

37
is a marked advance—in my submission, in practice, the evidence of the certificate will be conclusive because it will not be possible in practice for the accused person to challenge what is said in the certificate. Therefore, my Lords, I think that this is an incurably bad provision and I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to look at it again before we reach the next stage of the proceedings.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foot has made out a very good case. There appear to be major snags which might emerge for justice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will seriously look at this matter again. I rise briefly to ask a minor question. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can enlighten Southern laymen, of whom there must be a few in this House, as to the exact meaning of "sufficient evidence" in Scottish law. It reads as if it is exactly what we are trying to get rid of, which is conclusive evidence; but presumably it does not mean that. Could the noble Lord enlighten us?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the foreign law provisions of the dangerous drugs legislation were first introduced in the 1923 Act to which I referred, and in the terms reproduced in Clause 36 of he Bill. It is interesting to note that if any prosecution has been brought under these provisions in recent years the Home Office has no record of it. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about the moaning of the words "sufficient evidence" in relation to Scottish law. I am advised that the use of this expression does not bring about a different situation in Scotland from that in England and Wales: it merely reflects the fact that the normal rule in Scotland, unlike England and Wales, is that evidence must be corroborated. That is to say, the evidence of one witness is not normally enough. Where there is to be a departure from this rule it is necessary to make it clear that the uncorroborated evidence is regarded as sufficient.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that he hoped that in practice the prosecution will use certificates only to prove matters which are irrefutable and in all other cases will produce witnesses who can be cross-examined in a way that a certificate cannot be cross-examined.
38
Where an offence under a "corresponding law" might be relevant, it is likely that the prosecution will seek to obtain a certificate from the overseas Government concerned; and, having obtained it, it is likely that it will be presented in evidence to support their case, whether or not the proposition contained in the certificate is irrefutable.
I should point out to noble Lords that this Amendment is intended as a concession to meet the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. In its new form Clause 36(2) will allow the accused person to call an expert witness to contest the evidence containted in the certificate, and to that extent it cannot really be said that he will be al a disadvantage. Indeed, if anything, the disadvantage might lie with the prosecution inasmuch as the defence could call an expert witness without giving notice that it intended to do so. To avoid this situation, in such a case it seems probable that the prosecution would be likely to arm itself with its own expert witnesses as well, to support the certificate, in any case where it considered that tie material in the certificate might be contested. One would not therefore expect a prudent prosecution to rely on a certificate alone, unless the material is clearly irrefutable.
The word that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, particularly dislikes in the clause as originally drafted was "conclusive "—that the certificate should be regarded as conclusive—and this Amendment meets that point. It would probably be the wish of the House to pass this Amendment which goes some way towards meeting the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; and if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in the light of the wider considerations that he has put forward as to the necessity for a provision of this sort at all, wants to pursue those arguments he will have an opportunity to do so on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("evidence") and insert ("the law mentioned in the certificate shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient").—(Lord Windlesham)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Interpretation]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 26, line 7, at end insert—
(" "corresponding law" has the meaning assigned by section 36(1) of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment again has been tabled at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who suggested that in the interests of clarity a reference should be included in Clause 37, which is the Interpretation clause of the Bill, to the term "corresponding law" which is defined in Clause 36; namely, the clause that we have just been discussing. It seems a sensible suggestion, and accordingly the Government are happy to accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Controlled Drugs]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 30, line 8, column 2, leave out ("(dihydrocodeinone)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. The drugs in Schedule 2 are listed by the names approved by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission. So far we have got on very well without having to pronounce some of these names, but I fear that the moment has now come. Where no such approved name exists, the drug appears under the non-proprietary name laid down by the World Health Organisation, and is further identified by its chemical definition shown in brackets beside it. Since the Bill began its process through Parliament, hydrocodone has become a name approved by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and it is therefore no longer necessary to identify this drug by the chemical definition "dihydrocodeinone". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 32, line 11, column 1, after ("Mephentermine") insert ("Methaqualone").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which does not flow directly from anything discussed in Committee, although the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, and other noble Lords who were present when we discussed a Modification Order under the existing legislation will
40
recognise this particular Amendment and the reasons for it. What the Amendment does, in brief, is to add another drug—"Methaqualone"—to the list of scheduled drugs under Class C.
Under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order 1970, which came into effect on January 1 this year, changes were made to the list of drugs controlled under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964. All of these changes, except for the addition of Methaqualone to the list, were anticipated when Schedule 2 of the Bill was drafted, so that it covers the 1964 Act drugs as redefined in the 1970 Modification Order. The reason why Methaqualone was not included in the Schedule was that when the Bill was drafted the Home Secretary had not reached a decision on whether or not to bring it under control. Now that the decision has been taken, it seems right to bring the Bill into line. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Prosecution and punishment of offences]:
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 40, column 2, line 11, at end insert ("(other than licence issued under regulations relating to addicts)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment which did not occur to me until after the Committee stage. These words should be added in parenthesis under the heading "General Nature of Offence" in respect of Clause 18(2) in exactly the same way as the words "other than regulations relating to addicts" are added in the same position in respect of Clause 18(1), because a doctor who contravenes the terms of a licence issued under Clause 10(2)(i) does not commit an offence, any more than he contravenes regulations relating to addicts made under Clause 10(2)(h), but instead is dealt with by the giving of a direction under Clause 13. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has explained, this is a drafting Amendment to bring the words on page 40 that are descriptive of Clause 18(2) into line with those descriptive of Clause 18(1). It seems to us that the Amendment makes

41
for consistency in the descriptive words, and therefore I should like to bring our proceedings to a close on a happy note by saying that this Amendment appears to the Government to represent a small improvement and is to be welcomed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Bill read 3a
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, as one of those who has opposed this Bill, I should like to say a few words. I think that the Bill has been improved in its various stages through this House. The proposal that food shops should be registered with the local authority has been dropped. I believe that that would have cost more than the value of the benefits that would have been obtained. I am also glad to see that we now have realistic penalties which will facilitate the enforcement of the law. But I am particularly pleased that the proposals which would have withdrawn the safeguards of the workers have been dropped. The original Bill provided for a withdrawal of the safeguards of the 1950 Act. Under the 1950 Act a worker may be employed only on two Sundays in one month. At the Committee and Report stages these provisions of the Bill were taken out, and consequently if this Bill becomes law the worker will enjoy the same protection as he already has under the 1950 Act.
The Bill will also clarify the law, but it will do that at considerable risk. I believe that it may well be the beginning of the end of Sundays as we have known them in this country. We believe that that risk could have been avoided by the Amendment which was proposed at the Committee stage and was carried by this House, the Amendment that the whole
42
range of foods should be sold on Sundays up to, but not later than, 12 o'clock. That Amendment would have been acceptable to the vast majority of shopkeepers, to workers and to consumers, and we regret that the Amendment was negatived at the Report stage. We believe that it is absolutely illogical that food shops should be required to close at lunch-time on one weekday each week but should be allowed every liberty to open all day on Sundays. We congratulate the noble Lord on having got the Bill through this House, and we hope that it will be amended in the other place.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his final remarks. Your Lordships will not wish me to argue the, Bill all over again; I am happy to leave it to the other place, to see how is gets on there. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates, and, rather unusually, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who was the principal opponent, for having improved the Bill in its passage through the House. I am very grateful. I wish we could always say that Bills have been improved by their opponents and that the movers agree that they have improved them. I am very grateful.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords. I beg to move that the Report be now received. I thought it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if, before we came specifically to the Amendments, I were to say one or two words concerning points which were raised in the Committee stage and about which I can give possibly a clearer definition than I did then. I am bound to say that when thinking about this Bill I thought about almost every conceivable thing that might be caught by it, but never in my life did I expect that my noble friend, Lord Hawke, would come up with the suggestion that treasure hunters might get caught by it, nor, as he used as a parallel, that parrot stuffers were caught by a Bill relating specifically to the tensing of mattresses in factories.

43
My noble friend used this parallel because he wondered whether this Bill affected people who were going hunting for treasure. If their boat is anchored and they go down to the bottom of the sea and come up with a piece of gold, which is a mineral, will they be caught by the Bill? I told him that I thought it was extremely unlikely. I should like to confirm to him that in fact this is not only unlikely but would not happen. He wished to have written into the Bill some kind of definition to say that treasure hunters would not be caught by the Bill. I do not believe this is necessary, because the Bill applies to
"underwater exploitation and underwater exploration of mineral resources".
The expression "mineral resources" in this context means non-living substances of all kinds naturally occurring in the sea bed and subsoil. Therefore, man-made articles such as items of treasure would not fall within the definition. I think my noble friend can rest assured that if he wishes to go searching for Davy Jones's locker, whatever he finds will not be affected by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, also asked whether the Bill applied to suction dredgers. I confirmed at the time that I thought that this would be so, and indeed it is so; but I should like to explain this a little. It is not proposed to disturb existing arrangements relating to ships. If we take first the installations that are themselves registered vessels but are engaged in mineral workings offshore, we find that under the Bill they will be subject to merchant shipping legislation in the ordinary way. But if it is found that safety requirements need to be prescribed in regard to the mineral operations which are being undertaken—as distinct from the purely shipping considerations—then under this Bill suitable regulations could be made. The preparation of the regulations would be in consultation with interested parties, including, of course, the shipping industry.
The second point in regard to this matter relates to ships which are not engaged in mineral activities but which may be affected by the presence of mineral working installations on the Continental Shelf and in territorial waters. As your Lordships may know, before a
44
mineral working installation can operate on a site in territorial waters it must, under the Coast Protection Act 1949, have the consent in writing of the Secretary of State; and before it can operate on a site on the Continental Shelf it must have his consent under that Act as extended by the Continental Shelf Act 1964. These powers are exercised so as to ensure that no obstruction or danger to navigation is caused or is likely to result. It is recognised—indeed, it is specifically required by the International Continental Shelf Convention—that installations must not be so placed as to interfere with free passage of shipping. Therefore, before an installation can be placed on a site the interests of other craft that may be moving in the area are taken fully into account.
As your Lordships will recognise, there is another side to this particular coin, and it is that having duly obtained consent to place itself on a site, an installation should be marked in accordance with the conditions attached to the consent. But it is only reasonable that it should have some further measure of protection. Therefore, the Bill will permit regulations to be made governing the safety of installations and the men working on them, in relation to the risks created by the presence of shipping in their vicinity. It is proposed that regulations would forbid the approach of any ship which did not have business at an installation; this would be no more than reasonable and as much in the interests of the ship as the installation. Then as regards ships that might approach an installation on legitimate business, it is proposed that regulations would prescribe the way a vessel should behave, including the observance of any instruction by the installation master. In this the master would be acting in much the same way as a harbourmaster who controls the movement of vessels in the vicinity of a harbour, dock or pier. But I should emphasise, as I did on the Committee stage, that in all this there will be no interference with the normal passage of ships or the responsibilities of their masters; that the framing of regulations will be dictated solely by the very limited requirement to protect static installations, and that there will be full consultations with all the interested

45
parties, including the shipping industry. My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Masters of offshore installations]:
4.30 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("subsection (1)(a) above") and insert ("paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above ")
The noble Earl said: The first Amendment which appears under the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is designed to meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, made on the Committee stage. He was concerned then that there was no provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to a person who would take the position of master should the master leave the rig. The noble Lord drew a parallel by saying, "What happens if the master gets swept away off the rig? Who will then take his place?". Under the Bill there are provisions for a person to take his place. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was concerned that regulations should be made about this person's qualifications.
We have taken the point which the noble Lord then made and have prescribed that the Secretary of State may make regulations upon the person who should take over the position of master should the master, for whatever purpose, leave the rig. Here I think it important to draw the distinction that this does not mean that he will be a deputy, having deputy's functions while the master is there: in other words, there will not be a hierarchy on the rig whereby there is a master with certain qualifications and responsibilities and a deputy master with other responsibilities. The person who will take over the position of master will, or may, have regulations made about him, so that when he does take over that position he will be suitably qualified to do so. I hope that this meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, had in mind. That is the object of the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to say how much ate appreciate the efforts which have be en made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to meet the point raised at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom. I also take the opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for his explanation or further "clarification" on the Motion that the House should receive the Report. I am bound to say that I was reminded of another explanation I was given about a Bill, in which it was said that one clause about a 40 ft. well should be deemed to refer equally to a 40 ft. wall. But I have absolutely no doubt that to those who are informed about and interested in these matters the explanation which the noble Earl gave will be most useful. In so far as the Amendment goes to meet the point that was made by my noble friend, again I thank the noble Earl.
I ought to say that both my noble friends Lord Winterbottom and Lord Brown, who took a keen interest in the Bill at an early stage, are both abroad and are not able to be here this afternoon. If they have any further points, I have no doubt that we can raise them with the noble Earl before the Third Reading. In the meantime, I content myself with thanking the noble Earl for meeting the points that were made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert: "and the regulations may make different provision for masters of different types of installations or masters whose responsibilities differ in other respects, and different provision for masters appointed under the said paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the other Amendment is really a clarification of the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations for differing sets of circumstances. It was suggested at the Committee stage that the qualifications needed for a master who is in charge of an installation while it is moving are different from those required for a master of an installation while it is actually drilling. This particular Amendment underlines this point. It also makes perfectly clear that the Secretary of State may make different regulations for different types of installation, whether they

47
be, for instance, a drilling ship or a floating platform. I am quite certain that this is in no way a controversial Amendment. It is only a clarification of the points which I think concerned the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, as indeed they have done ourselves. The whole purpose of the Amendment is that the Secretary of State will be in a position to make such regulations as he thinks fit, in consultation with those concerned, to meet the differing types of circumstance and the different types of ship or rig or installation as may from time to time occur.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his intervention on these Amendments. I am sorry that the prospect of offshore mineral working has so frightened his two noble friends that they have taken off to go abroad. I hope that when they come to read what has been said they will feel that the points they raised have been met. I trust that they will be satisfied in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  MYXOMATOSIS AND RABBIT CONTROL IN SCOTLAND
  MYXOMATOSIS AND RABBIT CONTROL IN SCOTLAND
  MYXOMATOSIS AND RABBIT CONTROL
  MYXOMATOSIS AND RABBIT CONTROL
  LAW REFORM PROPOSALS
  LAW REFORM PROPOSALS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: APPOINTMENTS TO TRIBUNALS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: APPOINTMENTS TO TRIBUNALS
  FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT
  FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION
  MYXOMATOSIS: PROSECUTIONS
  MYXOMATOSIS: PROSECUTIONS